Appeals Panel
08/01/2013
Town of Smithfield v. Badoui Sleiman, C.A. No. T12-0022 (August 1, 2013)
Sworn Report
Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Specifically, the Defendant argued that the arresting Officer did not swear to the veracity of his report before a notary, in violation of the statute. At trial, the Officer testified that although the report had been notarized before trial, he was not present at the time it was notarized and he did not swear to its veracity. The Panel explained that the plain language of the statute requires the existence of a “sworn report.” The Panel held that because the Officer did not swear to the veracity of the report in the presence of a notary, the State could not satisfy the requirements of the statute. Accordingly, the Panel dismissed the charged violation.
Town of Smithfield v. Badoui Sleiman, C.A. No. T12-0022 (August 1, 2013).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/01/2013
Town of Smithfield v. Badoui Sleiman, C.A. No. T12-0022 (August 1, 2013)
Reasonable Grounds/Probable Cause
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 argued that the Officer did not have reasonable grounds to ask him to submit to a chemical test. The Panel noted that the Officer testified that the Defendant had bloodshot watery eyes, thick-tongued speech, smelled of alcohol, and had to support himself on his vehicle when attempting to stand. The Panel explained that under the totality of the circumstances, the trial magistrate ruled on competent evidence that the Officer had reasonable grounds to ask the Defendant to submit to a chemical test. However, the Panel dismissed the charge due to the lack of a sworn report.
Town of Smithfield v. Badoui Sleiman, C.A. No. T12-0022 (August 1, 2013).pdf
Appeals Panel
08/01/2013
Town of Smithfield v. Badoui Sleiman, C.A. No. T12-0022 (August 1, 2013)
Telephone Call
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 argued that the trial magistrate’s decision constituted reversible error of law because the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the police department offered the Defendant an opportunity to make a confidential phone call. The Panel noted that the Defendant had been read his rights for use at the scene and at the station. The Panel noted that after being read his rights (which included informing the Defendant he had a right to a phone call), the Defendant declined to make a phone call. Additionally, the Panel noted that the Police then offered the Defendant another opportunity to make a phone call, which the Defendant refused. The Panel explained that the statute does not require the police to use the word “confidential” when informing a suspect about his or her right to make a phone call. Rather, the Police are simply required to provide a degree of confidence to the suspect when a phone call is made. The Panel held that the Police did in fact offer the Defendant an opportunity to make a phone call. However, the Panel dismissed the charge due to the lack of a sworn report.
Town of Smithfield v. Badoui Sleiman, C.A. No. T12-0022 (August 1, 2013).pdf