Defendant was charged with a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop sign). At trial, Defendant presented photographs into evidence, introduced witness testimony, questioned the officer who brought the charge, and offered his own testimony. The Defendant

“mention[ed] that he had videos to present to the Trial Judge a couple times during the trial,” but he “never actually moved to have the videos introduced into evidence.” The Trial Judge found the officer’s testimony credible and that the Defendant failed to stop at the stop sign. The Defendant appealed the decision.

The Defendant raised the argument that his procedural due process rights were violated when he was unable to present all his evidence to the trial court. Procedural due process requires a defendant be provided (1) notice of the hearing and the alleged violation; (2) an opportunity to be heard by an impartial judge; (3) an opportunity to present evidence; (4) and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. State v. Pompey, 934 A.2d 210, 214 (R.I. 2007). The Appeals Panel found the Defendant did not dispute that he did receive notice of the violation, that he was afforded the opportunity to present evidence, that the judge spent time reviewing the evidence presented by appellant, that the defendant was allowed to question the officer and that he offered testimony in his own defense, meeting the requirements of procedural due process. With respect to the video evidence, the Appeals Panel determined that, because the Defendant failed to attempt to authenticate the video or move to introduce the video into evidence at trial, the Trial Judge was not required to consider the admissibility of the video. Therefore, the Appeals Panel determined the Defendant’s claim was unfounded and denied the appeal.