|
|
« Carny charged with failing to register as sex offender | Today | Woonsocket gets $502,000 drug-abuse prevention grant » June 26, 2008High court: Stiffer penalties apply to breath-test refusalsPROVIDENCE — The state Supreme Court today ruled that harsher penalties approved in 2006 do apply to motorists who refuse to take Breathalyzer tests. In making the ruling, the high court rejected the argument that the new penalties were wiped out when Governor Carcieri signed a budget bill containing the law’s old language. Justice Paul A. Suttell began the court’s 13-page opinion with a quote: “If you like laws and sausage, you should never watch either one being made.” Suttell said, “Otto von Bismark’s laconic observation is apropos to this appeal in which we are asked to consider two legislative acts passed in the waning days of the 2005-2006 session of the General Assembly.” Before the penalties changed, nearly 85 percent of motorists suspected of drunken driving in Rhode Island were refusing to submit to Breathalyzer tests, while the national average was 25 percent. So in 2006, the General Assembly passed a law aimed at cracking down on those who refused to take the tests. For first offenses, the law doubled the minimum license suspension to six months, and it made subsequent offenses criminal rather than civil. For second offenses, the law provided penalties of up to six months in prison, fines of up to $1,000 and up to 100 hours of community service. Governor Carcieri signed the bill on June 28, 2006. And two days later, he signed the annual budget bill, which added a $200 assessment for refusing a Breathalyzer test but did not include the stiffer penalties contained in the other legislation. -- Journal staff writer Edward Fitzpatrick Three men charged with Breathalyzer refusal — Theodore H. Such Jr., Eric Ahlborg and Robert MacDonald — asked then-Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Fortunato Jr. to declare “which of these amendments would control in penal actions brought by prosecutors against them.” And in January 2007, Fortunato, who has since retired, ruled that the budget bill was the “controlling statute.” The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold, pending an appeal. And during oral arguments in May, Pawtucket lawyer and former House Speaker John B. Harwood argued that the budget bill amended the penalties back to their prior level — except for adding the $200 assessment. Harwood told the court, “A law doesn’t become a law until it reaches the governor’s desk.” But in today’s ruling, the Supreme Court noted that while the governor signed the refusal bill first, the Assembly passed the budget bill one day before it passed the refusal bill. “Thus, at the point in the legislative process when both the House and the Senate passed the budget bill, said bill contained the correct language of the refusal statute as it then existed,” Suttell wrote. “The timing of the governor’s signature is irrelevant under the specific set of facts before us. As plaintiffs point out, the ‘Rhode Island Constitution vests legislative authority exclusively in the General Assembly.’ ” The court said the governor does not have the power to repeal one of two bills simply by signing one before the other. Plus, Suttell wrote, “Our task in construing statutes is to give effect to legislative intent, not gubernatorial intent.” The Supreme Court concluded that the Assembly never intended for the budget bill to negate the refusal bill. “The budget bill and the refusal bill were passed in the same legislative session — indeed, one day apart by the General Assembly — and they address the same subject matter,” Suttell wrote. “This court presumes they were actuated by the same policy and that the General Assembly intended them to have effect together.” Posted by Brandie Jefferson CommentsTom Smith | June 26, 2008 12:25 PM link I wonder now that the issue has been decided weather the application of the new interpretation is retroactive to those individuals who had the refusal dismissed because the documents they signed outlining the penalty for refusal did not match the law at that time? Also, what about someone who for example may have pleaded the DUI down to a lesser charge after having the refusal dismissed? Anyone know? Courtney Miller | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM link Finally this nonsense is over. Judge Lillian Almeida allowed this to grow into a massive problem at RITT. There are a staggering number of backlogged cases now. What a mess. Bill | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM link What this state needs is implied consent (the fact that you accept a drivers license implies your consent to be tested; refusal equals immediate loss of license and then you go to court). Drunk driving in this state is a recognized sport, despite the best efforts of the law enforcement community. Just another reason Smith Hill needs a thorough cleaning. John Horan | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM link Thanks for the informed comments Tom, Bill, and John. As a newcomer to the state, I am dumbfounded by the lax enforcement of DUI and other traffic violations. I know this is partly cultural, but I see an upside to revenues, safety and lower insurance premiums in better traffic enforcement. Crispy | June 26, 2008 4:21 PM link Nobody is doing anybody any favors by letting DUIs and breathalyzer refusals get off with a naughty, naughty, slap, slap. My friend's husband lost his license briefly from a DUI but continued to drink even after he got it back. A year later he died, having blown out his liver. Game over. The sooner these guys get hit with a 2x4 across the forehead, the better, before they kill themselves or somebody else. www.rhodeisland-aa.org | June 26, 2008 6:23 PM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
"The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold, pending an appeal. And during oral arguments in May, Pawtucket lawyer and former House Speaker John B. Harwood argued that the budget bill amended the penalties back to their prior level — except for adding the $200 assessment. Harwood told the court, “A law doesn’t become a law until it reaches the governor’s desk.”
This is what is wrong with the drunk driving laws of RI. The same guys making the laws are also making money defending people from them. Putting loopholes in laws for future use.