Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of  R.I G.L. 1956 §§ 31-14-2 (Speeding), 31-15-11 (Laned Roadway Violations), and 31-15-16 (Use of Breakdown Lane for Travel). A Rhode Island State Trooper testified to having seen a vehicle with Massachusetts plates “drive over a curb as it went from route 6 onto 95.” Additionally, the vehicle was seen switching in and out of traffic lanes without using a turn signal and going at an excessive speed. At trial, the Defendant argued that the trooper had presented false allegations and believed that his out of state plates were considered “when deciding to conduct a traffic stop.” The Trial Court found the Defendant guilty of all violations, and the Defendant appealed.

The Appeals Panel upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Appeals Panel noted the requirements set out in Rhode Island General Laws §31-16-5: “(1) the roadway is divided into two or more lanes; (2) the vehicle did not operate as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and (3) the vehicle moved from the lane at a time that the move could not be made with safety.” The Appeals Panel found that these elements had been met as testimony from the trooper demonstrated that the Appellant had been switching between “two or more lanes,” that he did not “attempt to operate within a single lane,” and that it was unsafe to “change lanes without using a turn signal.” Due to these reasons, the Appeals Panel affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to sustain the charges for the laned roadway violations. 

 State of Rhode Island v. Paris Centeio, No. T21-0020 (February 21, 2022 ).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 31-15-11, “Laned roadways.” A patrolman  testified that he was on a fixed traffic post  when he heard a vehicle sounding its horn. He then saw the vehicle “proceed around the other vehicle by crossing over the double-yellow line and enter the left-hand lane of travel, before re-entering the right-hand lane of travel.” The patrolman conducted a stop and identified the Defendant as the driver. He testified that during the stop the Defendant said he had passed the vehicle because “the vehicle was driving too slow in front of him.” The Defendant testified at trial, denying that he had traveled into oncoming travel lane and maintaining that he had properly traveled around the vehicle after it pulled over to the side. Ultimately the Trial Magistrate found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show “that he passed the other vehicle because his doing so would have likely resulted in an accident due to the high traffic.” Additionally, the Defendant argued that sustaining this violation would be a violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy because he was also charged with overtaking on the left based upon the same conduct.

The Appeals Panel noted that, in order for a violation to be shown, the following elements must be proved: “(1) the roadway is divided into two or more lanes; (2) the vehicle did not operate as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and (3) the vehicle moved from the lane at a time that the move could not be made with safety.” The Panel held that the elements were satisfied when the officer testified that the road was “divided into two lanes,” that the Defendant was observed to“cross over the double-yellow line,” and that it was done at a time that was unsafe to so. As to the double jeopardy claim, the Appeals Panel noted that the relevant question was “whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”  The Appeals Panel held that the elements of the two provisions were not overlapping. Due to these reasons the Appeals Panel sustained the charged violation. 

 State of Rhode Island v. Rasharn Young No. M19-0018 (January 25, 2021).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway violations). A police officer responded to the scene of a reported motor vehicle accident between Defendant and a city truck. At trial, the city truck driver testified that he momentarily stopped at an intersection waiting for traffic to clear before making a left-hand turn. In contrast, Defendant testified that the city truck was parked on the side of the road which led to her attempting to go around the vehicle. As Defendant attempted to pass the city truck, the truck began to turn, and the two vehicles collided. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s decision.

To sustain a violation of § 31-15-11, the evidence must show that (1) the roadway is divided into at least two lanes; (2) the vehicle did not, as nearly as practical, operate entirely within a single lane; and (3) the vehicle moved from the lane at a time that the move could not be safely made. Here, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was supported by legally competent evidence. Specifically, testimony presented at trial established the three aforementioned elements. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision.

State of Rhode Island v. Angela Martin, No. M18-0019 (August 13, 2019).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-15-11 (laned roadway violation).  The Defendant argued that the break down lane from which he turned is not a “lane for traffic” and, therefore, that §31-15-11, which explicitly applies to roadways that have “been divided in two (2) or more clearly marked lanes for traffic,” is not applicable.  The Panel held that the breakdown lane is, in fact, a lane under §31-15-11 and that  the statute  was applicable.  Therefore, the Panel affirmed the trial judge’s decision and found that the sustained violation was not erroneous.

State of Rhode Island v. Jason Delannoy, C.A. No. T15-0031 (February 5, 2016).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways). The Defendant argued that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the violation occurred. Here, the Detective testified that the Defendant’s vehicle changed lanes in a dangerous manner. The Panel held that because the relevant statute provides that a driver cannot cross lanes until it is safe to do so, the State presented sufficient testimony to meet the elements. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Alla Hassan, C.A. No. T14-0053 (April 20, 2015).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-15-11 (laned roadways).  At trial, the Trooper testified that he observed the Defendant weave into the breakdown lane and then back into traffic.  The charged violation has an exception stating that a driver is able to move outside of a single lane if it is safe to do so.  Because the record did not indicate that it was unsafe to move out of the single lane, the Panel held that an element of the charged violation had not been proven and the charged violation was dismissed. 

State of Rhode Island v. Deborah Saulnier, C.A. No. T14-0062 (December 15, 2015).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

Defendant appealed a decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (landed roadways). Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge was not supported by the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Section 31-15-11 states that “a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” Defendant testified that it was not unsafe to cross the center line and he did so to avoid a possible collision with pedestrians. Further, although the citing officer testified the defendant crossed over the center line, the record is devoid of any factual findings indicating it was unsafe to do so. Consequently, the Appeals Panel held that an element of the violation was not proven at trial and dismissed the violation.Town of Burrillville v. Robert Woods, No. T13-0018 (September 3, 2013).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of § 31-15-11 was clearly erroneous because the officer failed to testify that the defendant moved into the breakdown lane in an unsafe manner. Section 31-15-11 states that “a vehicle . . . shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” The Court held that the state failed to meet its burden because the officer only testified that he observed the defendant “swerve” into the breakdown lane and back into the lane of travel and did not testify as to whether the defendant performed the maneuver in a unsafe manner. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the violation of §31-15-11. Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding), R.I.G.L. 1956 §31-15-11 (laned roadway violation), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-5 (failure to use a turn signal). The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in sustaining the laned roadway violation because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Here, the Trooper testified that he observed the Defendant make “several aggressive and erratic lane changes” on his motorcycle when he “[came] upon slower traffic.” The Panel held that the Trooper’s testimony was sufficient to establish that the Defendant drove his motorcycle in the center lane when the lane was not clear of traffic within a safe distance. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Robert Braddock, C.A. T08-0073 (July 30, 2008).pdf

Laned Roadway Violation

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-3.2 (immediate notice of accident) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways).  Here, the evidence showed that the motorist had driven over a raised center median.  The trial judge found that the evidence supported the charge, which requires that a vehicle be driven “as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane” and provides that a vehicle “shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” The Panel held that the trial judge did not err because his decision was supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. James Hunnicutt, C.A. T08-0052 (June 18, 2008).pdf