Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit). Defendant argued that the officer failed to testify at trial, by more than a bare assertion, which specific rights were read to him at the scene before he refused to submit, and further, that the rights for use card was not submitted into evidence. The Court held that in order to satisfy the requirements of § 31-27-3, the actual rights for use at the scene card must be admitted into evidence unless the officer is capable of reciting the language of the card from memory. Here, the requirements of §31-27-3 were not fulfilled because the card was not submitted and the officer made only a bare assertion that he had read the defendant the rights for use card at the scene. Accordingly, the Court held that the decision of the trial judge was clearly erroneous and dismissed the charge against the defendant.Town of Barrington v. Stephen Day, C.A. No. T13-0011 (January 17, 2014).pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from stop), and § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test).  Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred in sustaining the refusal charge when the Officer read the “rights for use at the scene” at the Woonsocket Police Department rather than at the scene of the initial traffic stop.  The Officer testified that due to heavy traffic, numerous pedestrians, narrowed roads due to snow banks and sidewalks covered in ice and snow, he determined it would not be safe to conduct a field sobriety test at the scene.  Instead, the Officer placed the Defendant under arrest for failing to produce a drivers license and for obstruction in violation of §§ 31-10-27 and 11-32-1.  Thereafter, the Officer drove a quarter mile away to the police station where he conducted field sobriety tests, part of which the Defendant failed, at which point the Officer read the rights for use at the scene and placed the Defendant under arrest for suspicion of DUI.  The Panel held that, because the scene of the DUI investigation shifted to the police station, the Officer read the Defendant his rights for use at the scene immediately after the arrest, as required by the statute.  The Panel also explained that the Defendant did not provide any evidence demonstrating prejudice by the timing of the reading of his rights.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations. 

Judge Almeida dissented, writing that because the Officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DUI at the scene of the traffic stop, the Officer was obligated to arrest and read the Defendant his rights for use at the scene immediately, the delay of which constituted prejudice to the Defendant.

City of Woonsocket v. Adam Bussey, C.A. No, T11-0033 (August 24, 2011).pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

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 chemical test) and R.I.G.L. § 31-15-11 (laned roadways). The Court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the officer’s failure to read him his rights before proceeding to the field sobriety tests. The defendant had refused to submit to the chemical test after the officer read him the “Right for Use at the Scene” and the “Rights for Use at the Station” forms. Therefore, the charged violation was sustained.

City of Warwick v. James Morgan, C.A. No.T09-0103 (January 20, 2010).pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge 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’s argument that he was prejudice by the trial judge’s failure to suppress the state’s evidence of his refusal because the officer failed to Mirandize him prior to any inquiries regarding the motor vehicle accident was without merit. The officer’s request that the defendant submit to the chemical test was based on his observations that the defendant had bloodshot eyes, slurred his speech, and smelled of alcohol. Once the process of detainment for the drunken driving charges commenced, the defendant was Mirandized by the officer. Furthermore, no one factor is dispositive, nor does a potential procedural violation warrant the suppression of other relevant evidence. Therefore, the charged violation was sustained.

State of Rhode Island v. Christopher Taro*.pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-21 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Appeals Panel held that the “Rights for Use at Scene” and “Rights for Use at Station” are sufficient to inform a defendant of his rights, even though the rights associated with civil and criminal charges are slightly different. The Court held that both “rights” cards were read to defendant and the defendant indicated that he understood them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.

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

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27 2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadways).  Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because the Officer did not immediately arrest him and read him his Rights for Use at Scene once the Officer determined he had reasonable grounds to suspect the Defendant had operated under the influence.  The Officer testified he had reasonable grounds to arrest upon arriving on the scene and making observations, but decided to wait to arrest the Defendant until after the Defendant finished receiving medical treatment.  The Panel explained that an Officer is only required to read a suspect the Rights for Use at the Scene once the suspect is under arrest.  The Panel explained that the Defendant’s injuries and subsequent medical treatment prevented the Officer from immediately arresting Defendant, and held that because the Officer appropriately read the Defendant his Rights for Use at Station/Hospital upon arresting him, the Officer’s actions complied with § 31-27-3 and the magistrate’s decision was not in error.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.

State of Rhode Island v. Craig Huntley, C.A. No. T09-0092 (December 16, 2009).pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge 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 Rights for Use at Station card 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 trial court’s decision to sustain the violation against the defendant.City of Warwick v. Leslie Haley, C.A. No. 09-0040 (June 3, 2009).pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court 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 no evidence to support the defendant’s claim that there was confusion or prejudice because the arresting officer read the defendant and another defendant their rights at the same time. Accordingly, the decision of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous and the Court affirmed that decision sustaining the violation against defendant.

City of Warwick v. Richard Porter, C.A. No. T09-0031 (July 1, 2009).pdf

Rights for Use at the Scene

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant argued that the Officer violated R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-3 (right of a person charged with operating under the influence to physical examination) because he failed to inform the Defendant of his right to an independent medical examination immediately upon his arrest. Here, the Officer testified that he realized while transporting the arrested Defendant to the station that he had neglected to read him his rights for use at the scene.  Consequently, he read the Defendant his rights for use at the scene after he arrived at the police station. The Panel held that the Officer unreasonably and unnecessarily delayed reading the Defendant his rights because there was no reason for failing to inform the Defendant of his rights “immediately,” as required by the statute. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial magistrate’s decision and dismissed the charged violation.

Judge Ciullo filed a dissenting opinion, noting that he would have sustained the violation because the Defendant was unable to show any prejudice that resulted from the delay between his arrest and the advisement of his rights.

State of Rhode Island v. Mark Soullierre, C.A. T08-0045 (May 28, 2008).pdf