Recent Posts in Refusal Lawyer Category

As reported by Paul Edward Parker in the August 24, 2010 edition of the Providence Journal, the Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is relocating.  The DMV's headquarters are moving from Pawtucket to Cranston, more specifically to 600 New London Avenue.  This is the same area as the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.

Included in the new headquarters is space for Operator Control.  Operator Control handles all drivers' license and registration suspensions.  The most common reason for license and/or registration suspension is a drunk driving charge ("DUI") or refusal to submit to a chemical test charge ("Refusal").  A common penalty for both DUI and Refusal cases is some form of license suspension.  Pursuant to Rhode Island General Law 31-27-2 the license suspension can be three (3) to eighteen (18) months loss of license for a 1^st Offense DUI, depending on the blood alcohol levels.  Pursuant to Rhode Island General Law 31-27-21., a 1^st Offense Refusal carries with it a license suspension of six (6) to twelve (12) months. 

Once the license suspension period has ended, Operator Control is in charge of license reinstatement.  A fee must be paid to Operator Control before license reinstatement occurs.   Drivers with out-of-state licenses will have their privilege to operate motor vehicle in Rhode Island revoked if they are charged with DUI or Refusal. They too must pay a fee in order to get their privilege to operate reinstated.

As reported by Kate Bramson and Maria Armental in the August 24, 2010 edition of the Providence Journal, the police are cracking down on drunk and impaired drivers.  The Rhode Island State Police and local law enforcement are conducting a "You Drink & Drive, You Lose" campaign from August 20^th through September 6^th.   Thus far, the crackdown has led to twenty-one (21) arrests.  The Rhode Island State Police arrested the most people, 7 in total, both Providence and Cranston Police Departments arrested 6 and South Kingstown arrested. Nearly all of those arrested, were men, ranging in age from 24-52.

In order to process the increased number of drunk driving arrests, the police received help from Massachusetts.  The Massachusetts State Police allowed Rhode Island to use a mobile Breath Alcohol Vehicle (BAT), which can measure the blood alcohol level of multiple suspects at one time.  It also allows police to measure suspect's alcohol levels in the field, instead of taking them back to the station.

If you or a family member has been charged with drunk driving or Refusal to submit to a chemical test, please allow Attorney Robert H. Humphrey's reputation, experience and skill to successfully guide you through the legal process.  Contact Robert H. Humphrey at 401-816-5862 or e-mail him at rhh@rhumphreylaw.com.

After a serious automobile accident in the town of Coventry, Rhode Island, our client was charged with drunk driving ("DUI"), Refusal to submit to a chemical test, laned roadway violation, and leaving the lane of travel.

At the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, the Chief Magistrate dismissed the Refusal charge and both traffic violations based on our argument that the motorist was  misinformed of the Rights and Penalties associated with a Refusal charge.  The Penalties associated with a 1st Offense Refusal to submit to a chemical test include:

• $200.00 to $500.00 fine;
• Six (6) to twelve (12) months loss of license;
• Ten (10) to sixty (60) hours of community service;
• DWI School; and
• Costs and Assessments.

After a trial before the 3^rd Division District Court, the Judge held that based on our cross-examination of the Arresting Officer, the State was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that our client was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs to a degree which rendered him incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle despite the fact he had operated a motor vehicle which had been involved in a serious accident.  Penalties for a 1^st Offense DUI observation charge include:

• Imprisonment for up to one (1) year;
• $100.00  to $400.00 fine;
• Three (3) to twelve (12) months loss of license;
• Ten (10) to sixty (60) hours of community service;
• DWI School or Treatment; and
• Costs and Assessments.

In any drunk driving ("DUI", "DWI", "OUI") case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, five (5) key elements:

• That the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the suspect's vehicle or to seize the suspect;

• That the police can prove that the defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle;

• That the police have probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated;

• That the police can prove that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs to a degree which rendered him incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle; and

• That the police can prove compliance with the defendant's rights pursuant to R.I.G.L 31-27-3.

