Personal Injury Attorney Macktaz found this article about a Rhode Island Police Officer accused of assaulting a woman who was under arrest. This is the same officer who assaulted his Rhode Island Personal Injury client Krawetz in 2001. Please find the account of the incident as reported by the Associated Press.
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Personal Injury Lawyer Services in RI contact Rhode Island Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
RI officer charged with assault on cuffed woman
By ERIC TUCKER
Associated Press Writer
Updated: December 18, 2009, 8:23 PM
A Rhode Island police officer was indicted Friday on charges that he kicked a handcuffed woman in the head after removing her from a slot parlor for disorderly conduct, authorities said.
Edward Krawetz, 40, has been suspended without pay from the Lincoln Police Department and also faces administrative charges, said Lincoln police Capt. Raymond Bousquet.
Krawetz was working in uniform at the Twin River gambling parlor just north of Providence on May 31 when he escorted out a woman in handcuffs after other patrons complained about her unruly behavior, said Rhode Island State Police spokesman Capt. David Neill.
A video of the incident shows Krawetz kicking the woman in the side of the head after she apparently tried to kick him, said Michael Healey, a spokesman for the attorney general's office.
Healey said the alleged assault occurred as the woman was cuffed with her hands behind her back waiting on a curb for a patrol car to take her to the police station for booking.
The woman, whose name has not been released, later pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct and has no memory of what happened that night, Healey said.
A Providence County grand jury indictment handed up Friday charges Krawetz with assault with a dangerous weapon.
A telephone listing for Krawetz could not immediately be found and it was not immediately known if he has an attorney. Gary Gentile, a Rhode Island lawyer for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, declined to comment Friday on the allegations or about whether he would be representing Krawetz.
Krawetz, who has been a Lincoln police officer for 12 1/2 years, is scheduled to be arraigned Jan. 6 in Providence Superior Court.
A Twin River spokeswoman referred all questions to the police department.
Krawetz is the second Rhode Island officer to be charged in an alleged beating in the past two weeks.
A Woonsocket police officer was indicted last week on civil rights abuses for allegedly beating a 16-year-old boy and urging fellow officers to lie about it to the FBI. The FBI is investigating a separate alleged beating of a suspect by Providence police officers in October.
It's not the first time Krawetz has faced allegations of excessive force. He was accused of striking a teenage boy and damaging his two front teeth during an on-duty scuffle in 2001. The boy's lawyer, S. Joshua Macktaz, said they reached a settlement out of court for an undisclosed sum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Personal Injury Lawyer Services in RI contact Rhode Island Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Police Officer who attacked Personal Injury Attorney Macktaz's client 8 years ago accused of a second assault
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Story of note regarding DUI Statistics in Rhode Island
Attorney Macktaz felt this article from the December 11th Providence Journal is worthy information to share with the public about DUI's and fatalities in Rhode Island.
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
ACLU leader cautions against misreading DUI statistics
4:10 PM Fri, Dec 11, 2009
Donita Naylor
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Saying he wanted "to set the record straight," Steven Brown, leader of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, has written to state legislative leaders, taking issue with "cries of alarm" by police and other advocates for stricter drunken driving laws in response to recent drunken-driving statistics.
In a news release Friday, the leader of the state ACLU affiliate says he has written to state Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed and House Speaker William Murphy to say, in part:
"Relying on a slight one-year increase in drunk driving fatalities in order to condemn the state's current enforcement of the drunk driving laws, particularly when the number of overall fatalities is statistically small to begin with, is a completely inappropriate use of the data," Brown said.
Responding to police and drunken-driving opponents' calls for stricter laws, such as instituting "sobriety checkpoints," based on a report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing that 25 people were killed in Rhode Island in drunken-driving accidents in 2008, up from 22 in 2007, Brown's letter said:
"Even with this slight one-year increase in fatalities, Rhode Island still had the 15th lowest alcohol drunk driving fatality rate in the country in 2008."
The NHTSA concluded that Rhode Island's drunken-driving fatality rate increased to .31 from .25 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled between those two years.
Brown writes that when the number of deaths in Rhode Island attributable to an "'alcohol impaired driver" decreased 30 percent between 2006 and 2007, there was no praise for what Rhode Island had been doing.
"In fact," Brown writes, the statistics "show that, until the slight increase in 2008, the number of drunk driving fatalities had been steadily declining in Rhode Island for the previous five years, and, indeed, had been cut in half during that period."
"Without in any way seeking to diminish the magnitude of this issue or the sincerity of the advocates," Brown writes, "the concerns expressed about the state's drunk driving problem are, however unintentional, extremely misleading" and have been too often used to call for the passage of bills that "often have far-reaching civil liberties implications."
Brown's letter also referred to a report issued by the RI ACLU in 2006 that examined in more depth the ways that the state's drunken-driving statistics have been misused in the past, and concluded: "Obviously, any drunk driving fatality is one too many, but efforts to eradicate this problem cannot be premised on misleading statistics or ungrounded expectations about the utility of punitive laws."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
ACLU leader cautions against misreading DUI statistics
4:10 PM Fri, Dec 11, 2009
Donita Naylor
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Saying he wanted "to set the record straight," Steven Brown, leader of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, has written to state legislative leaders, taking issue with "cries of alarm" by police and other advocates for stricter drunken driving laws in response to recent drunken-driving statistics.
In a news release Friday, the leader of the state ACLU affiliate says he has written to state Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed and House Speaker William Murphy to say, in part:
"Relying on a slight one-year increase in drunk driving fatalities in order to condemn the state's current enforcement of the drunk driving laws, particularly when the number of overall fatalities is statistically small to begin with, is a completely inappropriate use of the data," Brown said.
Responding to police and drunken-driving opponents' calls for stricter laws, such as instituting "sobriety checkpoints," based on a report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing that 25 people were killed in Rhode Island in drunken-driving accidents in 2008, up from 22 in 2007, Brown's letter said:
"Even with this slight one-year increase in fatalities, Rhode Island still had the 15th lowest alcohol drunk driving fatality rate in the country in 2008."
