Inability to Cure a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting

Defendant appealed from the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1, “Refusal to submit to chemical test.”  Defendant argued that her responses to the Trooper’s request to submit to a chemical test—“no, not at this time” and “not right now, not at this time”—did not constitute a refusal because her answer indicated she would be willing to submit to the test at a later time.  The Panel held that the plain language of 31-27-2.1 does not allow for a suspect to postpone submitting to a chemical test.  The Panel found that each independent answer to the Trooper’s request constituted an unequivocal refusal.  Additionally, the Defendant argued that the Trooper had the obligation of informing her that she would not be allowed to take the test at a later time.  The Panel noted the trial magistrate found that the Defendant had been read her “rights for use at the station.”  The Panel indicated it was satisfied that Defendant had been advised of her rights and of the penalties of refusing under 31-27-2.1 and sustained the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Gail Dion, C.A. No. T13-0005 (February 27, 2014).pdf

Inability to Cure a Refusal by Subsequently Submitting

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the defendant did not have the ability to “cure” a refusal to submit by subsequently submitting to a chemical test. The Court held that even though the defendant testified that he eventually agreed to submit to a chemical test, this did not cure his previous refusal to do so. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the violation against the defendant.

City of Warwick v. Marcus Thomas, C.A. No. T08-0152 (April 29, 2009).pdf