Reasonable Grounds
Defendant appealed the trial court decision sustaining a charge of violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“Refusal to submit to chemical test”). The Court held that the prosecution proved by clear and convincing evidence that the arresting officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving while intoxicated prior to asking him to submit to a chemical test. The officer testified that based on his experience the defendant “had [the] same characteristics that [he had] seen before when [somebody is] intoxicated.” See State v. Pineda, 712 A.2d 858 (R.I. 1998) (listing factors of intoxication, including detection of an odor of alcohol on the driver’s breath, bloodshot eyes, physical damage to the driver’s vehicle). Defendant failed to refute the officer’s testimony. Therefore, the trial magistrate had reliable, probative, and substantial evidence which shows that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was intoxicated. Accordingly, the charged violation is sustained.

Probable Cause to Arrest
Defendant appealed the trial court decision sustaining a charge of violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“Refusal to submit to chemical test”). The Court held that, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant even though there was no warrant because “under the totality of the circumstances, the arresting officer possesse[d] sufficient trustworthy facts and information to warrant  a prudent officer in believing that the suspect has committed or was committing an offense.” Stave v. Guzman, 752 A.2d 1, 4 (R.I. 2000). Furthermore, the experience of the police officer can be considered when determining probable cause. State v. Flores,  996 A.2d 156, 161 (R.I. 2010). Since the officer personally observed of the defendant’s personal appearance and combative demeanor, coupled with the officer’s professional experience and training with respect to DUI investigations, under the facts and circumstances known to him he had probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant had committed it. State v. Perry, 731 A.2d 720, 723 (R.I. 1999).