 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Carcieri.5/18/1999
The case comes before us pursuant to a certified question relative to the interpretation of G.L. 1956 § 12-7-20, which provides that an arrestee must be afforded an opportunity to make a confidential telephone call as soon as practical after his arrest. Following a pre-trial conference relative to defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint charging him with driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2, a Judge of the District Court determined that the questions raised during the hearing were of considerable doubt and importance, and that she was unable to reach a satisfactory Conclusion to the questions presented. As a result, an order was issued certifying the following five questions to the Supreme Court:
1. "Is the right to a confidential telephone call provided for in RIGL 12-7-20, violated when a defendant is deprived of an opportunity to converse privately with an attorney?"
2. "Is the right to a confidential telephone call provided for in RIGL 12-7-20, violated when a police officer is present during the telephone conversation?"
3. "Is the right to a confidential telephone call provided for in RIGL 12-7-20, violated when a police officer does not notify the defendant of his right to a confidential telephone call?"
4. "Is the right to a confidential telephone call provided for in RIGL 12-7-20, violated where the defendant is deprived of an opportunity to converse privately with someone other than an attorney?"
5. "If the right to a confidential telephone call provided for in RIGL 12-7-20 is violated, is the defendant entitled to dismissal of the charge of driving under the influence , RIGL 31-27-2?"
Facts and Travel
According to the certification order, Jerome Carcieri (Carcieri) was arrested and detained by the Smithfield police on January 8, 1998, for suspicion of DUI in violation of § 31-27-2. Arresting officers provided Carcieri with a one-page statement entitled "Rights For Use At Station" which outlined the official procedures facing a DUI suspect under detention by Smithfield police. The form also included a list of mandatory sanctions that would be imposed "if the charge is sustained." Finally, the form included a phrase which informed the suspect that he "may now use the telephone." The Town of Smithfield asserts that Carcieri was then offered the choice of a pay telephone or a "recorded line," at which time Carcieri made three telephone calls using the pay telephone in an unsuccessful effort to contact an attorney. The trial Justice found that during Carcieri's futile attempts to reach an attorney, an officer stood approximately eight feet away from him. Carcieri subsequently reached a friend using the recorded telephone line, while an officer stood at a distance of approximately five feet.
On February 23, 1998, Carcieri moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that he had been denied the opportunity to make a confidential telephone call in violation of § 12-7-20, and also moved to certify several questions to this Court. The trial Justice agreed with Carcieri that the questions warranted certification to this Court and issued an order on April 14, 1998 to that effect.
Certified Questions
Before addressing the merits of the certified questions, we take this opportunity to reiterate this Court's role when confronted with certified questions. General Laws 1956 § 9-24-27 provides in pertinent part:
"Whenever in any proceedings * * * in the uperior court or in any istrict court, any question of law shall arise * * * which, in the opinion of the court * * * is of such doubt and importance and so affects the merits of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|