The NHTSA concluded that Rhode Island's drunken-driving fatality rate increased to .31 from .25 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled between those two years.
Brown writes that when the number of deaths in Rhode Island attributable to an "'alcohol impaired driver" decreased 30 percent between 2006 and 2007, there was no praise for what Rhode Island had been doing.
"In fact," Brown writes, the statistics "show that, until the slight increase in 2008, the number of drunk driving fatalities had been steadily declining in Rhode Island for the previous five years, and, indeed, had been cut in half during that period."
"Without in any way seeking to diminish the magnitude of this issue or the sincerity of the advocates," Brown writes, "the concerns expressed about the state's drunk driving problem are, however unintentional, extremely misleading" and have been too often used to call for the passage of bills that "often have far-reaching civil liberties implications."
Brown's letter also referred to a report issued by the RI ACLU in 2006 that examined in more depth the ways that the state's drunken-driving statistics have been misused in the past, and concluded: "Obviously, any drunk driving fatality is one too many, but efforts to eradicate this problem cannot be premised on misleading statistics or ungrounded expectations about the utility of punitive laws."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Defense Attorney Macktaz defends Patriots mascot "Pat Patriot" against charge of solicitation of sex under RI new Prostituion Laws
With the recent changes to Rhode Island Prostitution Laws that happened in November of 2009 people are now being targeted for violations. On December 10th police arrested 14 people for violation of the new laws. One person arrested was Patriot's Mascot "Patriot Pat", Robert M. Sormanti of Warwick. Attorney Macktaz will be representing him in court in the first of this type of indoor prostitution case in Rhode Island in almost 30 years. This article was in the Providence Journal on Dec 11th.
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Prostitution Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Update: Police arrest 14 under RI's new prostitution law
4:03 PM Fri, Dec 11, 2009 | Permalink
Tom Mooney Email
By Karen Lee Ziner
and Tom Mooney
Journal Staff Writers
SCITUATE, R.I. -- The state police say they have arrested six women and eight men under the state's new prostitution law, which bans indoor solicitation.
The arrests come from several undercover operations in the last two months. In some cases, detectives posed as customers who agreed to meet women in hotels in Providence and Warwick to engage in sex for money.
In at least two other undercover operations, a state police detective posed as a prostitute and attracted eight men to "hotels in the Johnston area."
During the investigations, the detectives answered or placed advertisements on the adult section of Craigs List or in various newspapers to set up their rendezvous.
``The arrests of these individuals validates the fact that the industry for sex for hire is pervasive here in Rhode Island as a result of the [previous] loophole in the law,'' Col. Brendan P. Doherty, superintendent of the state police, said at an afternoon news conference. ``This case also demonstrates that the Rhode Island State Police take this seriously. ...
``It's morally wrong, and now it's illegal,'' Doherty said.
Doherty said the tape recordings from the private conversations that took place as part of the investigation where disturbing in nature, reprehensible and a ``measure of the lack of respect and dignity shown to someone engaged in this trade.''
Doherty said the hotels and motels used in the investigation had no knowledge of the undercover operations.
Doherty thanked the General Assembly for passing legislation that gave the state police the tools to fight prostitution, and said this wouldn't be his department's last initiative.
The state police identified five of the six women arrested and facing prostitution charges. One was 17 and her name was not released. They are:
*Katelynne Pegg, 18, of 8 Albro Ave., Taunton.
*Charlenne Lavasseur, 48, of 11 Gail Ave., Cranston.
*Christine Aurelio, 29, of 464 Buchanan St., Pawtucket.
*Nicole Moyniham, 22, of 187 Cottage St., Pawtucket.
*Jessica A. Neves, 22, of 55 Wannisett Ave., East Providence.
The eight men charged with procurement of sexual conduct for a fee are:
*Antonio F. Lima, 59, of 39 Willard Ave., Seekonk.
*Ahmed Farhane, 33, of 136 George St., Apt. 7, Pawtucket.
*Steven Jobe, 54, of 152 Bayard St., Providence.
*Robert C. McVey, 56, of 140 Kettle Pond Drive, South Kingstown.
*Robert M. Sormanti, 47, of 31 Todd St., Warwick.
*Kenneth Stiles, 47, of 29 Judge St., Fall River.
*William Lee, 43, of 5 Cecile St. Lincoln.
*Daniel Fleming, 38, of 62 Lawn Ave., Warwick.
A man identifying himself as Fleming called The Journal Friday afternoon and said he was not at the hotel to solicit sex, but was looking for an ex-girlfriend.
All of the suspects were arraigned by a justice of the peace and were released on personal recognizance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Prostitution Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Prostitution Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Update: Police arrest 14 under RI's new prostitution law
4:03 PM Fri, Dec 11, 2009 | Permalink
Tom Mooney Email
By Karen Lee Ziner
and Tom Mooney
Journal Staff Writers
SCITUATE, R.I. -- The state police say they have arrested six women and eight men under the state's new prostitution law, which bans indoor solicitation.
The arrests come from several undercover operations in the last two months. In some cases, detectives posed as customers who agreed to meet women in hotels in Providence and Warwick to engage in sex for money.
In at least two other undercover operations, a state police detective posed as a prostitute and attracted eight men to "hotels in the Johnston area."
During the investigations, the detectives answered or placed advertisements on the adult section of Craigs List or in various newspapers to set up their rendezvous.
``The arrests of these individuals validates the fact that the industry for sex for hire is pervasive here in Rhode Island as a result of the [previous] loophole in the law,'' Col. Brendan P. Doherty, superintendent of the state police, said at an afternoon news conference. ``This case also demonstrates that the Rhode Island State Police take this seriously. ...
``It's morally wrong, and now it's illegal,'' Doherty said.
Doherty said the tape recordings from the private conversations that took place as part of the investigation where disturbing in nature, reprehensible and a ``measure of the lack of respect and dignity shown to someone engaged in this trade.''
