Appeals Panel
06/16/2017
City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016)
Radar/Laser Calibration
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that the radar reading was interrupted by “electromagnetic interference” from radio transmitters in East Providence, and thus not accurate. Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36,26 (R.I. 1974), the Appeals Panel held that an officer must be trained to use a radar device and the device must have been calibrated within a reasonable time. Here, the Officer testified that he had been trained in the use of a radar device at the Academy and that his radar device had been properly calibrated, testimony that the trial magistrate found to be “most credible.” The Appeals Panel found no abuse of the trial magistrate’s discretion. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the Defendant.
City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016).pdf
Appeals Panel
06/16/2017
City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016)
Discovery
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that he was not provided with full discovery, a request for which he claimed had been granted by the East Providence Municipal Court. The Appeals Panel held that the Defendant never was granted discovery by the East Providence Municipal Court because, while the Defendant orally requested discovery, he never filed a written request. Under the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure 11(e), a motion or written request for discovery must be made within fourteen (14) days after the first appearance. Since the Defendant failed to make a written request within the 14 day period, the Defendant could not argue that he was prejudiced by any lack of discovery. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the Defendant.
City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016).pdf
Appeals Panel
06/16/2017
City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016)
Jurisdiction
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal (“RITT”) did not have jurisdiction over the Defendant because the Defendant was never arraigned at RITT and the transfer from East Providence Municipal Court to RITT was improper. The Appeals Panel held that the Defendant did not have to be re-arraigned at the RITT because the Traffic Rules of Procedure do not require re-arraignment of the Defendant upon transfer to the RITT. The Appeals Panel further held that the transfer was not improper. Rule 14 of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure allow a municipal court to order the transfer of a case to RITT. In this case, the municipal court ordered the transfer to avoid the apparent appearance of impropriety after the Defendant made a motion to remove the municipal court judge assigned to the matter for allegedly engaging in an improper ex-parte communication with the Officer. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the Defendant.
City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016).pdf