District Court
03/25/2014
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-071 Preliminary Breath Test
Preliminary Breath Test
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant claimed the state failed to prove what kind of PBT she took and that the trial judge improperly “pyramided inferences” when he found the PBT she used operated on fuel-cell technology. The District Court held that it was not improper for the trial judge to infer that the PBT the defendant used operated on fuel-cell technology because the distributor of PBTs testified that he issued a “Drager 6510” (which operates on fuel-cell technology) to the citing officer, instructed all departments to discard any PBT that was not a Drager 6510, and seized all other machines that were not Drager 6510s. Accordingly, the Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was not clearly erroneous where they held that the defendant used a PBT utilizing fuel-cell technology and sustained the violation against the defendant. Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-071 (March 25, 2014).pdf
District Court
03/25/2014
Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-071, Preliminary Breath Test
Preliminary Breath Test
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant claimed that the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of refusal to submit was in error because she consented to a PBT after arrest and, therefore, had fulfilled her obligations under R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 to submit to a chemical test. Section 31-27-2.1(d) states “any test . . . for the presence of alcohol which relies in whole or in part upon the principle of infrared light absorption is considered a chemical test.” The District Court held that the defendant did not fulfill her obligation of implied consent under § 31-27-2.1 because the PBT used to test the defendant utilized fuel-cell technology to determine the presence of alcohol and did not rely on infrared light. Accordingly, the District Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 13-071 (March 25, 2014).pdf