Constructive Refusal to Submit

Defendant appealed the judgment of the Appeals Panel affirming the trial magistrate’s verdict sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Defendant argued that the Appeals Panel erred because he agreed to take the chemical test and made a good faith effort to do so. The Trooper testified that, while the Defendant initially agreed to take the test, he did not cooperate with the instructions in order to give a sufficient sample. The Defendant testified that he tried to cooperate and take the test. The Court noted that to sustain the charge, it must find that the decision was supported by legally competent evidence. The Court held that because the trial magistrate relied on the video of the test and the Trooper’s testimony, which he found to be credible, to find as a matter of fact that the Defendant willfully failed to follow instructions, there was sufficient evidence to prove the refusal element by conduct. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision to sustain the violation.

Jared Bisordi v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 2014-092 (June 1, 2015).pdf

Constructive Refusal to Submit

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 an officer has no obligation to wait for a defendant to speak to an attorney before charging a defendant with refusal to submit. Furthermore, the defendant’s delay in giving a definite answer as to whether or not he would take a chemical test constituted a constructive refusal to submit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the charge against the defendant.

Robert Malo v. RITT, A.A. No. 09-00102 (July 30, 2009).pdf

Constructive Refusal to Submit

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel 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 § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that the nature of the chemical test required that it be administered within a reasonable time. Defendant’s attempt to delay the test until his attorney arrived constituted a constructive refusal to submit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charges against the defendant.John Waterman v. RITT, A.A. No. 06-40 (January 25, 2007).pdf

Constructive Refusal to Submit

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-9 (obedience to stop signs). Defendant claimed that the actions of the police resulted in an “involuntary constructive refusal” charge because he was denied bail on the night of his arrest and, therefore, denied the ability to obtain exonerating evidence. However, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was not clearly erroneous because there was evidence on record that the defendant was properly informed of the rights and penalties pursuant to § 31-27-2.1. Furthermore, the Court found that there were no facts to support the defendant’s theory of “involuntary constructive refusal.” Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. Brian R. Cunha v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 03-80 (April 21, 2004).pdf