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.

State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 (October 27, 2021)

State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 (October 27, 2021).pdf
Appeals Panel
10/27/2021
State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 Open Container

Open Container

Defendant appealed the decision of the magistrate of the R.I. Traffic Tribunal sustaining violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I. G.L. 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container) after a car accident. The Defendant argued that, in the absence of a toxicology report on the liquid in the container found in the Defendant’s vehicle, there was insufficient evidence to prove that its contents were alcoholic. The Appeals Panel dismissed this argument, finding the fact that the liquid looked and smelled like wine, coupled with the Defendant’s admission that he had been drinking wine that day, were sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof.  Therefore, the Appeals Panel held that the Trial Magistrate’s decision was supported by the evidence, was not affected by error of law, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The appeal was denied and the violation sustained.State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 (October 27, 2021).pdf

Appeals Panel
10/27/2021
State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 Knowing and Voluntary Decision

Knowing and Voluntary Decision

Defendant appealed the decision of the magistrate of the R.I. Traffic Tribunal sustaining violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I. G.L. 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container) after a car accident. On the refusal charge, the R.I. Traffic Tribunal appeals panel found no error in the Trial Magistrate’s conclusion that the Defendant made a knowing and voluntary decision to refuse the chemical test.  The Defendant introduced the testimony of a physician to describe the potential impact of a concussion on a motorist’s ability to speak coherently and make informed decisions.  The Trial Magistrate, noting that the physician did not observe the Defendant on the date in question, found the testimony unpersuasive. Deeming this a “credibility determination,” the Appeals Panel was unwilling to disturb the Trial Magistrate’s findings. Therefore, the appeals panel found the Trial Magistrate’s decision was not erroneous on the refusal to submit charge.  The appeal was denied and the violation sustained.State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 (October 27, 2021).pdf

Appeals Panel
10/27/2021
State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 Reasonable Grounds

Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause

Defendant appealed the decision of the magistrate of the R.I. Traffic Tribunal sustaining violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I. G.L. 1956 § 31-22-21.1 (open container) after a car accident. On the refusal charge, the R.I. Traffic Tribunal appeals panel found no error in the Trial Magistrate’s conclusion that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe appellant had been operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Here, the Defendant’s admission that he had consumed five glasses of wine, the smell of alcohol on his breath, his bloodshot and watery eyes, the fact that a sports bottle containing what appeared to be wine, and the fact of a motor vehicle accident all supported the officer’s reasonable suspicion.  Therefore, the appeals panel found the Trial Magistrate’s decision was not erroneous on the refusal to submit charge.  The appeal was denied and the violation sustained.State of Rhode Island v. Boffi No. T21-0011 (October 27, 2021).pdf