Doherty said the hotels and motels used in the investigation had no knowledge of the undercover operations.
Doherty thanked the General Assembly for passing legislation that gave the state police the tools to fight prostitution, and said this wouldn't be his department's last initiative.
The state police identified five of the six women arrested and facing prostitution charges. One was 17 and her name was not released. They are:
*Katelynne Pegg, 18, of 8 Albro Ave., Taunton.
*Charlenne Lavasseur, 48, of 11 Gail Ave., Cranston.
*Christine Aurelio, 29, of 464 Buchanan St., Pawtucket.
*Nicole Moyniham, 22, of 187 Cottage St., Pawtucket.
*Jessica A. Neves, 22, of 55 Wannisett Ave., East Providence.
The eight men charged with procurement of sexual conduct for a fee are:
*Antonio F. Lima, 59, of 39 Willard Ave., Seekonk.
*Ahmed Farhane, 33, of 136 George St., Apt. 7, Pawtucket.
*Steven Jobe, 54, of 152 Bayard St., Providence.
*Robert C. McVey, 56, of 140 Kettle Pond Drive, South Kingstown.
*Robert M. Sormanti, 47, of 31 Todd St., Warwick.
*Kenneth Stiles, 47, of 29 Judge St., Fall River.
*William Lee, 43, of 5 Cecile St. Lincoln.
*Daniel Fleming, 38, of 62 Lawn Ave., Warwick.
A man identifying himself as Fleming called The Journal Friday afternoon and said he was not at the hotel to solicit sex, but was looking for an ex-girlfriend.
All of the suspects were arraigned by a justice of the peace and were released on personal recognizance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Prostitution Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
New State Law Allows R.I. officers to compel blood-alcohol sampling
Rhode Island DUI Attorney Macktaz found this article to be important information for the general public. If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
R.I. officers can now compel blood-alcohol sampling
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, November 25, 2009
By W. Zachary Malinowski
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Drunken drivers beware. The state has a new law that allows the police to compel motorists who are suspected of drinking and are involved in crashes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to undergo blood-alcohol testing.
The law, based on recent General Assembly action, comes during the holiday season, when more people than usual get behind the wheel of a car after downing drinks at an office party or with friends at a local watering hole.
The new law is welcomed by the law-enforcement community. State police Col. Brendan P Doherty and Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, among others, have endorsed the legislation as an effective weapon in prosecuting drunken drivers.
“I’m very pleased that we got the legislation passed,” Doherty said.
The law provides an alternative for the police when a suspected drunken driver involved in a serious crash refuses to submit to a breath test. The police can go to any state judge for a warrant for a hospital to take the blood sample for testing. Formerly, the driver could refuse to submit to a screening, even in the most serious cases. The police could seek a warrant to compel a blood-alcohol test only if the person had been hospitalized for injuries related to the crash.
Lynch, who has been pushing for the new law for the past seven years, said it also allows hospitals to draw blood from suspects before a warrant is obtained. For example, a suspect could have minor injuries and leave the hospital before a judge signs the warrant. The law deals with that type of scenario by allowing the hospital to take the blood sample and hold it, pending approval of the warrant. “It gives us the right tools when we walk into court,” Lynch said.
THE LEGISLATION, signed into law two weeks ago by Governor Carcieri, was sponsored by Rep. Douglas W. Gablinske, D-Bristol, and Rep. John Brien, D-Woonsocket. Gablinske lost his father, William, in August 1971, after a speeding motorcyclist hit him on Greylock Road in Bristol.
Back in those days, there were few impaired-driver prosecutions, but Gablinske said he believes that the motorcyclist was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A few years later, he said, the man was convicted on drug charges and sent to the Adult Correctional Institutions. He has spent most of his adult life bouncing in and out of prison.
Gablinske said that Rhode Island is not breaking new ground with the law. He said that 44 states have similar laws and 26 of those do not require signed warrants. He said an important piece of the legislation requires the arresting law-enforcement agency to use audio and video equipment to record the drawing of the blood.
Gablinske said the recordings could help the prosecution if the suspect is “stumbling and bumbling” in the hospital. “It really adds to the arsenal for the police,” he said.
Not everyone supports the legislation. Michael A. DiLauro, president of the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said he believes that the existing laws in Rhode Island are strong enough. He noted that drunken drivers involved in fatal or serious crashes involving injuries normally plead guilty to criminal charges and are sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Carcieri will host a ceremonial signing of the new law Wednesday at 10 a.m. in the State House. Drunken driving in Rhode Island
NUMBERS: Assistant Attorney General Jay Sullivan said that over the past two years, about 2,000 motorists were convicted of drunken driving or failing to submit to a breath test. Earlier this decade, the annual number was about 2,500.
FATALITIES: The state averages 65 to 70 motor-vehicle fatalities annually, and about half of those involve drunken drivers.
PENALTIES: The penalty for a first offender driving while intoxicated is loss of license for three months. Refusal to submit to a breath test carries a six-month penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
R.I. officers can now compel blood-alcohol sampling
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, November 25, 2009
By W. Zachary Malinowski
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Drunken drivers beware. The state has a new law that allows the police to compel motorists who are suspected of drinking and are involved in crashes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to undergo blood-alcohol testing.
The law, based on recent General Assembly action, comes during the holiday season, when more people than usual get behind the wheel of a car after downing drinks at an office party or with friends at a local watering hole.
The new law is welcomed by the law-enforcement community. State police Col. Brendan P Doherty and Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, among others, have endorsed the legislation as an effective weapon in prosecuting drunken drivers.
“I’m very pleased that we got the legislation passed,” Doherty said.
The law provides an alternative for the police when a suspected drunken driver involved in a serious crash refuses to submit to a breath test. The police can go to any state judge for a warrant for a hospital to take the blood sample for testing. Formerly, the driver could refuse to submit to a screening, even in the most serious cases. The police could seek a warrant to compel a blood-alcohol test only if the person had been hospitalized for injuries related to the crash.
