04/01/2009
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argued that the violation should not be sustained because the officer failed to re-read the Rights for use at Station form before administering a chemical blood test. The Appeals Panel held that there was no rule, case, or statute requiring a second reading of the Rights for use at Station form before administering a subsequent chemical blood test where the Rights for use at Station form is read to the defendant before administering a breath test. Additionally, a second reading of the identical Rights for use at Station form would impose an additional, unnecessary requirement for law officers. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate.
NOTE – This case was decided in the District Court on appeal, which affirmed the holding of the Appeals Panel.