Appeals Panel
12/16/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009) Arrest
Arrest
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways). Defendant argued that the Officer failed to arrest him prior to requesting he submit to a chemical test. Specifically, Defendant rejected the trial magistrate’s finding that he was under arrest when the medical staff finished treatment and transferred custody of Defendant to the officers. The Panel explained that, under State v. Bailey, 417 A.2d 915 (R.I. 1980), a court determines when a person is under arrest by considering: (1) the extent to which a person’s freedom of movement has been curtailed and the degree of force used by the police; (2) the belief of a reasonably innocent person in these same circumstances; and (3) whether the person had the option of not going with the police. See id. at 915-18. The Panel held that when transfer of custody from medical personnel to the officers took place, the Officers made a joint decision to arrest the Defendant and that the Defendant did not have the option of leaving the officers custody, thereby effectuating a legally valid arrest. The Panel noted that the officers then read the Defendant his Rights for Use at Station/Hospital, at which point the Defendant refused to submit to a chemical test. The Panel held the trial magistrate’s decision was not in error, and, accordingly, sustained the charged violations.
State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/16/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009) RIghts for Use at the Scene
Rights for Use at the Scene
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways). Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because the Officer did not immediately arrest him and read him his Rights for Use at Scene once the Officer determined he had reasonable grounds to suspect the Defendant had operated under the influence. The Officer testified he had reasonable grounds to arrest upon arriving on the scene and making observations, but decided to wait to arrest the Defendant until after the Defendant finished receiving medical treatment. The Panel explained that an Officer is only required to read a suspect the Rights for Use at the Scene once the suspect is under arrest. The Panel explained that the Defendant’s injuries and subsequent medical treatment prevented the Officer from immediately arresting Defendant, and held that because the Officer appropriately read the Defendant his Rights for Use at Station/Hospital upon arresting him, the Officer’s actions complied with § 31-27-3 and the magistrate’s decision was not in error. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.
State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/16/2009
State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009) Reasonable Grounds
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways). Defendant argued the decision of the trial magistrate was clearly erroneous because the officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the Defendant was operating under the influence. Specifically, the Defendant argued the Officer did not personally observe the Defendant operating the vehicle and did not conduct any field sobriety tests at the scene and, therefore, arrested him without probable cause. The Panel noted that the Officer came upon the scene of a horrific accident and that the Defendant admitted to being the driver of the vehicle in question, admitted to having consumed alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, had an odor of alcohol emanating from his breath, was weaving back and forth on his feet, and appeared to be ready to fall asleep. The Panel also noted that field sobriety tests are not required but rather are simply one tool officers may use to obtain probable cause. Here, the Panel noted that the Officer decided not to conduct field sobriety tests so as to not interfere with medical treatment the Defendant was receiving at the scene. The Panel held that, based on the Defendant’s admissions and the Officer’s observations, the trial magistrate was justified in finding the Officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the Defendant of operating under the influence. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.
State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009).pdf