Lynch, who has been pushing for the new law for the past seven years, said it also allows hospitals to draw blood from suspects before a warrant is obtained. For example, a suspect could have minor injuries and leave the hospital before a judge signs the warrant. The law deals with that type of scenario by allowing the hospital to take the blood sample and hold it, pending approval of the warrant. “It gives us the right tools when we walk into court,” Lynch said.
THE LEGISLATION, signed into law two weeks ago by Governor Carcieri, was sponsored by Rep. Douglas W. Gablinske, D-Bristol, and Rep. John Brien, D-Woonsocket. Gablinske lost his father, William, in August 1971, after a speeding motorcyclist hit him on Greylock Road in Bristol.
Back in those days, there were few impaired-driver prosecutions, but Gablinske said he believes that the motorcyclist was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. A few years later, he said, the man was convicted on drug charges and sent to the Adult Correctional Institutions. He has spent most of his adult life bouncing in and out of prison.
Gablinske said that Rhode Island is not breaking new ground with the law. He said that 44 states have similar laws and 26 of those do not require signed warrants. He said an important piece of the legislation requires the arresting law-enforcement agency to use audio and video equipment to record the drawing of the blood.
Gablinske said the recordings could help the prosecution if the suspect is “stumbling and bumbling” in the hospital. “It really adds to the arsenal for the police,” he said.
Not everyone supports the legislation. Michael A. DiLauro, president of the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said he believes that the existing laws in Rhode Island are strong enough. He noted that drunken drivers involved in fatal or serious crashes involving injuries normally plead guilty to criminal charges and are sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Carcieri will host a ceremonial signing of the new law Wednesday at 10 a.m. in the State House. Drunken driving in Rhode Island
NUMBERS: Assistant Attorney General Jay Sullivan said that over the past two years, about 2,000 motorists were convicted of drunken driving or failing to submit to a breath test. Earlier this decade, the annual number was about 2,500.
FATALITIES: The state averages 65 to 70 motor-vehicle fatalities annually, and about half of those involve drunken drivers.
PENALTIES: The penalty for a first offender driving while intoxicated is loss of license for three months. Refusal to submit to a breath test carries a six-month penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Monday, November 30, 2009
New RI Laws prohibiting 'Texting' on Rhode Island Roads
Recently Passed in Rhode Island - 31-22-30. Text messaging while operating a motor vehicle: This act would make text messaging while driving a motor vehicle offense and provide fines and penalties. For questions on this law or for information on fighting a motor vechicle infraction contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 2009
____________
A N A C T
RELATING TO MOTOR AND OTHER VEHICLES -- MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSES
Introduced By: Senators Sosnowski, Perry, Tassoni, and DiPalma
Date Introduced: February 04, 2009
Referred To: Senate Judiciary
It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Chapter 31-22 of the General Laws entitled "Miscellaneous Rule s" is
2 hereby amended by adding thereto the following section:
3 31-22-30. Text messaging while operating a motor vehicle. -- (a) For purposes of this
4 section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
5 (1) “Hands Free” means the manner in which a wireless handset is operated for the
6 purpose of composing, reading or sending text messages, by using an internal feature or function,
7 or through an attachment or addition, including but not limited to, an earpiece, headset, remote
8 microphone or short range wireless connection, thereby allowing the user to operate said device
9 without the use of hands.
10 (2) “Inoperability” means a motor vehicle that is incapable of being operated or being
11 operated in a safe and prudent manner due to mechanical failure, including but not limited to,
12 engine overheating or tire failure.
13 (3) “Motor Vehicle” means any vehicle that is self-propelled by a motor, including but
14 not limited to, automobiles, trucks, vans, construction vehicles, etc.
15 (4) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, unincorporated association, firm,
16 partnership, joint venture, joint stock association or other entity or business organization of any
17 kind.
18 (5) “Stopped” means not in motion.
19 (6) “Text Message”, also referred to as short messaging service (SMS) means the process
2
1 by which users send, read, or receive messages on a wireless handset, including but not limited to,
2 text messages, instant messages, electronic messages or e-mails, in order to communicate with
3 any person or device.
4 (7) “Use” means to hold a wireless handset in one’s hands.
5 (8) “Wireless Handset” means a portable electronic or computing device, including
6 cellular telephones and digital personal assistants (PDAs), capable of transmitting data in the
7 form of a text message.
8 (b) No person shall use a wireless handset to compose, read or send text messages while
9 operating a motor vehicle on any public street or public highway within the state of Rhode Island.
10 (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b), this section shall not be construed
11 to prohibit the use of any wireless handset by:
12 (1) Any law enforcement, public safety or police officers, emergency services officials,
13 first aid, emergency medical technicians and personnel, and fire safety officials in the
14 performance of duties arising out of and in the course of their employment as such;
15 (2) A person using a wireless handset to contact an individual listed in subsection (c)(1);
16 or
17 (3) A person using a wireless handset inside a motor vehicle while such motor vehicle is
18 parked, standing or stopped and is removed from the flow of traffic, in accordance with
19 applicable laws, rules or ordinances, or is stopped due to the inoperability of such motor vehicle.
20 (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person operating a motor
21 vehicle from utilizing a hands-free wireless handset.
22 (e) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction,
23 be subject to a fine of eighty-five dollars ($85.00); for a second conviction shall be subject to a
24 fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00); and for a third or subsequent conviction a person shall be
25 subject to a fine of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125). All violations arising out of this
26 section shall be heard in the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal.
27 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Concerned about Defendants Rights when entering a Guilty Plea, Rhode Island Defense Attorney Macktaz shares this Article from Law.com
After reading this article and concerned about his clients rights Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Macktaz shares this Article with from Law.com. With questions on the article contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Do Defendants Get Enough Warning About a Guilty Plea's Consequences?
Tony Mauro - Law.com
11-23-2009
The attention-seeking parents of the Colorado "balloon boy" must not have had their thinking caps on last month when they told police their son was aboard a runaway hot air balloon. But when their misadventure got them hauled into court, they suddenly smartened up.
