District Court
01/25/2007
John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 Right to Attorney
Right to Counsel
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that defendants are only afforded the right to make a confidential phone call and there is no right to counsel prior to the administration of a breathalyzer test. Therefore, the defendant’s argument that no attorney was present when he was charged with refusing to submit is unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 (January 25, 2007).pdf
District Court
01/25/2007
John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 Constructive Refusal
Constructive Refusal to Submit
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that the nature of the chemical test required that it be administered within a reasonable time. Defendant’s attempt to delay the test until his attorney arrived constituted a constructive refusal to submit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 (January 25, 2007).pdf
District Court
01/25/2007
John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 Inability to Cure
Inability to Cure a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that Rhode Island law does not allow a defendant to cure a refusal by subsequently agreeing to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, where the defendant refused but subsequently agreed to submit to the test, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against him.John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 (January 25, 2007).pdf
District Court
01/25/2007
John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 Phone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that where the defendant was read the Rights for use at Scene and Station forms and made three confidential phone calls to his attorney, there was sufficient evidence that defendant was afforded the right to make a confidential phone call in accordance with § 12-7-20. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charges against the defendant.John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 (January 25, 2007).pdf
District Court
01/25/2007
John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 Probable Cause
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that where the defendant was stopped at a green light, partially over the white line, slumped over the steering wheel, emitted a moderate odor of alcohol, and failed field sobriety tests, the officer had reasonable grounds to request the defendant to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant. John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 (January 25, 2007).pdf