Right to Counsel

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), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-21-1 (stopping on traveled portion of open highway prohibited). The Court held that defendants are only afforded the right to make a confidential phone call and there is no right to counsel prior to the administration of a breathalyzer test. Therefore, the defendant’s argument that no attorney was present when he was charged with refusing to submit is unpersuasive. 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

Right to Counsel

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 the defendant was not prejudiced by her inability to reach her attorney where the defendant was afforded the opportunity to make a phone call because there is no right to counsel regarding the decision of whether to refuse or agree to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the charge against the defendant.Julie Longtin Sinapi v. RITT, A.A. No 06-92 (February 7, 2007).pdf