Skip to content

Sullivan Law Offices | Providence, RI > Blog

GPS Tracking Facing Challenge in Rhode Island U.S. District Court

Andrew Rios was arrested in February of 2011 by a task force investigating narcotics activity in storage locker in southern Rhode Island.  It is a case Hollywood does movies about with alleged ties to the Mexican drug cartel, tractor trailers, millions in cash and more.  Some of the defendants in the case have decided to plead guilty.  But not Andrew Rios.  The case was removed from the State Court to the Federal Court.  And Andrew Rios’ attorney is challenging the evidence gathered by the use of GPS tracking device.  This site covered the United States Supreme Court’s decision in February of this year and is still available for review.  The U.S. Supreme Court was clear, it was a search and in the case before the court unconstitutional.  Stay tuned for developments as The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island attempts to wrestle with this issue and apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones.  Docket Number: 10-1259

Comments Off on GPS Tracking Facing Challenge in Rhode Island U.S. District Court

Categories: Criminal, News.

By Paul Sullivan
— August 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Still No Answer if Collateral Attack Stays BIA Ruling, First Circuit Court of Appeals

Beato Quiroz was convicted in a drug case, found to be an aggravated felony.  He was considered deportable based on this conviction.  He appealed and the BIA concurred.  This issue and a denial for a stay pending post-conviction attacks, including a writ of coram nobis based on Padilla assertions, were raised in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  The First Circuit sustained the BIA on the definition of Quiroz' drug case and did not have to answer the question on the stay pending post-conviction relief since the issue had become moot.  The Connecticut court had already denied the writ by the time the question went before the First Circuit Court of Appeals judges.  Thus the question of whether collateral attacks on convictions can stay pending deportation proceedings remains unanswered.  See full opinion at: Quiroz v. Holder

pay for my essays
zp8497586rq

Comments Off on Still No Answer if Collateral Attack Stays BIA Ruling, First Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories: News.

By Paul Sullivan
— August 7, 2012 at 8:22 am

Colorado Movie Patrons and Family

Our condolences go out to the Colorado Movie Patrons and their families and friends.  It is indeed a tragedy.

Comments Off on Colorado Movie Patrons and Family

Categories: News.

By Paul Sullivan
— July 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Friends with Benefits or Common Law Marriage?

The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff, Sofya M. Zharkova, did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that her living arrangement  with Gaudreau was a common-law marriage.  In contrast, the Court accepted the lower court’s findings that the arrangement was more credibly a Friends-With-Benefits arrangement.  Points observed included that the parties did not have joint bank accounts, that the defendant often referred to Sofya as his girlfriend and at times as FWB.   While the couple owned their home as tenants in entirety and have filed several tax returns as husband and wife, the lower court found credible that the tax returns reasoning was based on economics and the tenants in entirety was based a blizzard of paperwork signed during the closings.  The Rhode Island Supreme Court did not upset the lower court’s findings.  Entire opinion can be read at: Zharkova v. Gaudreau, 11-295

Comments Off on Friends with Benefits or Common Law Marriage?

Categories: Divorce, Family Court, Family Law, Recent Decisions.

Tags: , , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— July 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Lying Without More is Not a Crime: Supreme Court on Xavier Alvarez

Xavier Alvarez seems to enjoy lying about everything in his life, from whom he married, where he went to school and military honors.   Having been outed about his lies and convicted for it under the Stolen Valor Act, he appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court found that lying without more is not a crime and struck down the Stolen Valor Act as written as unconstitutional.  “While the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question, the First Amendment re­quires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction im­posed and the injury to be prevented.  Here, that link has not been shown. The Government points to no evidence supporting its claim that the public’s general perception of military awards is diluted by false claims such as those made by respondent.  And it has not shown, and cannot show, why counterspeech, such as the ridicule re­spondent received online and in the press, would not suffice to achieve its interest.”  In a concurring opinion by Justices Kagan and Breyer the justices gave an example of what injury met.  If the statement caused specific harm like landing a job, then the lying could be charged under something more like fraud and would be held constitutional.  Click on the link for entire opinion: United States v. Xavier Alvarez, 11-210

Comments Off on Lying Without More is Not a Crime: Supreme Court on Xavier Alvarez

Categories: Criminal, News, Recent Decisions.

Tags: , , , , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— July 2, 2012 at 9:10 am

Rhode Island Divorce Law – Relocation of Minor Children Out-of-State

In Rhode Island, if you’re seeking to relocate to another State with your minor child or children, here are some of the factors the Court considers: 

(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent.

(2) The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the parent seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, economic and emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.

(3) The probable impact that the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development. Any special needs of the child should also be taken into account in considering this factor.