On the advice of counsel, Richard and Mayumi Heene worked out a plea agreement that on Nov. 13 had them confess to different crimes. The father is now a felon, but the mother pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false reporting. Why? Because she is a Japanese citizen, and if she had pleaded guilty to a felony, a collateral consequence would have been deportation.
The Heenes were lucky, but Jose Padilla, whose case went before the U.S. Supreme Court exactly one month earlier, was not. Padilla, a legal U.S. resident born in Honduras, pleaded guilty to an aggravated felony drug charge in Kentucky. His lawyer told him the plea would not get him deported, because he had lived in the United States for decades. The advice was flat wrong, Padilla faces deportation, and now he wants his plea set aside because of the bad advice he got.
Both cases, as different as they are, are casting new light on a legal issue that has been simmering for years: when, whether and how defendants should be informed about the collateral consequences of pleading or being found guilty.
Depending on the offense, a guilty plea or verdict can, in addition to the penalty for the crime, also make it impossible for a defendant to vote, live in public housing, become a cosmetologist, carry a gun, drive a car or receive a growing array of government benefits. If you plead guilty to public urination or if, as a 19-year-old boy, you had a relationship with a 16-year-old girl, you can in some states be marked as a sex offender for life.
The laws of some states as well as the American Bar Association's criminal justice standards call for lawyers or others to inform defendants accurately of these consequences. It often does not happen -- especially, as Padilla learned, in the area of immigration law, which may be unfamiliar territory to a harried criminal defense lawyer. "Every day, immigrants are advised to give up their rights and plead guilty to charges that subject them to lifetime exile," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project.
A 'CRIMINAL UNDERCLASS'
But the problem extends well beyond the immigration context, said Richard Cassidy of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy, Frame & Katims in Burlington, Vt. "We're creating a criminal underclass that can't fully participate in society. People who think they can plead guilty and walk out of the courthouse free may discover that there are collateral consequences that trail them around for life."
Cassidy heads a committee of the Uniform Law Commission that has drafted a model law tackling the problem. States that pass the law would compile the collateral consequences, develop a process for informing defendants before they enter pleas and create a mechanism for mitigating those consequences when appropriate. The proposed law, in the works for years, will go before the American Bar Association's House of Delegates for endorsement in February, and then would be put before state legislators. The commission, with delegates from every state, proposes laws to foster uniformity in statutes across the country.
The proposed law, Cassidy said, is one element in "the growing re-entry movement" which is aimed at helping the millions of Americans with some kind of criminal record get back on their feet when they've "paid their debt" to society.
Margaret Love, a Washington solo practitioner who has been spotlighting the issue of collateral consequences for years, said their impact has been growing, in part because of post-9/11 background checks and the public availability of criminal records. Among her clients are some with long-ago drunken-driving or other offenses who suddenly get fired even though they've been exemplary citizens for years. There is often little that can be done, though in some states, pleas can be made to the governor or a parole board to relieve the impact of a previous conviction.
"The criminal class is such an unpopular one," said Love, who has written a 50-state guide to seeking relief from collateral consequences. "If you have a felony, you have no voice."
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
But the new emphasis on informing defendants about collateral consequences is not without critics.
At a 2008 Uniform Law Commission discussion of the proposed law, delegate James Bopp Jr. from Indiana said, "I do not consider it an unjust state of affairs that criminal defendants are not advised of each potential collateral sanction or disqualification." Bopp, who is better known for his litigation against campaign reform laws, expressed concern that if new laws create new obligations to inform defendants, then "every sentence and every guilty plea is ultimately subject to failure to disclose each one of these hundreds [of] unknowable collateral consequences."
At the Supreme Court hearing on the Padilla case, some justices expressed similar concerns. "The world is filled with 42 billion circumstances," said Justice Stephen Breyer at one point. Opening the door to requiring lawyers to give accurate advice about those circumstances, Breyer said, "will set in motion the great legal rule machine."
Cassidy said the model law anticipates these concerns by stating explicitly that it creates no new duty for lawyers and can't be the grounds for invalidating a plea. Though the law does not dictate how defendants would be notified of collateral consequences, Cassidy said he could envision the judge or some government agency, not necessarily the defense lawyer, giving the defendant a "one-page document" at the time he or she is charged, sentenced and released. Under a federal law passed in 2007, the National Institute of Justice is compiling the collateral consequences of laws in all 50 states.
In spite of the worries voiced at oral argument in the Padilla case, Love said she was heartened by comments from some justices. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., whose father was an Italian immigrant, told Padilla's lawyer, Stephen Kinnaird of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker's Washington office, "Your argument has an appeal because removal is such a harsh consequence, particularly for someone like your client who had been in the United States for a long time."
Said Love, who attended the argument, "It's hard to believe the Court will agree with the state of Kentucky that a lawyer doesn't need to advise his client about things that are so important."
The U.S. solicitor general took something of a middle ground, arguing that a lawyer is not obliged to tell a defendant about immigration consequences of a guilty plea, but if he or she does give advice on that point, it must be accurate. If the high court even went as far as to agree with the solicitor general, Love said, it would be significant.
"I suspect that the Padilla case," said Love, "is going to jump-start this discussion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Do Defendants Get Enough Warning About a Guilty Plea's Consequences?
Tony Mauro - Law.com
11-23-2009
The attention-seeking parents of the Colorado "balloon boy" must not have had their thinking caps on last month when they told police their son was aboard a runaway hot air balloon. But when their misadventure got them hauled into court, they suddenly smartened up.
On the advice of counsel, Richard and Mayumi Heene worked out a plea agreement that on Nov. 13 had them confess to different crimes. The father is now a felon, but the mother pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false reporting. Why? Because she is a Japanese citizen, and if she had pleaded guilty to a felony, a collateral consequence would have been deportation.
