Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Knowing and Voluntary Decision
Knowing and Voluntary Decision
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that her refusal to submit was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because she was not fluent in the English language. The Court held that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily refused because before she made the decision to refuse to submit she was read the Rights for Use at the Station form several times, she asked the officer questions pertaining to the Rights for Use form, and she had the opportunity to speak with counsel. Further, the Court noted that the defendant’s bare assertion that she did not understand should not result in the dismissal of the violation. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1.Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Constitutional Issues
Constitutional Issues
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that the officer’s stop and detention of her constituted a de facto arrest in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and investigate for suspicion of DUI because the officer observed the defendant travel at a high rate of speed and swerve into the breakdown lane, the defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, she emitted an odor of alcohol, she admitted to the consumption of alcohol, and she had difficulty retrieving the requested documents. Further, the Court noted that there was nothing on the record that suggested the officer’s detention of the defendant was unusual in either duration or scope. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1. Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Reasonable Grounds
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to request the defendant to submit to field sobriety tests. The Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds to request that the defendant submit to field sobriety tests because the officer observed the defendant travel at a high rate of speed and swerve into the breakdown lane, the defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, she emitted an odor of alcohol, she admitted to the consumption of alcohol, and she had difficulty retrieving the requested documents. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-17-2.1. Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her. The Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant because he observed the defendant travel at a high rate of speed and swerve into the break down lane. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-17-2.1. Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Laned Roadway Violation
Laned Roadway Violation
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of § 31-15-11 was clearly erroneous because the officer failed to testify that the defendant moved into the breakdown lane in an unsafe manner. Section 31-15-11 states that “a vehicle . . . shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” The Court held that the state failed to meet its burden because the officer only testified that he observed the defendant “swerve” into the breakdown lane and back into the lane of travel and did not testify as to whether the defendant performed the maneuver in a unsafe manner. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the violation of §31-15-11. Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Preliminary Breath Test
Preliminary Breath Test
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that because she submitted to a PBT at the scene she should not have been requested to submit to another test at the station. The Court held that the language of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 only refers to the “actual” test given at the station and the language of the statute was not intended to include PBTs. Accordingly, the Court held that the defendant had not been prejudiced and sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1. Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 Telephone Call
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that she was denied her right to a confidential phone call because the officer entered the room while she was speaking with her attorney. The Court held that the defendant’s right to a confidential phone call was not violated because the officer left the defendant in the room for fifteen minutes while she spoke with her attorney and he only entered the room because the defendant summoned him in to ask him a question. Accordingly, the Court held that the defendant had voluntarily waived her right and sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1.
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 NHSTA Standards
The Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal appeals panel noted that it lacks the authority to assess witness credibility, but agreed with the trial magistrate that the failure to follow NHSTA standards is relative and sustaining the charge was still warranted. Furthermore, the panel’s limited review of the facts indicates detention of the defendant was appropriate as it was limited in time and scope to investigate drunk driving.
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf
Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
T11-0049 Field Sobriety Tests
Field Sobriety Tests
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous because the officer deviated from his training when he administered the field sobriety tests and did not comply with NHTSA guidelines. The Court held that although field sobriety tests should be administered as closely as possible with NHTSA guidelines to ensure reliability, the officer’s failure to follow the NHTSA standards was relative and the tests should not be deemed unreliable due to incorrect instructions because the trial court determined that the deviations were minimal and that the defendant exhibited four clues of intoxication. The Court noted that it lacked the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and it must defer to the trial judge’s decision that the deviations were not substantial or prejudicial to the defendant. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1.
Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf