A Resource for Researching RI District Court and Traffic Tribunal Decisions This website allows attorneys, students, researchers, and anyone interested in Rhode Island District Court and Traffic Tribunal case law to research Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Appeals Panel decisions and pertinent Rhode Island District Court decisions.

Jul 21, 2022 · Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel. *Note: The District Court mentioned that Defendant may be able to file a Motion to Vacate pursuant to Rule 20 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure as an avenue to put his reasons for missing the hearing on his appeal into the record. Irwin Jacobowitz v.

Sep 9, 2022 · The District Court held that, pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure, the arraigning judge was fully authorized to enter a default judgment against Defendant and the court was similarly authorized to deny the Motion to Vacate when Defendant failed to appear to argue it.

Jan 9, 2020 · Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court denying defendant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order filed pursuant to Traffic Tribunal Rule of Procedure 20(e). Defendant pled guilty to R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (“refusal to submit to a chemical test”) on September 5, 1985.

Feb 27, 2019 · The District Court held that § 8-8.2-2(a) provides the Traffic Tribunal with subject-matter jurisdiction over the charged violations. Furthermore, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that sovereign state citizens are subject to Rhode Island’s traffic laws when they are traveling on public highways. State v.

Feb 23, 2022 · Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (“laned roadways”). Defendant argued that the trial court failed to make any factual findings on the record and that the testimony …

Apr 12, 2018 · Defendant appealed the decision of the Middletown Municipal Court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). The Court held that a defect in the summons did not preclude the Court from sustaining the charge against the defendant.

May 6, 2019 · The Appeals Panel noted that Rule 11(b) “requires that the court issue an order for discovery.” Because there was no record of any such order issued by the court, let alone a Motion to Compel filed and granted by the court, the Appeals Panel concluded that there was no violation of Rule 11, making dismissal by the trial judge premature.

Apr 21, 2016 · The Court went on to note that even if additional information was extracted from the witness, the trial judge did not make note of it on the record and, therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced. However, the Court reversed the violation on other grounds. Richard DiPrete v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 10-0173 (September 29, 2011).pdf

Jul 14, 2022 · Defendant appealed the decision of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal trial court sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding – first offense). At trial, the testifying officer stated that he had received training in the use of the radar unit and that “prior to [his] patrol, it was calibrated both internally and externally ...