Coercion by Officer

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-1 (right half of road), § 31-15-11 (laned roadways), and § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The District Court held that the defendant was not coerced into refusing to submit because he independently chose to refuse to submit where he wanted to get out of jail and thought that refusing would get him out of jail.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.

Town of Bristol v. Frank Polverino A.A. No. 09-00023 (June 30, 2009) Rahill, J..pdf

Coercion by Officer

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-21 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that even if the officer had said to the defendant “You don’t want to take the test do you?”, that statement does not rise to the level of coercion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against defendant.

James Hovey v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-61 (November 17, 2009).pdf

Coercion by Officer

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the trooper’s testimony that he did not coerce or try to persuade the defendant in any way in making his decision whether or not to submit to the chemical test was sufficient evidence to affirm the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence pointing to coercion. Since the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.

David Dunigan v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 05-103 (February 2, 2006).pdf

Coercion by Officer

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (operation without proof of insurance). The defendant claimed that the arresting officer coerced him into refusing the test by telling him that if he refused then he would only go to court a few times and the charge would be dismissed. To the contrary, the officer testified that over his ten years of policing he has never offered any legal advice. The Court held this was substantial, probative, and reliable evidence to support the trial magistrate’s decision that the defendant was not coerced by the arresting officer. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.

Jimmie Boisvert v. RITT, A.A. 05-61 (October 18, 2005).pdf