School Bus Violations

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-51-2.2 (stopping for school bus required—digital video). A video recording captured Defendant’s vehicle passing a school bus, and a police officer subsequently issued a summons to Defendant. § 31-51-3(d) requires that two separate documents be attached to the summons: (1) a signed statement by the officer viewing the video recording; and (2) a signed affidavit by someone who “witnessed the motor vehicle being operated in violation of” the statute. Although the statute does not make clear whether a single officer is “permitted to serve as both” the signing officer under § 31-51-3(d)(2) and the signing witness under § 31-51-3(d)(5), the statute clearly requires that two separate documents be attached to the summons.

At trial, the officer who issued the summons admitted to attaching only one affidavit to the summons because he thought that he could “act as both” the signing officer and the signing witness. The trial judge determined that the officer’s “viewing of the video was enough” to satisfy the notice requirements set forth in § 31-51-3. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred because the notice requirements set forth in § 31-51-3 were not met. The Appeals Panel held that the trial judge erred because the notice requirements were not satisfied since the officer only attached one document to the summons. As a result, the Appeals Panel did not reach the issue of whether an officer can serve as both the signing officer and the signing witness. Accordingly, the charged violation was dismissed.

State of Rhode Island v. Milan Mare, No. T18-0019 (no date).pdf