RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Case Law

This website is in no way affiliated with, sponsored by, or supported by the Rhode Island Judiciary, the Rhode Island District Court, or Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Home » Traffic Violations

Operating an Unregistered Vehicle

District Court

District Court
10/28/2019
Irwin Jacobowitz v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. no. 19-19 (October 28, 2019)

Operating an Unregistered Vehicle

Defendant appealed a decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining violations of G.L. 1956 § 31-3-1 (operation of unregistered vehicle) and § 31-38-3 (violation of inspection laws). Defendant was driving with one license plate, which belonged to another vehicle and had been suspended, and Defendant’s vehicle was not inspected. Defendant also argued that he was exempt from the no-registration citation because G.L. § 31-4-10 (temporary transfer or registration) gives newly purchased vehicles a two-day grace period to be registered. But G.L. § 31-4-10 requires both license plates to be attached to the new vehicle, and Defendant’s vehicle only had one license plate attached. As such, the District Court rejected Defendant’s  argument and affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.

Irwin Jacobowitz v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. no. 19-19 (October 28, 2019).pdf

District Court
01/28/2014
State of Rhode Island v. Louis Depina A.A. No.12-170- Operating an Unregisted Vehicle

Operating an Unregistered Vehicle

Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-1 (operation of unregistered vehicle). The Court, reviewing the record, found no testimony on the part of the arresting officer pertaining to whether the defendant knew the vehicle was unregistered. The defendant possessed a transporter plate for the vehicle but none of the additional paperwork necessary to use a transporter plate. The defendant worked for Specialty Auto Sales and testified that the registration of the plate would go through them. Under Albanese v. Providence Police Dep’t, 711 A.2d 651 (RI 1998), the defendant must possess knowledge that the vehicle is unregistered. As such, the Court reversed the Appeals Panel decision because there was no probative, reliable, and substantial evidence the defendant knew the vehicle had been inappropriately registered by his employer.State of Rhode Island v. Louis Depina A.A. No. 12-170.pdf

Appeals Panel

Appeals Panel
12/17/2015
City of Providence v. Armais G. Kocharov, C.A. No. T15-0001 (December 17, 2015)

Operating an Unregistered Vehicle

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-3-1 (operation of vehicles without evidence of registration).  The Defendant maintained he presented the police officer with a bill of sale for his vehicle to account for the fact that the registration linked to the vehicle’s license plate did not match the vehicle.  The Defendant further contended that he had several days to correct the registration for the license plate.  The Panel reviewed the relevant statute addressing transferring registration from one vehicle to another Here, because the license plate was last registered in 2008 it did qualify for a permissible transfer of a valid registration from one car to another.  Therefore, the Panel found the trial judge was correct in sustaining the charged violation.

City of Providence v. Armais G. Kocharov, C.A. No. T15-0001 (December 17, 2015).pdf

Appeals Panel
08/20/2012
City of Cranston v. Louis Depina, C.A. No. T12-0018 (August 20, 2012) Operating an unregistered vehicle

Operating an Unregistered Vehicle

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-1 (operation of unregistered vehicle).  Defendant argued that he presented the Officer with a valid registration for the dealer plate that was affixed to the vehicle, which he claimed was registered to the company he was working for.  The Panel noted that the trial magistrate adopted the Officer’s testimony.  The Officer testified that he ran several checks on both the dealer plate and the vehicle and found both to be unregistered.  The Panel held that the Defendant’s testimony failed to rebut the Officer’s testimony that the dealer plate and vehicle were unregistered, and therefore the Defendant was knowingly operating an unregistered vehicle in violation of the statute.  Accordingly, the Panel sustained the charged violation.

City of Cranston v. Louis Depina, C.A. No. T12-0018 (August 20, 2012).pdf