District Court
09/21/2012
Robert Samson v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2012-093 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 was only calling his wife. Also, this court noted there was no evidence of prejudice to the defendant as even if the officer heard the contents of the defendant’s call, there was no evidence she revealed what she heard. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Robert Samson v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2012-093 (September 21, 2012).pdf
District Court
09/21/2012
Robert Samson v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2012-093 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). The Court noted that because an officer’s report was never notarized it was not a sworn report; however, the officer’s failure to create a sworn report was not fatal to the state’s efforts to secure a conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Robert Samson v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2012-093 (September 21, 2012).pdf
District Court
09/21/2012
Robert Samson v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2012-093 Reasonable 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 to a chemical test). The Court held that the facts were sufficient—when measured against standards established in prior Supreme Court decisions—to affirm the appeals panel’s finding that the officer possessed reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had driven under the influence, as the defendant admitted he had consumed alcohol that night, had watery and bloodshot eyes, emitted the odor of alcohol, violated the traffic laws by speeding, and failed to properly execute field sobriety tests. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.
Robert Samson v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2012-093 (September 21, 2012).pdf