Rights for Use at Station

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit).  The Court held that the defendant was not prejudiced when the defendant was told two different numbers in regards to a license reinstatement fee. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. 

Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf

Rights for Use at Station

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 properly informed of the penalties associated with a refusal to submit to a chemical test by the “Right for use of Station” even though the seventy-five dollar license reinstatement fee was not specifically enumerated therein. The reinstatement of a suspended license is optional, and, therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of the specific amount of the fee. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appeals Panel’s decision to sustain the charge against the defendant.

Leslie Haley v. State of Rhode Island DC, A.A. No. 10-132 (February 18, 2011).pdf

Rights for Use at Station

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 District Court held that the arresting officer was not required to reread the “Rights for Use at Station” form to the defendant before a second chemical test (blood test) was administered because the form had been read to the defendant before the first administered chemical test (breathalyzer). Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. 

State of Rhode Island v. Michelle Hojeily.pdf

Rights for Use at Station

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 there was substantial, probative, and reliable evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that there was no confusion or prejudice where the arresting officer read the defendant and another defendant their rights at the same time. Since the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous, the Court affirmed that decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.

City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, A.A. No. 09-113 (July 1, 2009).pdf

Rights for Use at Station

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 defendant contended that the “Rights” cards in general, and its mention of the right to a confidential phone call, created an impression that he had the right to the advice of counsel before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. The Court held that the language of the “Rights” cards is easily reconciled with the rule in Dunn v. Petit, 388 A.2d 809 (1978) that there is no right to counsel at the moment of the decision as to whether or not to submit to a chemical test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.Marcus Thomas v. RITT, A.A. No.: 09-66 (November 3, 2009).pdf

Rights for Use at Station

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that where the officer read the defendant the Rights for use at Scene/Station cards and suggested that the defendant make a phone call before submitting to the test, defendant was in fact afforded a right to make a confidential phone call. Furthermore, the officer’s attempt to answer the defendant’s confusing line of questions regarding his rights did not vitiate the information provided on the Rights cards. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Neal Gaudreau, A.A. No. 06-04 (August 8, 2008).pdf

Rights for Use at Station

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel reversing the decision of the trial court dismissing the charge of violating R.I.G.L. § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test), in this, the lead case and related cases. Defendants argued that the Rights for use at Scene and Station forms did not correctly inform them of the penalties that would be imposed for a refusal to submit. They argue that a statute increasing the penalty of license suspension from three-to-six months to six-to-twelve months was repealed by implication, causing the Rights forms to be inaccurate. The Court held that a license suspension is a penalty which must be included among the refusal penalty warnings. Furthermore, the Court held that the statute in question was not repealed by implication and, therefore, the Rights cards correctly informed the defendants of the penalties associated with a refusal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel and remanded the cases to the Traffic Tribunal with instructions that the charges be reinstated and the matters be assigned for rearraignment.
*Note: the related cases decided along with this decision are: Charles Chatterley v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 07-145 and Douglas Monroe v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 07-146. These cases were subject to one opinion issued by the Traffic Tribunal Appeals Panel under the name of a fourth appellant, Michael Galvin.
State of Rhode Island v. Marc Barsamian A.A. No. 07-148 (October 23, 2007).pdf

Rights for Use at Station

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 it was undisputed that the defendant was read his rights at the scene and at the station. Since the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.Michael Rollings v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 00-75 (February 28, 2006).pdf