The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violations of “Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test” and G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.3, “Refusal to Submit to Preliminary Breath Test.”  The Defendant argued that, because the speeding charge that was the predicate for the traffic stop was dismissed, the charge could not be sustained. At the trial, an officer testified that he saw a vehicle pass his position traveling in excess of the posted speed limit, which was 25 miles per hour. The officer then testified that a police radar indicated that the vehicle was traveling at 43 miles per hour. The Officer testified to having conducted a traffic stop and identified the Defendant as the driver. The officer testified that based on his training and experience, he believed the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol because the Defendant had “moderately bloodshot eyes,” “slightly slurred speech,” and “an odor of alcoholic beverage emanating from his breath.” During the stop, the Defendant consented to perform field sobriety tests after telling the officer that he had not been drinking. The Officer testified that the Defendant was having a hard time maintaining his balance and requested that he perform a walk and turn test. During the walk and turn test the Officer “observed six out of the eight possible clues of impairment that officers are trained to look for while a motorist is performing the test.” The Officer “observed three out of the four possible clues of impairment” when the Defendant was performing the One Leg Stand Test. Due to these reasons the Officer asked the Defendant to submit to a “preliminary breath test,” which the Defendant declined. The defendant was arrested for suspicion of a DUI and ultimately refused to submit to a chemical test. At trial the Defendant argued that the state failed to show reasonable suspicion to make the stop as they had not shown proof that the radar had been. Additionally, the Defendant argued that because the stop was not justified, any violation that occurred afterwards would not be justified either. The Trial Magistrate dismissed the speeding charge but sustained the refusal charges, and the Defendant appealed. 

The Appeals Panel noted that an officer is “required to have specific and articulable facts providing reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred.” The Appeals Panel held that reasonable suspicion had been met because, although the officer had not testified to the calibration of the radar, he testified to his observation regarding the defendant’s speed, which would be an articulable fact sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. Further, the Panel noted that reasonable suspicion to request a chemical test is satisfied “when that individual exhibits tangible indicia of alcohol consumption through his or her speech, physical appearance, and performance on field sobriety tests.” The Appeals Panel held that the officer’s testimony regarding his observations of the scene and the Defendant’s physical appearance, along with the officer’s training, was sufficient to justify the request for the chemical test. The Appeals Panel sustained the charged violations.