CHARGES: Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-27-2.1), Speeding, and First Offense DUI (R.I. Gen. Laws §31-27-2)
At Marin & Murphy Law Firm, we believe every client deserves a defense built on the actual facts — not the story the prosecution wants to tell. On March 11, 2026, that principle produced a not guilty verdict in the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, followed by dismissal of a concurrent DUI charge in District Court. Every charge this client faced was eliminated. Every consequence was avoided. And the key piece of evidence that made it happen was introduced by the State.
What the Client Was Facing
Our client came to us facing three separate charges arising from a single traffic stop: refusal to submit to a chemical test under R.I. Gen. Laws §31-27-2.1, a speeding violation, and a first offense DUI charge under §31-27-2. The refusal and speeding charges proceeded civilly before a magistrate in the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal. The DUI charge was pending in District Court.
The stakes were real. A finding of guilty on the first offense refusal charge alone would have meant a mandatory license suspension of six to twelve months, significant fines and fees, community service, mandatory DUI education, and all of the collateral consequences that follow — insurance rate increases, employment complications, and a five-year mark on the driving record. A DUI conviction would have added criminal exposure on top of that.
This was not a case where the client had an obvious out. There had been a refusal. The officer had made an arrest. The State had a case file and a witness. What the State also had, though they may not have fully appreciated it at the time, was body camera footage.
The Defense Theory
Under Rhode Island law, the State must establish three elements to sustain a chemical test refusal charge: that the officer came into lawful contact with the defendant, that the officer reasonably believed the defendant was operating under the influence, and that the officer properly administered the rights advisory and the defendant refused the test. All three elements must be proven. The failure of any one of them is fatal to the charge.
Attorney Murphy identified early that the second element — reasonable belief of impairment — was the weakest point in the State’s case, and potentially unwinnable for the prosecution on the actual facts.
There was no erratic driving. The client was approached while already in a parking lot. There was no odor of alcohol reported. There was no slurred speech. There was no unsteady gait. Field sobriety testing had been administered, and the client’s performance on those tests did not establish impairment. Critically, every one of these facts was captured on the arresting officer’s own body camera.
When the State introduced that footage, they handed the defense its most powerful exhibit.
The Trial
The case was tried before a magistrate in the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal over two days. The State called one witness — the arresting officer — and introduced the body camera footage as part of its case. Attorney Murphy cross-examined the officer and challenged the admission of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, raising objections to its foundation and reliability as the evidence was being offered.
The client did not testify. There was no need. The State’s own evidence made the defense’s argument more effectively than any witness could have.
The speeding charge had its own vulnerability. The State failed to provide sufficient testimony to establish the essential elements of the violation, consistent with the standard articulated in State v. Sprague. The magistrate dismissed the speeding charge on that basis — which further dismantled the premise that the stop had escalated into a legitimate DUI investigation.
At closing argument, Attorney Murphy focused the magistrate’s attention on a straightforward proposition: the State had not produced a single credible indicator of intoxication. Not in the officer’s testimony. Not in the field sobriety testing. And not in the video the State itself had chosen to introduce. When the body camera footage shows clear speech, steady balance, and composed behavior, the officer’s conclusions cannot carry the weight the prosecution needs them to carry.
The magistrate took additional time to review the evidence before issuing a decision — and found the client not guilty on all Traffic Tribunal charges.
What Happened Next
Following the not guilty verdicts in the Traffic Tribunal, the State dismissed the DUI charge pending in District Court. Without probable cause to support the arrest — a finding implicit in the Traffic Tribunal’s verdict — there was no viable path forward for the criminal case.
Every charge was gone. The client’s license, which had been suspended at arraignment pending resolution of the refusal case (with a hardship license granted during the pendency of the matter), was reinstated. There is no conviction. There is no suspension. There is no DUI on this client’s record.
Why This Case Matters for Others Facing Refusal Charges
The most important thing this case demonstrates is that a refusal charge is not automatically a conviction. The State still has to prove its case — and that means proving every statutory element, including that the officer had a reasonable basis to believe impairment existed in the first place.
Many people facing refusal charges assume the refusal itself is the whole story. It is not. The circumstances of the stop, the observable evidence of impairment, the field sobriety testing, and any available video footage all matter — and they can all be challenged. In this case, the video the State introduced became the clearest evidence that the threshold element of impairment had not been established. This aligns directly with the probable cause framework established in State v. Corcoran (R.I. 2022), in which the Rhode Island Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the circumstances of a DUI investigation must support custodial justification at every stage.
Attorney Murphy is a member of the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) and a Super Lawyers selectee. She edited A Practical Guide to Trying DUI Cases in Rhode Island (MCLE New England, 2nd Ed. 2024) — Rhode Island’s definitive DUI trial guide used by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges statewide — and authored the chapter specifically covering refusal cases. In 2025, she was invited by the Rhode Island Municipal Police Training Academy to lecture incoming police recruits on DUI enforcement and chemical test refusal procedure. She has also been cited by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly as an independent authority on refusal civil trials, explaining why the evidentiary standards at the Traffic Tribunal make these cases uniquely challenging to defend — and uniquely winnable when the right issues are identified. She has won dozens of refusal cases at the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal and is among a small number of attorneys in the state with documented not guilty verdicts at contested refusal trials.
If You Are Facing a Chemical Test Refusal Charge in Rhode Island
A not guilty verdict in a refusal trial is not a common outcome — it requires preparation, the right defense theory, and the ability to cross-examine effectively when the moment arrives. It also requires an attorney who understands the statutory framework well enough to identify which element the State cannot prove.
At Marin & Murphy Law Firm, we have defended hundreds of chemical test refusal cases in Rhode Island, and our case results reflect consistent success at the Traffic Tribunal. We appear regularly before the magistrates who decide these cases, and we know how to evaluate whether the State can actually meet its burden — or whether the facts support taking a case to trial.
If you or someone you know has been charged with a chemical test refusal in Rhode Island, contact us immediately. Early intervention matters. Call us 24/7 at (401) 228-8271 or email mm@matthewtmarin.com. The consultation is free and confidential.
CASE RESULT: Not guilty verdict — chemical test refusal and speeding charges dismissed in the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal. DUI charge subsequently dismissed by the State in District Court. No conviction, no license suspension, no fines, no DUI education requirement. License reinstated.
Practice area(s):
Chemical Test Refusal, DUI Defense, DUI Trials
Court: Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal / Rhode Island District Court
Resolved: March 11, 2026
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is evaluated on its own facts and circumstances. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Stefanie A. Murphy
Stefanie A. Murphy, Esq.
Attorney Stefanie A. Murphy is a Rhode Island criminal defense attorney with over 20 years of experience defending clients in Rhode Island District Court, Superior Court, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. She serves as Editor and Co-Author of A Practical Guide to Trying DUI Cases in Rhode Island (MCLE New England, 2nd Ed. 2024) — the authoritative DUI trial manual used by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges throughout the state — and authored the chapter specifically covering chemical test refusal cases. A member of the National College for DUI Defense and a Super Lawyers selectee, Attorney Murphy was invited by the Rhode Island Municipal Police Training Academy to lecture incoming police recruits on DUI enforcement and chemical test refusal procedure. She has won dozens of refusal cases at the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, secured a not guilty verdict in a high-profile murder trial prosecuted by the Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office, and has been quoted repeatedly by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly as an authority on DUI law and criminal procedure. She has been featured in more than ten Providence Journal articles covering criminal defense matters across Rhode Island.
