Appeals Panel
07/01/2009
City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, C.A. No. T09-0031 Rights for Use at Station
Rights for Use at Station
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that there was no evidence to support the defendant’s claim that there was confusion or prejudice because the arresting officer read the defendant and another defendant their rights at the same time. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous and the Court affirmed that decision sustaining the violation against defendant.City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, C.A. No. T09-0031 (July 1, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
07/01/2009
City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, C.A. No. T09-0031 Constitutional Issues
Constitutional Issues
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the Fourth Amendment protections against an unreasonable “search” of the defendant’s breath did not apply here because the defendant refused to submit to a breath test, and no such test was administered. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.
City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, C.A. No. T09-0031 (July 1, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
07/01/2009
T09-0031-Rights for use at Scene/Station
Rights for Use at the Scene
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that there was no evidence to support the defendant’s claim that there was confusion or prejudice because the arresting officer read the defendant and another defendant their rights at the same time. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous and the Court affirmed that decision sustaining the violation against defendant.
City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, C.A. No. T09-0031 (July 1, 2009).pdf