District Court
08/08/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 Rights for Use at Station
Rights for Use at Station
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the officer read the defendant the Rights for use at Scene/Station cards and suggested that the defendant make a phone call before submitting to the test, defendant was in fact afforded a right to make a confidential phone call. Furthermore, the officer’s attempt to answer the defendant’s confusing line of questions regarding his rights did not vitiate the information provided on the Rights cards. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf
District Court
08/08/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 Phone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the officer read the defendant the Rights for use at Scene/Station cards and suggested that the defendant make a phone call before submitting to the test, the defendant was in fact afforded a right to make a confidential phone call. Furthermore, the officer’s attempt to answer the defendant’s confusing line of questions regarding his rights did not vitiate the information provided on the Rights cards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf
District Court
08/08/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 RIghts for Use
Rights for Use at the Scene
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the officer read the defendant the Rights for use at Scene/Station cards and suggested that the defendant make a phone call before submitting to the test, defendant was in fact afforded a right to make a confidential phone call. Furthermore, the officer’s attempt to answer the defendant’s confusing line of questions regarding his rights did not vitiate the information provided on the Rights cards. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf
District Court
08/08/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 Arrest Report
Sworn Report
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argued that the officer’s testimony was not “sworn” because he did not say he was swearing under oath or raise his right hand. The Court held that the “sworn report” referred to in § 31-27-2.1 is entirely separate from the testimony of the officer and the actual prosecution of a refusal to submit. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether or not the officer raised his right hand or said he was swearing to his testimony at trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf
District Court
08/08/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 Probable Cause
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test are admissible for probable cause purposes. Furthermore, where the defendant failed field sobriety tests of physical dexterity as well as the HGN, probable cause for arrest existed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf
District Court
08/08/2008
State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the defendant was driving erratically, reasonable suspicion to stop existed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf