Dismissal

The State appealed the trial magistrate’s dismissal the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). Here, the Town made a Rule 27 dismissal recommendation and, after hearing the State’s argument in opposition to the recommendation, the trial magistrate dismissed the charged violation pursuant to Rule 27(a). The State argued that the authority of cities and towns to prosecute violations does not extend to the dismissal of refusal cases. Specifically, the State argued that because R.I.G.L. 1956 § 42-9-4 vests only the Attorney General with the authority to prosecute refusal cases, he or she is the only official with the authority to dismiss refusal cases. The Panel held that the trial magistrate did not improperly dismiss the charged violation because Rule 27(a) expressly provides that the attorney for a municipality may dismiss a summons and because the rules of the Traffic Tribunal supersede any conflicting statutory regulation. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Mark Shallcross, C.A. T08-0093 (September 17, 2008).pdf