(4) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

(5) The existence of extended family or other support systems available to the child in both locations.

(6) Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation.

(7) In cases of international relocation, the question of whether the country to which the child is to be relocated is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will be an important consideration.

(8) To the extent that they may be relevant to a relocation inquiry, the Pettinato factors also will be significant.

The Pettintao v, Pettinato factors referenced in item (8), are as follows:

(1) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents regarding the child’s custody.
(2) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parent or parents, the child’s siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest.
(4) The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community.
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
(6) The stability of the child’s home environment.
(7) The moral fitness of the child’s parents.
(8) The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.

If you need help with a family law issue, including divorce, child custody, child support, or relocation, call us at (401) 861-9900. We can help.

Comments Off on Rhode Island Divorce Law – Relocation of Minor Children Out-of-State

Categories: Civil, Divorce, Family Court, Family Law.

Tags: , , , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— June 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm

Rhode Island Bicycle Helmet Laws – Required Age 15 & Under

In Rhode Island, any person fifteen (15) years of age or younger who is operating a bicycle,  skateboard, rollerskates, scooter or inline skates on a public way, recreational area, or school property is required to wear a helmet.  In no event shall failure to wear a helmet be considered as contributory or comparative negligence, nor shall the failure to wear a helmet be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action. RIGL § 31-19-2.1.

Comments Off on Rhode Island Bicycle Helmet Laws – Required Age 15 & Under

Categories: Civil.

Tags: , , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— June 20, 2012 at 9:57 pm

Rhode Island Motorcycle Helmet Laws

Motorcycle Helmets.  In Rhode Island motorcycle laws require that helmets be worn by the following:

–      motorcycle operator under the age of 21;

–      all new motorcycle operators, regardless of age, for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the first license; and,

–      any motorcycle passenger, regardless of age.

Passengers, in addition to wearing a helmet, must be provided with a separate rear seat, a separate foot-rest, and an appropriate handlebar or grip for his or her use. A passenger under twelve (12) years old must have a properly secured back-rest or equivalent, shall have his or her feet placed upon the foot-rest, and shall be seated behind the operator unless a side car is provided. RIGL § 31-10.1-6.

Motorcycle Required Equipment. Under Rhode Island motorcycle laws, operators of motorcycles

–      shall use eye protection of a type approved by the administrator of the division of motor vehicles when operating their vehicles on streets and highways; and

–      the motorcycle shall be equipped with a rear view mirror.

This required equipment is in addition to Rhode Island’s motorcycle helmet requirements described above.  RIGL § 31-10.1-4.

Comments Off on Rhode Island Motorcycle Helmet Laws

Categories: Civil, Motorcycle.

Tags: , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— June 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm

How Loud Can You Play Your Stereo System In Providence?

Troy Auger was driving his vehicle in the late hours nearing midnight with his vehicle’s music playing when an officer sitting in his patrol vehicle in nearby parking lot heard the music and cited him for City of Providence ordinance violation.  Defendant Auger appealed the $200 Municipal Court fine to the State Superior Court  and on Motion To Dismiss raised several grounds including that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and too broad and that state law preempted the ordinance.  The Superior Court upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance and specifically found that the ordinance as written was quite specific when it not only included the decibels violative of the ordinance but a specific distance that would be considered violative of the ordinance.  In this case, the ordinance challenged was Article III, § 16-93.  This Ordinance prohibits noise in excess of 50 dBA during certain times.  This oridinance also provided that an alternative measure of determing if the noise was too loud:  “…the same is audible to a person of reasonably sensitive hearing at a distance of two hundred (200) feet from its source, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.”  Defendant appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  Appeal was affirmed.  In the City of Providence if your stereo system can be heard 200 feet away from its location anytime of day or night, it is too loud and you can be cited.  See full opinion at: State ex rel. City of Providence v. Troy Augers

Continued…

Comments Off on How Loud Can You Play Your Stereo System In Providence?

Categories: Civil, Recent Decisions.

Tags: , , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— June 8, 2012 at 10:55 am

Evidentiary Hearing Required for all First Post-Conviction Applicants Sentenced to Life Without Parole

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has found as a matter of first impression that applicants serving a Life Sentence without the possibility of parole that file an application for post-conviction relief are entitled to an evidentiary hearing because of the severity of the sentence.   The Court was specific to indicate that this is a right available from the date of the opinion going forward.  This would seem to frustrate any retroactive availability.  See opinion: Tassone v. State of Rhode Island, PM 004624

Comments Off on Evidentiary Hearing Required for all First Post-Conviction Applicants Sentenced to Life Without Parole

Categories: Civil, Criminal, News, Recent Decisions.

Tags: , , , ,

By Paul Sullivan
— May 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm