District Court
11/09/2011
Patricia Sargent v. State of Rhode Island DC A.A. No.11-0013 Field Sobriety Test
Field Sobriety Tests
Defendant appealed the decision if the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). The District Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence without including the testimony about the field sobriety test (FST). The state decided to not include the FST because the defendant claimed she failed the FST due to her back problems. The Court noted that the state was not required by law to not include the FST results. However, the state relied on the defendant nearly getting into an accident, having watery and blood shot eyes, smelling of alcohol, and exhibiting a lack of steadiness to prove the defendant was operating her vehicle under the influence. Also, the Court found that it was immaterial whether or not the defendant has an innocent explanation for why she appeared under the influence. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Patricia Sargent v. State of Rhode Island DC A.A. No. 11-0013 (November 9 2011).pdf
District Court
11/09/2011
11-0013 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 to a chemical test). Defendant claimed that the officer should have been precluded from asking her to submit to a chemical test at the station because she had already refused to take a preliminary breath test (“PBT”) at the scene. The District Court rejected the defendant’s arguments and held that the defendant’s refusal of a PBT did not prevent the officer from subsequently requesting the defendant to submit to a chemical test of her breath. The Court went on to note that the language of § 31-27-2.1(a) stating “[n]o more than two (2) complete tests, one for the presence of intoxicating liquor . . . shall be administered,” did not restrict the number of tests that could be solicited. Additionally, the officer complied with the “none shall be given” language of § 31-27-2.1(b) because the defendant was not given a test after she refused. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Patricia Sargent v. State of Rhode Island DC A.A. No. 11-0013 (November 9 2011).pdf