The Heenes were lucky, but Jose Padilla, whose case went before the U.S. Supreme Court exactly one month earlier, was not. Padilla, a legal U.S. resident born in Honduras, pleaded guilty to an aggravated felony drug charge in Kentucky. His lawyer told him the plea would not get him deported, because he had lived in the United States for decades. The advice was flat wrong, Padilla faces deportation, and now he wants his plea set aside because of the bad advice he got.
Both cases, as different as they are, are casting new light on a legal issue that has been simmering for years: when, whether and how defendants should be informed about the collateral consequences of pleading or being found guilty.
Depending on the offense, a guilty plea or verdict can, in addition to the penalty for the crime, also make it impossible for a defendant to vote, live in public housing, become a cosmetologist, carry a gun, drive a car or receive a growing array of government benefits. If you plead guilty to public urination or if, as a 19-year-old boy, you had a relationship with a 16-year-old girl, you can in some states be marked as a sex offender for life.
The laws of some states as well as the American Bar Association's criminal justice standards call for lawyers or others to inform defendants accurately of these consequences. It often does not happen -- especially, as Padilla learned, in the area of immigration law, which may be unfamiliar territory to a harried criminal defense lawyer. "Every day, immigrants are advised to give up their rights and plead guilty to charges that subject them to lifetime exile," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project.
A 'CRIMINAL UNDERCLASS'
But the problem extends well beyond the immigration context, said Richard Cassidy of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy, Frame & Katims in Burlington, Vt. "We're creating a criminal underclass that can't fully participate in society. People who think they can plead guilty and walk out of the courthouse free may discover that there are collateral consequences that trail them around for life."
Cassidy heads a committee of the Uniform Law Commission that has drafted a model law tackling the problem. States that pass the law would compile the collateral consequences, develop a process for informing defendants before they enter pleas and create a mechanism for mitigating those consequences when appropriate. The proposed law, in the works for years, will go before the American Bar Association's House of Delegates for endorsement in February, and then would be put before state legislators. The commission, with delegates from every state, proposes laws to foster uniformity in statutes across the country.
The proposed law, Cassidy said, is one element in "the growing re-entry movement" which is aimed at helping the millions of Americans with some kind of criminal record get back on their feet when they've "paid their debt" to society.
Margaret Love, a Washington solo practitioner who has been spotlighting the issue of collateral consequences for years, said their impact has been growing, in part because of post-9/11 background checks and the public availability of criminal records. Among her clients are some with long-ago drunken-driving or other offenses who suddenly get fired even though they've been exemplary citizens for years. There is often little that can be done, though in some states, pleas can be made to the governor or a parole board to relieve the impact of a previous conviction.
"The criminal class is such an unpopular one," said Love, who has written a 50-state guide to seeking relief from collateral consequences. "If you have a felony, you have no voice."
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
But the new emphasis on informing defendants about collateral consequences is not without critics.
At a 2008 Uniform Law Commission discussion of the proposed law, delegate James Bopp Jr. from Indiana said, "I do not consider it an unjust state of affairs that criminal defendants are not advised of each potential collateral sanction or disqualification." Bopp, who is better known for his litigation against campaign reform laws, expressed concern that if new laws create new obligations to inform defendants, then "every sentence and every guilty plea is ultimately subject to failure to disclose each one of these hundreds [of] unknowable collateral consequences."
At the Supreme Court hearing on the Padilla case, some justices expressed similar concerns. "The world is filled with 42 billion circumstances," said Justice Stephen Breyer at one point. Opening the door to requiring lawyers to give accurate advice about those circumstances, Breyer said, "will set in motion the great legal rule machine."
Cassidy said the model law anticipates these concerns by stating explicitly that it creates no new duty for lawyers and can't be the grounds for invalidating a plea. Though the law does not dictate how defendants would be notified of collateral consequences, Cassidy said he could envision the judge or some government agency, not necessarily the defense lawyer, giving the defendant a "one-page document" at the time he or she is charged, sentenced and released. Under a federal law passed in 2007, the National Institute of Justice is compiling the collateral consequences of laws in all 50 states.
In spite of the worries voiced at oral argument in the Padilla case, Love said she was heartened by comments from some justices. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., whose father was an Italian immigrant, told Padilla's lawyer, Stephen Kinnaird of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker's Washington office, "Your argument has an appeal because removal is such a harsh consequence, particularly for someone like your client who had been in the United States for a long time."
Said Love, who attended the argument, "It's hard to believe the Court will agree with the state of Kentucky that a lawyer doesn't need to advise his client about things that are so important."
The U.S. solicitor general took something of a middle ground, arguing that a lawyer is not obliged to tell a defendant about immigration consequences of a guilty plea, but if he or she does give advice on that point, it must be accurate. If the high court even went as far as to agree with the solicitor general, Love said, it would be significant.
"I suspect that the Padilla case," said Love, "is going to jump-start this discussion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Rhode Island DUI Defense Lawyer Macktaz announces Not Guilty Verdict for Breathalyzer Refusal Client
Rhode Island DUI Defense Lawyer Macktaz announces recent victory for a Breathalyzer Refusal Client. If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Breathalyzer Refusal
Police Report: Smithfield Police clock Client’s vehicle at 61 MPH in a 25 MPH zone and observe Client’s car drift over the center in into on-coming traffic twice. Police observe a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and mumbled speech. Client needed to use the door frame of the car to get out of vehicle, failed 3 field-sobriety tests and admitted to drinking earlier in the evening.
Result: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Breathalyzer Refusal
Police Report: Smithfield Police clock Client’s vehicle at 61 MPH in a 25 MPH zone and observe Client’s car drift over the center in into on-coming traffic twice. Police observe a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and mumbled speech. Client needed to use the door frame of the car to get out of vehicle, failed 3 field-sobriety tests and admitted to drinking earlier in the evening.
Result: NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Rhode Island Govenor signs a law banning indoor prostitution
Rhode Island bans indoor prostitution in law update on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. If you have questions about this article or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
New R.I. law banning indoor prostitution leads some spas to close
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, November 4, 2009
By Lynn Arditi
Journal Staff Writer
Word that Rhode Island’s governor signed legislation Tuesday afternoon to outlaw indoor prostitution traveled quickly through the state’s community of sex workers, leaving many of the women who work at Asian “spas” on edge and their employers angry and without customers.
