District Court
04/14/2011
Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 Knowing and Voluntary Decision
Knowing and Voluntary Decision
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 his refusal to submit was involuntary and that the officer failed to ascertain whether the emergency personnel had administered medication that affected his ability to understand or comprehend. The Court held that there was no evidence that suggested the defendant was administered medication or that his ability to understand or comprehend was affected. Further, the officer had no duty to inquire into whether any medication was administered to the defendant. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 (April 14, 2011).pdf
District Court
04/14/2011
Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 Reasonale Grounds/Probable Cause
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). Defendant claimed that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe he had operated a vehicle while under the influence. The officer never observed the defendant driving, but rather arrived at the scene of an accident at which the defendant was the only person helped out of his car. The Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds because the defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, emitted a strong odor of alcohol, lost his temper, had been involved in an accident, and had difficulty complying with requests from emergency personnel. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 (April 14, 2011).pdf
District Court
04/14/2011
Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 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). Defendant claimed that he was not allowed to make a confidential phone call. The Court held that the right to a confidential phone call referred to in R.I.G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20 does not apply to those charged with only civil violations. Additionally, even if the defendant was entitled to a confidential phone call, his right was not breached because the officer was not in the hospital room when the defendant made the call and the defendant failed to prove that hospital personnel were present in the room when the call was made. Furthermore, the Court noted that the proper remedy would not be dismissal even if the defendant had a right to a confidential phone call and it was breached. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation against the defendant.
Regent Nicholas v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0208 (April 14, 2011).pdf