 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel. Town of South Kingstown v. Reilly2/2/2000
t's primary "task is to establish and effectuate the intent of the Legislature." Cardarelli v. Department of Employment Training, Board of Review, 674 A.2d 398, 400 (R.I. 1996) (quoting Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board v. Valley Falls Fire District, 505 A.2d 1170, 1171 (R.I. 1986)). In doing so, " his court will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result." Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I. 1996) (citing Beaudoin v. Petit, 122 R.I. 469, 476, 409 A.2d 536, 540 (1979)).
We conclude herein that the intent of the regulation was fulfilled and no technical violation of the Department of Health regulations occurred. The regulation requires that the second test be performed thirty minutes after the first test. The first test was recorded at 1:33 a.m. and the second test was recorded at 2:03 a.m. This was a sufficient period because the regulation requires the time interval to be measured only in minutes, not seconds. Further, the results of the second test revealed that defendant's blood alcohol content was slowly declining, yet was still well over the legal limit. This second reading validated the results of the first test and further evidenced that defendant was intoxicated at the time he was driving. Given these facts, we are satisfied that the town complied with the regulation.
Further, we held in Snyder that the failure to follow a procedural checklist for administering a test did not per se render the results invalid. Snyder, 692 A.2d at 706. "Rather, it must be demonstrated that the deviation from the 'checklist' actually affected the validity of the test results." Id. In the instant case, the validity of the results was never brought into question, but the defendant sought suppression of the results on the ground that there may have been technical noncompliance with the regulation. The trial judge erred in suppressing the results on this basis. To warrant the suppression of evidence of a chemical test, the validity of the results must be brought into question, even when technical compliance with the regulations is found to be wanting.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the order of the District Court is hereby quashed. The papers in this case may be remanded back to District Court with our decision endorsed thereon.
JUSTICES: Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, Goldberg, JJ. Concurring
Page 1 2 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|