Neon signs outside some spas went dark; employees at others said they were open, but many of the women, fearing a police crackdown, had refused to come to work.
At the Central Health spa, in Providence, the “open” sign was gone and the doors were locked.
“People were banging at the door,” said Josh Haywood Jr., a 23-year-old mechanic who works at the garage next door. “They never opened today.”
Sex-workers in Rhode Island have been able to operate for years legally out of brothels, strip clubs or their homes because of a nearly 30-year-old loophole in the state’s prostitution law. But that changed on Tuesday when Governor Carcieri signed legislation to make prostitution a crime, even if it occurs behind closed doors.
“For almost 30 years, Rhode Island has had the terrible distinction of being the only state outside certain counties in Nevada where indoor prostitution is not considered a crime,” Carcieri said.
The governor declared that prostitution “erodes the moral fiber of our state,” and commended supporters for their hard work in getting the legislation passed during a special session of the General Assembly last week.
The legislation — sponsored by Rep. Joanne M. Giannini, D-Providence, and Sen. Paul V. Jabour, D-Providence — the governor said, will help protect the state’s most vulnerable residents and enhance the quality of life in Rhode Island.
The new law “sends a distinct message to any group [that] thinks they could use Rhode Island in furtherance of their illicit business,” state police Col. Brendan P. Doherty said at the signing ceremony. “The bottom line is commercial sex is now clearly illegal” in Rhode Island.
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said that the new law will “end a blemish” on the state and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to investigate and prosecute prostitution and related criminal activity.
“Does this mean prostitution will be eliminated in Rhode Island forever?” Giannini asked. “Of course not. But it means Rhode Island will no longer be a safe haven for pimping and trafficking, and the victimization of young women.”
The law makes indoor prostitution a misdemeanor crime punishable, for first offenders, by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1,000, or both. However, the law empowers judges to erase the criminal convictions of first offenders.
Customers or “johns” face the same penalties as prostitutes, but without the possibility of getting their criminal records expunged.
Warwick police Col. Stephen M. McCartney, of the Rhode Island Police Chief’s Association, said after the signing that talk about police enforcement of the new law was being “overblown.”
People are talking, he said, as if “we’re all of a sudden going to descend, en masse” into suspected brothels.
“We’re looking for the people behind the enterprises,” he said, “more than trying to go after the women.”
Providence police Lt Michael “Mike” E. Correia, who heads the narcotics and organized crime bureau, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that “prostitution isn’t the number-one priority at the police department,” which focuses its efforts on violent crimes. However, he added, the department would certainly act quickly “if we have any evidence that there’s human trafficking going on.”
At the North Main Street Spa, in Providence, a man at the front office said that word of the governor’s action had scared the women working there.
“I usually have four or five girls working,” he said. “I have two workers … They refuse to come to work. They’re just nervous.”
Anxiety was etched into the faces of a group of Korean women who gathered for lunch Tuesday inside the Grand Slam Pizza & Grill in Pawtucket.
One woman, who asked that her name not be printed, drew circles on a napkin, each one representing a different city in Rhode Island.
Does the new law, she asked a reporter, apply only to Providence or Pawtucket? Or does it apply to all of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
New R.I. law banning indoor prostitution leads some spas to close
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, November 4, 2009
By Lynn Arditi
Journal Staff Writer
Word that Rhode Island’s governor signed legislation Tuesday afternoon to outlaw indoor prostitution traveled quickly through the state’s community of sex workers, leaving many of the women who work at Asian “spas” on edge and their employers angry and without customers.
Neon signs outside some spas went dark; employees at others said they were open, but many of the women, fearing a police crackdown, had refused to come to work.
At the Central Health spa, in Providence, the “open” sign was gone and the doors were locked.
“People were banging at the door,” said Josh Haywood Jr., a 23-year-old mechanic who works at the garage next door. “They never opened today.”
Sex-workers in Rhode Island have been able to operate for years legally out of brothels, strip clubs or their homes because of a nearly 30-year-old loophole in the state’s prostitution law. But that changed on Tuesday when Governor Carcieri signed legislation to make prostitution a crime, even if it occurs behind closed doors.
“For almost 30 years, Rhode Island has had the terrible distinction of being the only state outside certain counties in Nevada where indoor prostitution is not considered a crime,” Carcieri said.
The governor declared that prostitution “erodes the moral fiber of our state,” and commended supporters for their hard work in getting the legislation passed during a special session of the General Assembly last week.
The legislation — sponsored by Rep. Joanne M. Giannini, D-Providence, and Sen. Paul V. Jabour, D-Providence — the governor said, will help protect the state’s most vulnerable residents and enhance the quality of life in Rhode Island.
The new law “sends a distinct message to any group [that] thinks they could use Rhode Island in furtherance of their illicit business,” state police Col. Brendan P. Doherty said at the signing ceremony. “The bottom line is commercial sex is now clearly illegal” in Rhode Island.
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch said that the new law will “end a blemish” on the state and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to investigate and prosecute prostitution and related criminal activity.
“Does this mean prostitution will be eliminated in Rhode Island forever?” Giannini asked. “Of course not. But it means Rhode Island will no longer be a safe haven for pimping and trafficking, and the victimization of young women.”
The law makes indoor prostitution a misdemeanor crime punishable, for first offenders, by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1,000, or both. However, the law empowers judges to erase the criminal convictions of first offenders.
Customers or “johns” face the same penalties as prostitutes, but without the possibility of getting their criminal records expunged.
Warwick police Col. Stephen M. McCartney, of the Rhode Island Police Chief’s Association, said after the signing that talk about police enforcement of the new law was being “overblown.”
People are talking, he said, as if “we’re all of a sudden going to descend, en masse” into suspected brothels.
