Evidence

Defendant appeals the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“refusal to submit to chemical test”). Defendant argued that his arrest was illegal under the Fourth Amendment and that all evidence collected as a result of his arrest should have been suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant was pulled over in the early morning for crossing a painted line, failure to use his turn signal, and failure to stop at a stop sign. The Officer employed “high-risk protocol” during the traffic stop. The defendant was ordered out of the vehicle and onto his knees while the officer trained his gun on the defendant. The defendant was searched, cuffed and placed in the rear of the cruiser. The officer then searched the defendant’s vehicle. Afterwards, the officer uncuffed the defendant and began asking him questions as part of the officer’s investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol. The Appeals Panel held that the arrest was illegal; however, the panel held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to Refusal cases because these cases are civil in nature. Defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply to traffic tribunal trials. The District Court agreed that the arrest was illegal and that the constitutionally based exclusionary rule did not apply. However, the District Court held that R.I.G.L 1956 § 9-19-25 mandates the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence because, by its explicit language, it applies to all actions in state courts. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was reversed.

Michael Rhodes v. Town of Burrillville, A.A. No. 16-45 (August 10, 2017).pdf