Constitutional Issues

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“refusal to submit to chemical test”) and § 31-26-5 (“duty in accident resulting in highway fixtures”). Defendant argued that the officer violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home. A witness called 911 forty minutes after he witnessed a car hit a telephone poll, and the officer responded. The officer found a vehicle matching the witness’s description. The officer then ran the plate number and determined that the defendant owned the vehicle. The officer went to the nearby address and, after no one answered the officer’s knock at the front door, the officer went into defendant’s back yard where the officer saw the defendant inside the house. The officer then requested that the defendant come outside and talk. The Appeals Panel held that the officer had an objective, compelling reason to make that request. In State v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2011), the court held that exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The officer had a reasonable belief that her assistance was required to avert a crisis, that crisis being the defendant’s potential need for medical assistance, because the officer had a reasonable belief that someone required medical attention. The Appeals Panel found that the officer had an obligation to find the potentially injured person. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.

State of Rhode Island v. Daniel Nevitt, No. T15-0043 (August 25, 2016).pdf