As reported by Mark Reynolds in the July 22, 2010 edition of the Providence Journal, a local restaurant owner pled not guilty to charges stemming from an April car accident. He is facing three charges, leaving the scene of an accident-death resulting, reckless driving-death resulting and driving without a license.  He crashed his car into barrels and a Jersey barrier and then fled on foot.  The man was observed fleeing from the scene after the accident, but later turned himself into police.  The victim was one of his employees, a chef at his restaurant. 

The man's license was suspended in Rhode Island because of an earlier refusal to submit to a chemical test charge from Arizona.  Although the man was released on bail, he is not permitted to drive a motor vehicle. 

As reported by Amanda Milkovits in July 13, 2010 edition of the Providence Journal, a Massachusetts man was in an unusual car accident.  The man went the wrong way on a one way street and then ignoring signs, went through a construction zone and off a bridge "that wasn't there."  The man's car went off the ramp that used to allow access to Route 195.  A construction crew had been dismantling the old bridge and it no longer existed. The car fell more than 10 feet onto another construction site and was badly damaged.  At the scene of the accident, the driver failed a field sobriety test and refused a chemical breathalyzer test.  He was charged with Refusal and traffic violations, including driving the wrong way. 

In its June 22, 2010 decision the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Commonwealth v. Limone reversed the Defendant's conviction for a fourth or subsequent drunk driving offense and held that "a police officer's power to make a warrantless arrest is generally limited to the boundaries of the jurisdiction in which the officer is employed, and, absent fresh pursuit for an arrestable offense, a police officer is generally without authority to make an arrest outside of his jurisdiction.  Outside his jurisdictional boundaries, a police officer stands as a private citizen, and, if not in fresh and continued pursuit of a suspect, an arrest by him is valid only if a private citizen would be justified in making the arrest under the same circumstances.  In this case the defendant was suspected only of a misdemeanor motor vehicle offense.  It was subsequent investigation that disclosed the defendant had been convicted on at least six prior occasions of operating while under the influence of liquor.  Thus, the seizure of the defendant was unlawful.  The remedy for such an unlawful stop and arrest is exclusion of the evidence under the 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.'  In this case, since the only evidence would have not been obtained but for the unlawful stop and subsequent arrest the judgments are reversed, the verdicts are set aside and judgments are to be entered for the defendant."

The Limone decision is based in large part upon the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 1990 decision in Commonwealth v. LeBlanc in which the Court held that a police officer had no authority to make a warrantless arrest outside of his jurisdiction when the offense for which he pursued the motorist across the jurisdictional boundary was a non-arrestable traffic violation.  In addition, the Court held that the police officer had no authority to pursue and stop a motorist over the boundary of the officer's jurisdiction in order to deliver a citation for a non-arrestable traffic violation.

In any drunk driving case a question may arise as to whether the arresting officer had authority to apprehend the suspected drunk driver in another jurisdiction.   In Rhode Island the statutes controlling extraterritorial warrantless arrests are R.I.G.L. 12-7-19 (Arrest after close pursuit by officers from cities or towns) and R.I.G.L. 45-42-1 (Emergency police power).  The close pursuit statute states that "any member of a municipal peace unit of another city or town of the state who enters any city or town in close pursuit, of a person in order to arrest him or her for a violation of the motor vehicle code in the other city or town and continues within any city or town in close pursuit, shall have the same authority to arrest and hold the person in custody as members of the municipal peace unit in any city or town."  The intent of the close pursuit statute is to allow a police officer from one Rhode Island community to enter into another Rhode Island community if in close pursuit of a suspect for an arrestable offense.  The intent of the statue was upheld in the 2001 decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court in State v. Kinder.  In Kinder, the Court held that "based on the totality of the circumstances, town police officer had probable cause to arrest defendant within town and to charge him with reckless driving, and thus, officer had authority to closely pursue defendant into nearby city to make the same arrest, under statute authorizing out-of-jurisdiction arrest after close pursuit, where officer observed the defendant driving 65 miles per hour (mph) in a 25 mph zone and move from traveling lane to passing lane without signaling, narrowly avoiding collision with another vehicle."

