A warrant may be issued under this chapter to search for and seize any of the following:
(1) Property stolen or embezzled, or obtained by any false pretense, or pretenses, with
intent to cheat or defraud within this state, or elsewhere;
(2) Property kept, suffered to be kept, concealed, deposited, or possessed in violation
of law, or for the purpose of violating the law;
(3) Property designed or intended for use, or that is or has been used, in violation of
law, or as a means of committing a violation of law;
(4) Property that is evidence of the commission of a crime;
(5) Samples of blood, saliva, hair, bodily tissues, bodily fluids, or dental impressions
from the body of a person that may yield evidence of the identity of the perpetrator
of a crime when subjected to scientific or other forensic analysis. The foregoing
samples, and the results of any scientific or other forensic analysis, shall be admissible
in all criminal proceedings, subject to application of the rules of evidence and criminal
procedure. When any of the foregoing samples are seized for scientific or forensic
analysis, the seizure shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations, guidelines,
or protocols of the department of health or the state crime laboratory, as may be
appropriate under the circumstances;
(6) Samples of blood or breath that may yield evidence of the presence of alcohol or a
controlled substance when subjected to a chemical test, as contemplated in § 31-27-2. When any of the foregoing samples are seized for purposes of performing the aforementioned
chemical test, the seizure shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations of
the department of health that apply to the consensual collection of such a sample
for purposes of the chemical test contemplated by § 31-27-2; or
(7) Property of a respondent under chapter 8.3 of title 8 where firearms may be under the possession, custody, or control of the respondent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
State v. Dearmas, 841 A.2d 659 (R.I. 2004).
State v. Dearmas, 841 A.2d 659 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 26× “In asking us to quash the blood-seizure order and search warrant, the petitioner argues that the Superior Court exceeded its authority in granting the motion and issuing the warrant because a blood sample does not constitute “property” as that term is used in G.L. 1956 § 12-5-2,…”
State v. DiStefano, 764 A.2d 1156 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 25× “1 from obtaining samples of a defendant's breath, blood or urine pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant, procured pursuant to G.L. § 12-5-2, following a defendant's refusal to consent to the taking thereof.”
State v. Gomes, 881 A.2d 97 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 12× “On September 30, 1999, a District Court judge issued the search warrant pursuant to G.L.1956 § 12-5-2, as amended by P.L.1972, ch.”
State v. Malcolm Querido (R.I. 2020).
· cites it 9× “-8- In Dearmas, this Court grappled with the extent of the court’s warrant authority under § 12-5-2, which, at the time, authorized courts to issue a search warrant for the seizure of “property” that was “evidence of the commission of a crime.”
State v. Malcolm Querido (R.I. 2020).
· cites it 8× “-8- In Dearmas, this Court grappled with the extent of the court’s warrant authority under § 12-5-2, which, at the time, authorized courts to issue a search warrant for the seizure of “property” that was “evidence of the commission of a crime.”
State v. Powell, 257 P.3d 1244 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “The Rhode Island statute at issue, R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5-2 (2003), only involved “property” without any other options.”
Gary Tassone v. State of Rhode Island (R.I. 2026).
· cites it 4× “) In a similar vein, Tassone maintains that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to move to suppress blood evidence seized from him pursuant to a search warrant issued in accordance with G.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5-2(3)(4) — 1 case
State v. DiStefano, 764 A.2d 1156 (R.I. 2000).
“1 from obtaining samples of a defendant's breath, blood or urine pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant, procured pursuant to G.L. § 12-5-2, following a defendant's refusal to consent to the taking thereof.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5-2(5) — 3 cases
State v. Gomes, 881 A.2d 97 (R.I. 2005).
“On September 30, 1999, a District Court judge issued the search warrant pursuant to G.L.1956 § 12-5-2, as amended by P.L.1972, ch.”
State v. Malcolm Querido (R.I. 2020).
“-8- In Dearmas, this Court grappled with the extent of the court’s warrant authority under § 12-5-2, which, at the time, authorized courts to issue a search warrant for the seizure of “property” that was “evidence of the commission of a crime.”
State v. Malcolm Querido (R.I. 2020).
“-8- In Dearmas, this Court grappled with the extent of the court’s warrant authority under § 12-5-2, which, at the time, authorized courts to issue a search warrant for the seizure of “property” that was “evidence of the commission of a crime.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.