RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

State of Rhode Island v. Seth Bettez, C.A. No. T09-0061 (February 1, 2010)

State of Rhode Island v. Seth Bettez, C.A. No. T09-0061 (February 1, 2010).pdf
Appeals Panel
02/01/2010
Seth Bettez, C.A. No. T09-0061 Preliminary Breath Test

Preliminary Breath Test

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.3 (revocation of license upon refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test). The Court held that the arresting officer had formulated the requisite reasonable belief that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol because the defendant had crossed the yellow divider line, was speeding, had bloodshot watery eyes, had slurred speech, and he emitted an odor of alcohol on his breath. Unlike § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), § 31-27-2.3 does not require the defendant to be informed of the penalties which will result from a refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Seth Bettez, C.A. No. T09-0061 (February 1, 2010).pdf

Appeals Panel
02/01/2010
State of Rhode Island v. Seth Bettez, C.A. No. T09-0061 Rights for Use at the Station

Rights for Use at Station

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the officer’s reading of the “Rights for Use at Scene” and “Rights for Use at Station” was sufficient to inform the defendant of the penalties which would result from refusing to submit to the chemical test even though the suspension of the defendant’s commercial driver’s license was not specifically enumerated on the “rights” forms. The rights forms list the loss of the base operator’s license as a consequence of a refusal and, therefore, the forms sufficiently informed the defendant of the loss of any supplemental driving privileges. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Seth Bettez, C.A. No. T09-0061 (February 1, 2010).pdf