Probable Cause

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1, “Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test.”  At trial, a Trooper testified that he observed a vehicle “unable to maintain its lane because it swerved into the second lane from the first lane.” The Trooper followed the car and continued to observe swerving in and out of lanes. He decided to make a traffic stop and identified the Defendant as the Driver.  The Trooper noticed a “closed box of Macallan whiskey” in the vehicle and observed the Defendant struggle to get into the glove box in order to provide documentation. He also observed “bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech and detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the interior of the vehicle.” The Defendant was asked to step out of the vehicle, at which time the Trooper smelled alcohol emanating from his breath.  The Defendant completed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but subsequently refused all other field sobriety testing. Due to the Troopers belief that the Defendant was under the influence, he placed him under arrest and read him his “rights for use at the scene.” The Defendant was transported to the station, where he asked for water due to his diabetic condition and refused to submit to a chemical test. The Defendant testified that he was unfamiliar with the vehicle because he did not drive it frequently, that he was not feeling well at the time of the stop due to medication he had been taking, and that he had not been drinking that day. Lastly, a witness testified that he was with the Defendant on the night in question, that he had not seen the Defendant drink that night, that the Defendant had shared that he was not feeling well, and that he saw no reason the Defendant should not have driven home. At the close of the trial the Trial Magistrate found the defendant guilty of the charged violation. The Defendant appealed, arguing that the Trooper had imposed a “more likely than not standard” in determining whether to place the Defendant under arrest. 

Although the language of  § 31-27-2.1 requires proof that an officer have “reasonable grounds” to believe that a motorist was driving under the influence in order to request submission to a chemical test, and further requires that a motorist must be under arrest before being asked to submit to a chemical test, the Appeals Panel suggested that, “[b]ased on the plain language of the statute, the standard for administering a chemical test is reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver is operating under the influence of alcohol.” Here, the Trooper testified that he observed the Defendant swerving, that the Defendant had trouble opening his glovebox, and that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of alcohol coming from his breath. The Appeals Panel sustained the charged violations, finding that those facts provided sufficient factual support for the Trial Judge’s determination that the Trooper had reasonable suspicion that the Defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.State of Rhode Island v. Joseph Sousa T21-0006 (April 28, 2021).pdf