Jurisdiction of Police Officers

Defendant appealed a decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant claimed that a North Kingstown police officer performed an extra-territorial stop, which was not permissible at the time of the stop (prior to a 2016 amendment of General Laws § 12-7-19) . At trial, Defendant attempted to introduce a map into evidence to show that an extra-territorial stop took place, but the trial judge refused to review the map. Upon reaching the District Court, the case was remanded to allow Defendant to fully litigate the territorial jurisdiction issue. On remand, the trial judge allowed Defendant to admit one map into evidence, but refused to admit a second map on authentication grounds. Defendant offered no testimony as to where on the map the stop allegedly took place. The trial judge found that the map admitted into evidence was unreliable, showing only “where people from the South County Tourism Council believe boundaries to be,” and that it did not, without supporting testimony, “provide [the trial court] with information as it relates specifically to the facts of this case.”  Accordingly, the trial judge relied upon the police officer’s testimony as to the location of the stop. The District Court held that the trial judge properly relied upon the officer’s testimony because Defendant failed to “present testimony identifying where, on the map, the violation occurred.” Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.

James Harrington v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 19-32 (September 9, 2019).pdf

Jurisdiction of Police Officers

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). Defendant argued, in part, that his appeal should be granted because the officers who stopped him were from North Kingstown and the moving violation and traffic stop occurred in East Greenwich, outside of the North Kingstown officers’ jurisdiction. Under the provisions of R.I.G.L. § 12-7-19 then in effect (the statute has since been amended), extra-territorial stops were only permissible where the officers making the stop would otherwise have the right to arrest a defendant, which is not the case for civil traffic violations such as the laned roadway violation alleged in this case.  At trial, the Defendant sought to introduce a map of the area in which the stop occurred, but the trial magistrate chose not to review it, instead finding the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the stop being within his jurisdiction to be credible and sufficient to sustain the charge against Defendant. The Appeals Panel affirmed, but did not mention whether the trial magistrate erred by declining to review a map of the area in which the stop occurred. On appeal to the District Court, Defendant challenged the propriety of that evidentiary ruling.  Because the Appeals Panel failed to address this issue of possible merit, the District Court remanded to the Appeals Panel for a decision on that issue.

James Harrington v. State, A.A. No. 16-102 (January 17, 2018).pdf

Jurisdiction of Police Officers

The state appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the trial magistrate’s dismissal of the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-21 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). Defendant argued that a Warwick Police Officer who started following the defendant’s car in Warwick did not have the jurisdiction to make an arrest in West Warwick.  The District Court held that when a driver’s poor conduct takes place over a span of two jurisdictions, the officer can effectuate a proper arrest in a jurisdiction outside the borders of their own as long as conduct warranting the traffic stop took place in the arresting officer’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, since the defendant was clearly in Warwick when the officer began to monitor her conduct, the arrest in West Warwick was proper. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.

Joann Maiorano v. RITT A.A. No. 09-20.pdf

Jurisdiction of Police Officers

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 although the officer stopped the defendant over the boundary line in another jurisdiction, the officer had probable cause for arrest based on events that he observed within his jurisdiction, including crossing the double yellow line multiple times and driving into a curb. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation against the defendant.

Pavel Kovner v. RITT, A.A. No. 05-13 (December 21, 2005).pdf