RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 (October 10, 2012)

Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 (October 10, 2012).pdf
District Court
10/10/2012
Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 Telephone Call

Telephone Call

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).  The Court, following State v. Quattrucci, 39 A.2d 1036 (R.I. 2012), emphasized that the right to a confidential phone call only attached when the purpose of the call is to speak to an attorney or arrange for bail. Here, the defendant never spoke to an attorney and he did not need bail.  Thus, because the defendant only called his wife to pick him up and because the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice, the conviction was affirmed.

Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 (October 10, 2012).pdf

District Court
10/10/2012
Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No.12-094 Sworn Report

Sworn Report

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).  Defendant argued that the officer never swore to a report.  The District Court held that the existence of a sworn report is immaterial to a refusal case but is necessary only for the issuance of a pre-trial suspension.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.

Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 (October 10, 2012).pdf

District Court
10/10/2012
Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 Reasonable Grounds

Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause

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).  The Court held that the offcer possessed reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating under the influence because the defendant admitting he consumed alcohol, had watery eyes, slurred speech, emitted a slight odor of alcohol, admitted the accident was the result of driving too fast, and failed to properly execute field sobriety tests.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. 

Nebeil Sarhan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 12-094 (October 10, 2012).pdf