Speeding

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was “not based on any facts” because the Sergeant did not have the radar unit with him in court and never gave the Defendant a receipt of the radar speed. The Panel noted that the trial magistrate accepted the testimony of the Sergeant and was satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. The Panel held that the trial magistrate did not err in sustaining the violation because his decision was supported by legally competent evidence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the violation.

Town of Glocester v. Vlash Mata, C.A. No. T14-0045 (April 3, 2015).pdf