Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the decision of the trial court dismissing the charge of violating R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), in this, the lead case and related cases. Defendants argued that the Rights for use at Scene and Station forms did not correctly inform them of the penalties that would be imposed for a refusal to submit. They argue that a statute increasing the penalty of license suspension from three-to-six months to six-to-twelve months was repealed by implication, causing the Rights forms to be inaccurate. The Court held that a license suspension is a penalty which must be included among the refusal penalty warnings. Furthermore, the Court held that the statute in question was not repealed by implication and, therefore, the Rights cards correctly informed the defendants of the penalties associated with a refusal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel and remanded the cases to the Traffic Tribunal with instructions that the charges be reinstated and the matters be assigned for rearraignment.
*Note: the related cases decided along with this decision are: Charles Chatterley v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 07-145 and Douglas Monroe v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 07-146. These cases were subject to one opinion issued by the Traffic Tribunal Appeals Panel under the name of a fourth appellant, Michael Galvin.