STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION Michael Rhodes : : v. : A.A. No. 16 - 045 : Town of Burrillville : (RITT Appeals Panel) :
O R D E R
This matter is before the Court pursuant to 8-8-8.1 of the General Laws for review
of the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate.
After a de novo review of the record and the memoranda of counsel, the Court finds
that the Findings & Recommendations of the Magistrate are supported by the record, and
are an appropriate disposition of the facts and the law applicable thereto.
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,
that the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate are adopted by reference as the
Decision of the Court and the decision of the Appeals Panel is AFFIRMED IN PART and
REVERSED IN PART. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Traffic Tribunal for further
proceedings consistent with the attached opinion.
Entered as an Order of this Court at Providence on this 10th day of August, 2017.
By Order: ___/s/______________ Stephen C. Waluk Chief Clerk
Enter: ___/s/_____________ Jeanne E. LaFazia Chief Judge
1
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT
SIXTH DIVISION
Michael Rhodes :
:
v. : A.A. No. 2016-045
: (T13-0072)
Town of Burrillville : (13-416-501401)
(RITT Appeals Panel) :
F I N D I N G S & R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
Ippolito, M. When Officer Ryan Hughes of the Burrillville Police
Department stopped Mr. Michael Rhodes for speeding and other civil
traffic violations, he believed that he was in the midst of an especially
dangerous encounter. And so, he ordered the motorist out of his vehicle
at gunpoint, directed him down onto his knees, instructed him to lift his
shirt, handcuffed him, patted him down, and placed him in the rear of
his cruiser (while he searched the motorists car).
Perceiving certain indicia of the consumption of alcohol on the
person of Mr. Rhodes, the officer administered standard field sobriety
tests (FSTs), which, in the officers estimation, he failed; he also failed a
2
preliminary breath test (PBT). As a result, Officer Hughes decided to
formally arrest Mr. Rhodes for suspicion of driving under the influence.
Later, Mr. Rhodes was cited for the civil offense of refusal to submit to a
chemical test, in violation of Gen. Laws 1956 31-27-2.1, upon which he
was convicted by a magistrate of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal
(RITT). That conviction was affirmed by an RITT appeals panel.
Before this Court, Mr. Rhodes argues as he did at trial and
before the appeals panel that when he did as Officer Hughes
instructed, he was under arrest. He alleges that this arrest was illegal,
under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution, because the officer
was not in possession of facts from which he could form probable cause to
believe that Mr. Rhodes had committed an arrestable offense drunk-
driving or any other. And, since his arrest was unlawful, he urges that
all evidence collected as a result of that arrest should have been
suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment
(made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) and the
corresponding Rhode Island provision, which is found in Gen. Laws 1956
9-19-25.
The members of the appeals panel unanimously agreed that Mr.
3
Rhodes had been subjected to an illegal arrest, but a majority declined to
suppress the evidence which had been collected, for two reasons: first,
they held that both the federal and Rhode Island exclusionary rules do
not apply to the trial of civil traffic offenses, such as refusal to submit to
a chemical test; and second, they held that the evidence obtained was in
plain view and thereby not subject to suppression. The dissenting
member concluded that the exclusionary rule should apply to refusal
trials.
Jurisdiction for the instant appeal is vested in the District Court
by Gen. Laws 1956 31-41.1-9; the applicable standard of review is
found in Gen. Laws 1956 31-41.1-9(d). This matter has been referred to
me for the making of findings and recommendations pursuant to Gen.
Laws 1956 8-8-8.1.
For the reasons I will explain in this opinion, I shall recommend
that this Court find that the appeals panels substantive ruling that
Mr. Rhodes detention constituted a de facto arrest not supported by
probable cause and was illegal under both the Fourth Amendment and
Article I, Section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution was not clearly
erroneous. And while I agree with the appeals panel that the Fourth
Amendments exclusionary rule does not pertain to the trial of civil
4
traffic offenses, I have concluded that Rhode Islands statutory
exclusionary rule is applicable to refusal trials. I shall therefore
recommend to the Court that the decision rendered by the appeals panel
in Mr. Rhodes case be AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and
REMANDED to the Traffic Tribunal for further proceedings.
I
Facts and Travel of the Case
The facts of the incident which led to the charge of refusal to
submit to a chemical test being lodged against Mr. Rhodes are fully and
fairly stated in the decision of the appeals panel.
On October 5, 2013, at about 2:08 a.m., Officer Paul Hughes of the
Burrillville Police Department was patrolling on South Main Street
when he decided to stop a 1997 Saturn because it was speeding.1 He
activated the overhead lights on his marked police cruiser and reversed
course to follow the Saturn.2 But after he made the U-turn, he turned off
his overhead lights, in order to see the target vehicle more clearly.3
While in pursuit, the officer observed the Saturn commit additional
1 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 1 (citing Trial Transcript, at 6-7).
According to his radar instrument, the vehicle was travelling at a speed of
51 miles per hour in a 25-mph zone. Trial Transcript, at 11.
2 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 12).
3 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 15).
5
traffic violations.4 Then, about 30 seconds after he made his U-turn,
Officer Hughes reactivated his overhead lights.5 This prompted the
Saturn, which took another right turn without displaying a turn signal,
to halt.6
Based on the manner in which the Saturn was operating while he
was attempting to stop it, Officer Hughes believed himself to be in
danger.7 He therefore decided to employ a high risk protocol
pursuant to which he trained his weapon on Mr. Rhodes, ordered him
out of his vehicle and onto his knees; he also ordered him to lift up his
shirt.8 As Mr. Rhodes complied with these commands,9 another cruiser
4 The officer saw the Saturns tires cross over the streets painted lines,
run a stop sign and take a right turn without signaling. Decision of Appeals
Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 11, 14). The vehicle had also
accelerated to a speed far greater than 50 miles per hour. Trial Transcript,
at 13-14.
5 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 12, 15).
6 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 17). Officer
Hughes testified that the Saturn travelled 300-400 feet after he reengaged
his overhead lights. Trial Transcript, at 17. But, the officer conceded that
[o]nce the lights came on, he appropriately pulled over. Id., at 99.
7 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 18). Later,
during redirect examination, the officer commented that he was unable to
see inside the vehicle once it stopped. Trial Transcript, at 101.
8 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 2 (citing Trial Transcript, at 18-21). The
officer testified that they employ the high-risk protocol [w]henever we feel
potentially threatened. Trial Transcript, at 22.
9 Decision of Appeals Panel, at 3 (citing Trial Transcript, at 20). Indeed,
the officer described the motorist as being very compliant. Trial
6
arrived, carrying a Burrillville Police sergeant who took up a position
with his gun unholstered.10 With this support in place, Officer Hughes
holstered his weapon, approached Mr. Rhodes, and handcuffed him
telling the motorist that he was being detained, but was not under
arrest.11 The officer then patted-down the motorist, but found no
weapons.12
It is at this point that the accounts of Officer Hughes and Mr.
Rhodes diverge.
According to Officer Hughes, he removed the handcuffs
immediately after patting down Mr. Rhodes.13 He then began to question
Mr. Rhodes, first asking him why he was travelling outside the white
painted line; the motorist responded he was text messaging.14 In
