Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008)
Procedure
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Following the trial, but prior to the oral argument on appeal, the Defendant and the solicitor entered into an agreement whereby the Defendant would enter a plea in the District Court to the pending criminal violation and accept one-month license suspension in return for a dismissal of the chemical refusal charge pursuant to Rule 27(a) of the Rules of Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal. On appeal to the Panel, the Defendant attempted to enforce that agreement. The Panel, however, held that while it will accept a dismissal prior to or during a trial, it will not accept a dismissal following a trial and entry of judgment. Accordingly, the court would not allow the dismissal and sustained the charge.
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008)
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the underlying arrest was not supported by probable cause to believe the Defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Here, the Officer observed the Defendant to be speeding, as well as swerving. Once in contact with the Defendant, the Officer observed that the Defendant was “fumbling” with documents and that her vehicle and/or her person was emanating a strong alcoholic odor. The Officer further observed that the Defendant was slurring her speech, her eyes were “glassy,” she was unsteady on her feet, and she used the vehicle’s door to maintain her balance. The Officer also testified that there was what appeared to be vomit between the driver’s seat and driver’s side door. Noting that reasonable grounds and probable cause are “functionally equivalent,” the Panel held that Officer had probable cause to believe that the Defendant had operated the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008)
Telephone Call
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to make a confidential phone call within one hour of her arrest by the Officer, in compliance with R.I.G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20, because the Officer testified that he was able to hear the phone call through the door. Here, the Officer testified that the Defendant refused to make the phone call in the interview room and instead preferred to make the call from in the booking room. The Officer further testified that the booking room was not under audible surveillance and he was not physically present in the room at the time of the call. Since the Officer made clear he had no recollection of the Defendant’s conversation and did not include any details of the conversation in the report, the Panel found that the integrity of the confidential conversation was not compromised. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008)
Sworn Report
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the trial magistrate abused his discretion by sustaining the refusal charge because the Officer’s report was not properly sworn before a notary as required by § 31-27-2.1. Here, the Officer appeared before the magistrate and testified that his report was not properly sworn, but further testified as to the information contained in the report. The Panel, citing Link v. State, 622 A.2d 1345 (R.I. 1993), held that a chemical refusal charge can be sustained even in the absence of a sworn report where there is sworn testimony for the court to consider. As such, the Panel held that the trial magistrate did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the charge despite a defect in the report because the live testimony at trial rendered the defect inconsequential. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008).pdf
Appeals Panel
12/10/2008
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008)
Constitutional Issues
Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that she was deprived of her due process right to an impartial fact finder because the trial magistrate assisted the prosecution to prove an essential element of the violation. Specifically, the trial magistrate advised counsel for the State that the “Rights for Use at the Station” form had not been introduced into evidence, which prompted counsel to enter the form. The Panel explained that a dismissal based on impartial fact finder is warranted when the actions of the magistrate undermine the fundamental fairness required by due process and, even though a citizen is guaranteed an impartial fact finder, there is no evidence here that the trial magistrate attempted to establish proof to support the position of either party. Here, the Panel found that the trial magistrate did not exceed his permissible scope of authority because his participation in the proceeding was for the limited purpose of ensuring that it proceeded in an orderly and expeditious fashion. Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.
Town of Portsmouth v. Deborah Casey, C.A. No. T08-0130 (December 10, 2008).pdf