4th Amendment

Town of Burrillville appealed a decision of the trial judge dismissing a violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iii) (possession of marijuana less than or equal to one ounce by a person eighteen (18) years of age or older). A police officer reported an accident which led to a foot pursuit of Defendant. After Defendant was arrested and transported to the hospital, the police department towed his vehicle. Pursuant to the department’s policy, an officer conducted an inventory search before the vehicle was towed. During this search, the officer discovered two-tenths of one gram of marijuana. The trial judge dismissed the charged violation, finding that the search was unlawful. The Town appealed, arguing that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because an inventory search is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. An inventory search is valid if it is “conducted . . . as part of an established routine.” Here, the evidence showed that the police department’s policy mandated that officers conduct an inventory search of vehicles which are to be towed. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was erroneous because the search in the instant case was exempt from the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the trial judge and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Town of Burrillville v. S.W., T18-0002 (August 7, 2018).pdf

4th Amendment

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-1 (“operation of an unregistered motor vehicle”) and § 31-38-4 (“inspection sticker required”). Defendant argued that the officer had no probable cause to conduct a traffic stop. The officer testified that he drove by the defendant and saw that the vehicle had an expired registration sticker because the sticker was the wrong color. The Appeals Panel held that officer had probable cause to conduct the traffic stop because the officer had a reasonable belief that the defendant was operating his vehicle with an expired inspection sticker. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

Town of Cumberland v. Rusek Wojciech, No. T15-0045 (June 14, 2016).pdf

4th Amendment

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §21-28-4.01 (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older).  The Defendant, a passenger in a car that was lawfully stopped, contended that the marijuana that was found in her purse was the product of an unlawful search.  The Panel held that the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the State allows protective pat down searches of passengers and belongings in vehicles that have been lawfully pulled over.  See Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 304-305 (1999); State v. Soares, 648 A.2d 804 (R.I. 1994).  The Panel also noted that the Officer searched the Defendant’s purse only after she admitted that she had a knife in the purse and after she consented to the search of her purse.  The Panel further noted that, because the issue was not raised at trial, the Panel therefore lacked the authority to review the issue.  The Panel denied the Defendant’s appeal.

Town of North Kingston v. A.C., C.A. No. T15-0004 (December 15, 2015).pdf

4th Amendment

Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c), “Possession of marijuana, one ounce or  less, 18 years or older.”  At trial, the Trooper testified that he was dispatched to the scene of a two-car accident and found defendant in one of the vehicles.  The Trooper stated that defendant communicated an injury to the Trooper, and the Trooper opened the door to the vehicle to render assistance.  The Trooper stated he noticed a glass jar in plain view containing a green, leafy substance which appeared to be marijuana.  The Trooper seized the substance and confirmed it to be marijuana using a field test kit.  Defendant claimed the Trooper performed an illegal search when the Trooper entered the vehicle and that the seizure of the jar of marijuana was likewise illegal.  The Panel explained that under the “community caretaker” exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, a law enforcement officer may make a reasonable entry into a vehicle for purposes of rendering aid to a distressed person. The Panel further explained that, under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, three prongs must be met for a seizure to be lawful: (1) the police officer who effects the seizure lawfully reaches the vantage point from which he sees an object in plain view; (2) probable cause exists to support his seizure of that object; and (3) he has a right of access to the object itself.  See U.S. v. Sanchez, 612 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 2010).  The Panel held the Trooper’s entry into the vehicle was permitted under the “community caretaker” exception and that the seizure was permitted under the “plain view” exception and, accordingly, sustained the charged violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Daniel Delano, C.A. No. T13-0055 (March 3, 2014).pdf