 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dearmas2/13/2004
added.) Similarly, we are not bound by our sister states' interpretation of their analogous rules of criminal procedure, especially when the state cannot point to statutes in these other jurisdictions that are analogous to § 12-5-2. The state's position that Rule 41 provides the Superior Court with the requisite authority to issue search warrants to seize a blood sample might be more persuasive in the absence of § 12-5-2's "property" limitation on search warrants. But because our Constitution provides that the Superior Court's jurisdiction and authority is derived from statutes enacted by the Legislature, and that this authority cannot be extended by judicial interpretation, see Boss v. Sprague, 53 R.I. 1, 3, 162 A. 710, 711 (1932) (per curiam), or by the rules of procedure, see, e.g., Super. R. Civ. P. 82 (" hese rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the Superior Court or the venue of actions therein"), we must look to the statute, not the rule, in interpreting the breadth of the Superior Court's authority and jurisdiction to issue search warrants for the seizure of blood. Indeed, Rule 41(h) itself provides that " his rule does not modify any act, inconsistent with it, regulating search, seizure and the issuance and execution of search warrants in circumstances for which special provision is made."
We also endeavor to harmonize statutes and rules that address the same subject matter when we are asked to interpret them. Thus, we should attempt to construe both the statute and the rule in a manner that avoids a conflict between the scope of their respective authorizations. Likewise, when we are faced with statutory provisions that are in pari materia, we construe them in a manner that attempts to harmonize them and that is consistent with their general objective scope. E.g., Shelter Harbor Fire District v. Vacca, 835 A.2d 446, 449 (R.I. 2003) (per curiam); In re Petition for Review Pursuant to § 39-1-30 of Ordinance Adopted by City of Providence, 745 A.2d 769, 773-74 (R.I. 2000); State v. Souza, 456 A.2d 775, 781 (R.I. 1983). This approach is equally useful when construing a statute and a court rule that address the same subject. See City of Warwick v. Adams, 772 A.2d 476, 481 (R.I. 2001) (per curiam) (refusing to construe statute and District Court Rule in inconsistent manner). Therefore, we refuse to interpret Rule 41's definition of the word "property" as including "any other tangible objects" to authorize the seizure of blood samples. Such an interpretation would conflict with our construction of the word "property" in § 12-5-2 as not including blood seized from people suspected of committing a crime without obtaining their consent to do so.
Although it is well settled that when a statute conflicts with a rule of court, the rule controls, Heal v. Heal, 762 A.2d 463, 467 (R.I. 2000), Rule 41 and the search-warrant statute do not conflict. Although the statute does not define the term "property," Rule 41(h) explains that "property" includes "documents, books, papers and any other tangible objects." These provisions would conflict, therefore, only if we adopted the state's position and construed the term "other tangible objects" in Rule 41 to encompass blood samples seized from unwilling defendants in connection with criminal cases.
The interpretive doctrines of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis also support our conclusion that Rule 41's definition of "property" does not extend to blood samples. "Under the doctrine of 'noscitur a sociis , ' the meaning of questionable or doubtful words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of other words or phrases associated with it." Wigginton v. Centracchio, 787 A.2d 1151, 1155 (R.I.
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.
|
|