Appeals Panel
08/08/2013
Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013)
Penalty
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a) (prima facie limits) and § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate improperly considered the Defendant’s age in imposing the sentence. The Defendant argued that comments by the judge suggested that the judge intended to exceed the minimum penalties because the Defendant was a minor not yet eligible to drink. Specifically, the Defendant pointed to the following statements by the judge: “You’re not in the same position that someone over the age of 21 is in who comes in here and… [asks me to] impose the minimums. I treat you differently because of the fact that you’re not even yet [21]… [Y]ou were speeding, but it sounds to me, after you realized how fast you were going… [and] after you saw the police officer, you exercised better judgment and slowed down.” The Panel noted that the judge imposed the minimum fines and community service hours, and suspended the Defendant’s privilege to operate in Rhode Island for eight months, a penalty less severe than a full suspension. The Panel held that the judge considered the totality of the circumstances and decided to impose a penalty that was authorized under the refusal statute. The Panel held that the penalties were not in excess of the trial judge’s authority and did not prejudice the rights of Defendant. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations and penalties.
Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/08/2013
Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013)
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). At trial, the Officer testified that he initially watched two vehicles leave the South Beach parking lot, one traveling at sixty-eight miles-per-hour and the second (Defendant’s vehicle) traveling at sixty-two miles-per-hour, in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone. Before stopping Defendant’s vehicle, however, the Officer pursued but lost the first vehicle, then went back to locate Defendant’s vehicle, a silver Mitsubishi with “wavy graphic lines.” The Defendant argued that the Officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle because the Officer improperly identified his vehicle as the vehicle the Officer saw speeding. The Panel noted that the trial judge concluded that the Officer had reasonable and articulable grounds to stop the Defendant’s vehicle because the Officer specifically described Defendant’s vehicle as the silver Mitsubishi with “wavy graphic lines” that he scanned traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. The Panel held that the trial judge sustained the charge based upon legally competent evidence. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/08/2013
Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013)
Speeding
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2(a), “prima facie limits.” At trial, the Officer testified that he initially watched two vehicles leave the South Beach parking lot, one traveling at sixty-eight miles-per-hour and the second (Defendant’s vehicle) traveling at sixty-two miles-per-hour, in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone. Before stopping Defendant’s vehicle, however, the Officer pursued but lost the first vehicle. The Officer then went back to locate Defendant’s vehicle, a silver Mitsubishi with “wavy graphic lines.” The Officer testified that by the time he reached Defendant’s vehicle, Defendant had slowed to a legal speed. The Panel noted that the trial judge was satisfied that the Officer properly identified Defendant’s vehicle as the vehicle he initially saw speeding. Additionally, the Officer testified that he had been properly trained in the use of radar equipment and that his radar equipment had been calibrated and was in good working order on the day of the citation. The Panel held that the trial judge sustained the charge based on legally competent evidence. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Little Compton v. Joseph Noe, No. T12-0067 (August 8, 2013).pdf