Arrest

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  The Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s factual findings regarding the defendant’s time and manner of arrest were supported by credible and competent evidence, because the defendant had been placed under arrest at the time the officer read the defendant his rights for use at the scene in the ambulance.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation againsnt the defendant. 

Town of Middletown v. Joshua Kolator, C.A. No. T12-0070 (January 11, 2013).pdf

Arrest

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  The Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s factual findings regarding appellant’s time and manner of arrest were supported by credible and competent evidence because an officer read the appellate his rights for use at the scene in an ambulance, and the judge found he was then placed into custody at that time.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.

Town of Middletown v. Joshua Kolator, C.A. No. T12-0070 (January 11, 2013).pdf

Arrest

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.3 (refusal to submit to preliminary breath test) and § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued the Officer did not effectuate a legally valid arrest because the Officer allowed Defendant to be transported in the ambulance to the hospital without handcuffs while the Officer remained at the scene to complete his investigation.  The Panel held that the trial magistrate’s factual findings regarding appellant’s time and manner of arrest were supported by credible and competent evidence because the Officer read the appellate her “rights for use at the scene” in the ambulance, stated that she was “under arrest,” and stated that he would meet her at the hospital.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.

City of Providence v. Christina Machado, C.A. No. T13-0019 (August 19, 2013).pdf

Arrest

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways).  Defendant argued that the Officer failed to arrest him prior to requesting he submit to a chemical test.  Specifically, Defendant rejected the trial magistrate’s finding that he was under arrest when the medical staff finished treatment and transferred custody of Defendant to the officers.  The Panel explained that, under State v. Bailey, 417 A.2d 915 (R.I. 1980), a court determines when a person is under arrest by considering: (1) the extent to which a person’s freedom of movement has been curtailed and the degree of force used by the police; (2) the belief of a reasonably innocent person in these same circumstances; and (3) whether the person had the option of not going with the police.  See id. at 915-18.  The Panel held that when transfer of custody from medical personnel to the officers took place, the Officers made a joint decision to arrest the Defendant and that the Defendant did not have the option of leaving the officers custody, thereby effectuating a legally valid arrest.  The Panel noted that the officers then read the Defendant his Rights for Use at Station/Hospital, at which point the Defendant refused to submit to a chemical test.  The Panel held the trial magistrate’s decision was not in error, and, accordingly, sustained the charged violations. 

State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009).pdf