10/27/2010
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge 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 defendant’s argument that he was prejudice by the trial judge’s failure to suppress the state’s evidence of his refusal because the officer failed to Mirandize him prior to any inquiries regarding the motor vehicle accident was without merit. The officer’s request that the defendant submit to the chemical test was based on his observations that the defendant had bloodshot eyes, slurred his speech, and smelled of alcohol. Once the process of detainment for the drunken driving charges commenced, the defendant was Mirandized by the officer. Furthermore, no one factor is dispositive, nor does a potential procedural violation warrant the suppression of other relevant evidence. Therefore, the charged violation was sustained.