Sworn Report

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge was affected by error of law because the state failed to produce a sworn report where the officer did not swear to his initial report before a notary and a second report, sworn to three months after the arrest, was not admitted into evidence.  The first element of § 31-27-2.1 requires “a sworn report stating that a law enforcement officer possessed reasonable grounds to suspect the arrestee of driving under the influence.”  The Court held that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, must be interpreted literally.  The Court held that the state failed to establish the first element of § 31-27-2.1 because the officer did not swear to the first report before a notary and that the second report was not properly submitted into evidence.  Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous because, absent proof of a sworn report, the state was not able to prove one of the required elements. Thus, the Court granted the defendant’s appeal.

Town of Narragansett v. Laura Imswiler, C.A. No. T13-0012 (February 3, 2014).pdf