 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dearmas2/13/2004
nt and issued a seizure order to that effect. Id. at 898. This Court affirmed that order, noting that although its timing was unusual in that the court issued the order during the middle of a trial, the court possessed the authority to do so provided the test or order did not impinge on the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 899. The Court, however, did not address the effect of the "property" limitation on warrants issued under § 12-5-2 and whether that limitation applied to a mid-trial motion to seize the defendant's blood because the defendant did not raise this issue.
In any event, the issue in this case involves a Superior Court trial justice's authority to issue not merely a blood-seizure order but also a search warrant authorizing the state to seize a sample of petitioner's blood. We are not faced with the question of whether, as in Souza, a trial justice can issue a mid-trial order to seize a blood sample from the defendant after the court has quashed a search warrant to do so. Therefore, our disposition in this case is not controlled by Souza, in which the blood-seizure order did not involve the issuance of a search warrant. Moreover, a potentially significant distinction exists between court orders requiring the defendant to furnish a blood sample and an order or warrant authorizing the state to seize blood from an unwilling suspect or defendant. In the former situation, the defendant presumably still retains the right to defy the order by refusing to provide the sample, thereby placing himself or herself in potential contempt of the court. With respect to a blood-seizure order or a warrant authorizing the seizure of a blood sample, however, the person affected has no choice in the matter: the authorities can and will proceed to extract his or her blood by force, if necessary.
The state further contends that even if a blood sample does not constitute "property" under § 12-5-2, Rule 41 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the Superior Court to issue a warrant for the search and seizure of a blood sample. Like § 12-5-2, Rule 41(b)(4), states that a warrant may issue "to search for and seize any property * * * hich is evidence of the commission of a crime." But unlike the statute, Rule 41(h) proceeds to define the term "'property,' * * * to include documents, books, papers and any other tangible objects."
To support its Rule 41 argument, the state cites to decisions from other jurisdictions that interpret their analogue to Rule 41 as permitting a court to issue a search warrant to seize a blood sample. E.g., United States v. Allen, 337 F. Supp. 1041, 1043 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (noting, in the context of Rule 41, that "blood, hair and other bodily components are objects to be seized only through the warrant process"); State v. Taylor, 438 A.2d 1279, 1281 (Me. 1982) (holding that blood was tangible property subject to the provisions of Rule 41). In addition, the state cites to decisions from other jurisdictions opining that blood qualifies as a "tangible object." See People v. Epps, 227 Cal. Rptr. 625, 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986); Cox v. State, 473 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985); People v. King, 663 N.Y.S.2d 610, 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997).
Although this Court often looks to the interpretation of analogous federal rules of procedure when construing and applying our own procedural rules, we are not bound by the federal courts' interpretations. See Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp., 489 A.2d 336, 339 (R.I. 1985) ("This court has stated previously that where the federal rule and our state rule of procedure are substantially similar, we will look to the federal courts for guidance or interpretation of our own rule."). (Emphasis
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|