Care in Starting from Stop

Defendant appealed decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from stop). After approaching a stop sign, Defendant noticed a vehicle approaching from the left, but attempted to cross the intersection anyway. Defendant’s vehicle was struck from the left by a driver who had the right of way. At trial, the patrolman who observed the scene of the accident testified that Defendant caused the accident by moving her vehicle in an “unsafe manner.” Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial judge’s decision. § 31-16-1 provides that “[n]o person shall start a vehicle which is stopped . . . unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.” Based on the accident itself and Defendant’s admission to seeing the oncoming vehicle, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge reasonably inferred that Defendant was “not able to proceed with reasonable safety.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial judge.

State of Rhode Island v. Rosa Diarbian, No. T17-0006 (December 20,2018).pdf

Care in Starting from Stop

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from stop). Defendant claimed that the trial judge erred by failing to make the requisite findings of fact required for a conviction of violating R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1. Section 31-16-1 states “[n]o person shall start a vehicle which is stopped, standing, or parked unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.” (emphasis added). The trial judge concluded, based on the officer’s testimony, that the defendant revved his engine, screeched his tires, caused smoke or gravel to be thrown up from the road, and proceeded into the intersection at a high rate of speed. However, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge failed to state findings of fact on the issue of reasonable safety. Accordingly, the Court held that the decision of the trial judge was affected by error of law and dismissed the violation against the defendant. City of Pawtucket v. Patrick Finnegan, C.A. No. M13-0012 (January 23, 2014).pdf

Care in Starting from Stop

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).  The Defendant argued that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to make the initial traffic stop.  Section 31-16-1 states “[n]o person shall start a vehicle which is stopped, standing, or parked unless and until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.”  The Panel noted the trial magistrate made findings of fact that the Officer did have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant because the Officer observed the Defendant “spinning… the tires” in a dangerous fashion.  Specifically, the trial magistrate found that the Defendant spun the vehicle’s tires in conditions involving heavy traffic with pedestrians in the area, and that debris of some sort could be kicked up, violating the statute on reasonable safety.  The Panel held that the trial magistrate’s finding that the Officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop was not clearly erroneous based on the substantial evidence.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violations.

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

Care in Starting from Stop

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from a stop).  Defendant argued that the trial magistrate’s decision was an error of law because there was not enough testimony to prove the violation.  The Panel noted that the Officer testified that he heard the distinctive sound of “screeching” and that this testimony was enough to prove by a standard of clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant started a vehicle from a stop without reasonable safety.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.

City of Providence v. Raymond Beausejour, C.A. No. T08-0149 (January 28, 2009).pdf

Care in Starting from Stop

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-16-1 (care in starting from start). The Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that he operated his vehicle without reasonable safety. Here, the Patrolman testified that he observed the Defendant accelerate at a high rate of speed, endangering the safety of a nearby driver.  The Panel held that the trial judge was not clearly erroneous in finding that the Patrolman’s testimony was more credible than the Defendant’s testimony. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Brandon Gorgone, C.A. T08-0103 (September 10, 2008).pdf