RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Home » Refusal to Submit

Field Sobriety Tests

District Court

District Court
11/09/2011
Patricia Sargent v. State of Rhode Island DC A.A. No.11-0013 Field Sobriety Test

Field Sobriety Tests

Defendant appealed the decision if the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit).  The District Court held that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence without including the testimony about the field sobriety test (FST). The state decided to not include the FST because the defendant claimed she failed the FST due to her back problems. The Court noted that the state was not required by law to not include the FST results. However, the state relied on the defendant nearly getting into an accident, having watery and blood shot eyes, smelling of alcohol, and exhibiting a lack of steadiness to prove the defendant was operating her vehicle under the influence. Also, the Court found that it was immaterial whether or not the defendant has an innocent explanation for why she appeared under the influence.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. 

Patricia Sargent v. State of Rhode Island DC A.A. No. 11-0013 (November 9 2011).pdf

Appeals Panel

Appeals Panel
03/26/2012
T11-0049 Field Sobriety Tests

Field Sobriety Tests

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 was clearly erroneous because the officer deviated from his training when he administered the field sobriety tests and did not comply with NHTSA guidelines.  The Court held that although field sobriety tests should be administered as closely as possible with NHTSA guidelines to ensure reliability, the officer’s failure to follow the NHTSA standards was relative and the tests should not be deemed unreliable due to incorrect instructions because the trial court determined that the deviations were minimal and that the defendant exhibited four clues of intoxication.  The Court noted that it lacked the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and it must defer to the trial judge’s decision that the deviations were not substantial or prejudicial to the defendant.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1.

Town of Middletown v. Svetlana Semenova, Ca.A. No. T11-0049 (March 26, 2012).pdf