Appeals Panel
03/29/2019
State of Rhode Island v. David DiOrio, No. T18-0024 (March 29, 2019)
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Police responded to a call from a D’Angelo’s sandwich shop employee that indicated that a customer had departed who may not have paid for his food and who may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. Based on the vehicle’s description, a police officer located the vehicle in a parking lot. Defendant was found in the driver’s seat with the engine running. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noticed a D’Angelo’s sandwich in the vehicle, and Defendant admitted that he had just come from D’Angelo’s. Defendant was ultimately arrested for suspicion of DUI and refused to submit to a chemical test. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a motor vehicle stop.
The Appeals Panel concluded that the D’Angelo’s sandwich shop employee’s call, combined with the detailed description of Defendant and his vehicle, provided the officer with reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision as not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
State of Rhode Island v. David DiOrio, No. T18-0024 (March 29, 2019).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/29/2019
State of Rhode Island v. David DiOrio, No. T18-0024 (March 29, 2019)
Operation of Motor Vehicle
Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Police responded to a call from a D’Angelo’s sandwich shop employee that indicated that a customer had departed who may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. Based on the vehicle’s description, a police officer located the vehicle in a parking lot. Defendant was found in the driver’s seat with the engine running. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer noticed a D’Angelo’s sandwich in the vehicle, and Defendant admitted that he had just come from D’Angelo’s. Defendant was ultimately arrested for suspicion of DUIand refused to submit to a chemical test. On appeal, Defendant argued that the charge could not be sustained because the officer did not actually observe Defendant operating the vehicle.
Under § 31-27-2.1, a police officer may direct a motorist to submit to a breathalyzer test if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist operated a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. See State v. Bruno, 709 A.2d 1048, 1050 (R.I. 1998). The Appeals Panel suggested that Defendant could properly be found to be operating the motor vehicle based upon the fact that he was “in actual physical control of the vehicle.” Alternatively, the Appeals Panel found that the totality of the facts in the case, including Defendant’s acknowledgement that he had just come from D’Angelo’s and the absence of any mention of or evidence of another driver, was sufficient to support reasonable grounds to believe that Defendant had operated the motor vehicle. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.
NOTE: On appeal, the District Court explicitly refused to address the Appeal’s Panel’s suggestion that physical control of a motor vehicle can constitute operation for the purposes of this statute, a suggestion that appears to run counter to the Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Capuano, 591 A.2d 35 (1991), that a motor vehicle must be in motion to constitute operation for this purpose.
State of Rhode Island v. David DiOrio, No. T18-0024 (March 29, 2019).pdf