The emergency police powers statute states that "when the police chief of a city or town within the state or his or her designee requests emergency police assistance from another police department within the state, the officers responding to the request shall be subject to the authority of the requesting chief and have the same authority, powers, duties, privileges, and immunities of a duly appointed police officer of the city or town making the request, until the requesting chief of police discharges and releases the assisting police officers to their own departments."  The intent of the emergency police powers statute was upheld in the case of State v. Ceraso, in which a Newport police officer was instructed by his superior officer to respond to a roll-over accident that had occurred on the Jamestown side of the Newport Bridge.  Upon his arrival, the Newport police officer "observed a scene of absolute chaos."  After setting up a roadblock, the Newport police officer observed a vehicle, driven by Mr. Ceraso, fail to obey  his command to stop at the roadblock and the vehicle sped by him in an erratic manner.  Subsequently, Mr. Ceraso was stopped by another Newport police officer and arrested for drunk driving.  The Rhode Island Supreme Court in upholding the drunk driver's conviction held that the "officer was justified in stopping the vehicle pursuant to the emergency police power exception to the general rule that the authority of the local police department is limited to its own jurisdiction."

In both Massachusetts and Rhode Island drunk driving cases the question of extraterritorial warrantless stops and arrests are always an important issue and may be fatal to the State's prosecution of these serious cases.  If you or a family member have been charged with drunk driving, refusal to submit to a chemical test or other driving related violations please allow Attorney Robert H. Humphrey's reputation, experience and skill to successfully guide you through the legal process.  Contact Robert H. Humphrey at 401-816-5862 or e-mail him at rhh@rhumphreylaw.com.

In its June 22, 2010 decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the guilty verdict imposed by a Superior Court Jury which found the defendant "guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle after revocation of his license.  The same Jury found the Defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, fourth or subsequent offense."  The Massachusetts Appeals Court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, which included the field sobriety and breath test results, on the grounds that the Officer had conducted an unlawful extraterritorial stop and arrest of the Defendant while he was off duty and outside his jurisdiction.  After his vehicle was struck by the Defendant, the Officer did the following:  "(1) direct[ed] the defendant to step out of the vehicle; (2) direct[ed] the defendant to get back in his vehicle and to wait for the police; and (3) remov[ed] the keys from the ignition of the defendant's vehicle."  The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Officer's actions constituted a seizure under the 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.  In its analysis the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that "a police officer's power to make a warrantless arrest is generally limited to the boundaries of the jurisdiction in which the Officer is employed, Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 407 Mass. 70, 72 (1990), and, absent fresh pursuit for an arrestable offense, a police officer is generally without authority to make an arrest outside his jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Savage, 430 Mass. at 343."

I am honored to have recently addressed the Rhode Island Bar Association in both Providence and Wakefield regarding the successful prosecution and defense of drunk driving (DUI, DWI, OUI) and Refusal cases.  As the Country strives for more stringent drunk driving laws, it is important for both prosecutors and defense attorneys to be aware of the most recent case law in connection with drunk driving and/or Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test cases.  This continuing legal education program focused on the issues beyond the basics of these types of complicated cases.  Significant recent cases addressing the admissibility of chemical test results, the admissibility of the standardized field sobriety tests, and the suspect's statutory and constitutional rights to a timely release on bail were analyzed.  Emphasis was given to the teaching of advanced trial techniques and practice pointers for the successful prosecution and defense of DUI and Refusal cases.

The law of drunk driving and refusal to submit to a chemical test is an ever evolving area of the law.  If you or a family member has been charged with drunk driving (DUI, DWI, OUI) or refusal to submit to a chemical test in Newport County (Jamestown, Little Compton, Middletown, Newport, Portsmouth, Tiverton), Washington County (Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton, Narragansett, New Shoreham, North Kingstown, Richmond, South Kingstown, Westerly), Kent County (Coventry, Cranston, East Greenwich, Foster, Johnston , Scituate, Warwick, West Greenwich, West Warwick), or Providence County (Barrington, Bristol, Burrillville, Central Falls, Cumberland, East Providence, Glocester, Lincoln, North Providence, North Smithfield, Pawtucket, Providence, Smithfield, Warren, Woonsocket), please allow Attorney Robert H. Humphrey's reputation, experience and skill to successfully guide you through the legal process.  Contact Robert H. Humphrey, Esq. at 401-816-5862 or e-mail him at rhh@rhumphreylaw.com