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.

Town of North Kingstown v. Joan DiOrio, C.A. No. T12-0078 (August 22, 2013)

Town of North Kingstown v. Joan DiOrio, C.A. No. T12-0078 (August 22, 2013).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/22/2013
Town of North Kingstown v. Joan DiOrio, C.A. No. T12-0078 (August 22, 2013) Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause

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 31-15-11 (laned roadway).  Defendant argued the Officer did not have probable cause to arrest.  The Panel explained that when asking a suspect to submit to a chemical test, an Officer needs reasonable grounds to suspect the operator is under the influence and, if the operator refuses, an Officer may charge her with refusal.  The Panel held that because the Officer observed that the Defendant drifted back and forth between lanes, had difficulty maintaining her balance when exiting the vehicle, had bloodshot, watery eyes, and admitted to drinking alcohol, the Officer had reasonable grounds to ask the Defendant to submit to a chemical test.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.

Town of North Kingstown v. Joan DiOrio, C.A. No. T12-0078 (August 22, 2013).pdf

Appeals Panel
08/22/2013
Town of North Kingstown v. Joan DiOrio, C.A. No. T12-0078 (August 22, 2013) Identifying the Defendant

Identifying the Defendant

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 31-15-11 (laned roadway).  The Panel rejected the Defendant’s argument that the identity of the operator was at issue because the Officer did not immediately make contact with the operator of the vehicle in question, but rather briefly stopped to speak to the operator of a second vehicle stopped a hundred yards away from the Defendant’s vehicle.  The Panel noted that the Defendant was the only person in the vehicle at the time she was stopped, that she was seated in the driver’s seat, and that the Officer made an in-court identification of the Defendant.  The Panel held that identity was not at issue.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.

Town of North Kingstown v. Joan DiOrio, C.A. No. T12-0078 (August 22, 2013).pdf