“We’re looking for the people behind the enterprises,” he said, “more than trying to go after the women.”
Providence police Lt Michael “Mike” E. Correia, who heads the narcotics and organized crime bureau, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that “prostitution isn’t the number-one priority at the police department,” which focuses its efforts on violent crimes. However, he added, the department would certainly act quickly “if we have any evidence that there’s human trafficking going on.”
At the North Main Street Spa, in Providence, a man at the front office said that word of the governor’s action had scared the women working there.
“I usually have four or five girls working,” he said. “I have two workers … They refuse to come to work. They’re just nervous.”
Anxiety was etched into the faces of a group of Korean women who gathered for lunch Tuesday inside the Grand Slam Pizza & Grill in Pawtucket.
One woman, who asked that her name not be printed, drew circles on a napkin, each one representing a different city in Rhode Island.
Does the new law, she asked a reporter, apply only to Providence or Pawtucket? Or does it apply to all of them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Recent Law Update to Rhode Island Expungement Laws
Rhode Island Expungement Attorney Macktaz found imporant information for those seeking expungement of criminal records. If you have questions about this article or are interested in Expungement in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Without notice expungements almost expanded
11:14 AM EST on Wednesday, November 4, 2009
By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE –– Amid the chaos of last week’s special legislative session, advocates of a bill that would automatically erase a whole new class of criminal records scored a short-lived victory at the State House.
With no debate on the merits, the House voted 57 to 9 on Thursday for a measure — vetoed by the governor a year ago — that would have required the state’s courts to “quash and destroy” the record of any crime for which an admitted criminal received a “deferred” sentence, regardless of the nature of the crime or criminal history of the offender, as long as he or she stayed out of trouble for five years.
In recent years, criminals receiving deferred sentences included accused stalkers, embezzlers, an accomplice to a gunpoint robbery in Waterplace Park, one of the coconspirators in the Lincoln bribery scandal and at least one child molester. Emerging almost 10 months after its only State House hearing in January, the bill appeared headed for easy passage by the Senate last Thursday. But then it hit an insurmountable snag and died.
Legislative leaders realized they had, in their haste, inadvertently passed a version that the state’s judges, through their lobbyist, had adamantly opposed last January. They renewed their objection after the seemingly dead bill was passed Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.
In the hours before the House convened Thursday for the last night of the two-day special session, court lobbyist R. Kelly Sheridan told key lawmakers the state’s judges have no position on the merits of extending the state’s existing expungement law to a new class of people, who may not currently be eligible. He said that is a “legislative call.”
But he said they objected strongly to the “automatic destruction” of any court record, in part, because the decision should be made by a judge after a hearing in which the attorney general has been given a chance to comment.
And, Sheridan said, there is a much larger issue: “Public bodies should not be destroying a record of an official act.”
“It would be akin to the General Assembly destroying evidence of some vote that was taken five years ago. It’s just not appropriate,” Sheridan said this week. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Joseph Almeida, a retired Providence police officer, who argues that a criminal record hampers people from getting jobs and, in some cases, housing.
Year after year, Almeida asks a version of this question he posed in an interview this week: “How long do we keep punishing somebody if many years have gone by and they have not done anything [else] wrong or illegal?”
Rhode Island already has what the governor, the attorney general and the state police describe as one of the most liberal expungement laws in the nation. It allows judges to permanently seal the records of a nonviolent offense by a first-time offender 5 years after the individual has completed his or her sentence for a misdemeanor, 10 years after for a felony.
It also specifically allows those whose records have been expunged to tell prospective employers that they have never been convicted of a crime. Last year, 4,418 criminal case records of first-time offenders were sealed.
Almeida’s bill went a step further in requiring the courts to automatically destroy any public record of any crime that resulted in a deferred sentence, as soon as the deferral period ended, without any waiting period or regard to the nature of the crime, or history of the offender.
Almeida’s bill would have extended the opportunity to an unknown number of people who are not currently eligible, and substantially reduced the waiting period for many of those who are.
A deferred sentence usually comes as a tradeoff for a no-contest or guilty plea that spares the state from having to go to trial. The underlying notion: stay out of trouble, stay out of jail. No specific sentence is initially imposed. Instead, it provides a window of time in which a sentence could be imposed if the offender commits another crime.
An earlier version was vetoed by Governor Carcieri in 2008 on grounds it would “permit expungement for a violent felony … [after] a period of time, that usually runs five years, and by so doing, make it impossible for employers — including the state itself — to do meaningful criminal background checks.”
The governor said the legislation would also allow “early expungement” of offenses that would normally disqualify someone from working with children in a child-care center, as a child-care provider in a private home, or as a foster or adoptive parent.
Rep. Donald Lally, a Narragansett Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, described what happened to the bill in last week’s session.
In the months since the House last met in June, he said Almeida “lobbied” House Speaker William J. Murphy and House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox to resurrect his bill. They agreed and told Lally, as judiciary chairman, that they wanted his committee to vote on it. The bill cleared the committee 9-to-2 Wednesday.
The next day, Sheridan — who had last testified on the bill in January –– presented a letter spelling out the changes the judges wanted: replacement of the words “automatically quashed and destroyed,” with a description of the petition-and-hearing process that applies to current bids for an expungement.
Through a series of miscues, the bill that eventually reached the Senate didn’t have the changes the judge’s requested and there was no final vote.
“You know, last minute, and sometimes things falls through the cracks,” Lally said.
While disappointed his bill failed again this year, Almeida says he’ll “just bring it back again next year … [because] people need a second start in life … and it [is] an issue that we have been fighting for a very long time.”
And Murphy, through a spokesman, said he “is committed to continue to work on the bill toward passage next year.”The House vote Voting yes
Ajello, D-Providence
Almeida, D-Providence
Azzinaro, D-Westerly
Caprio, D-Narragansett
Carnevale, D-Providence
Carter, D-North Kingstown
Coderre, D-Pawtucket
Corvese, D-North Providence
Costantino, D-Providence
DeSimone, D-Providence
Diaz, D-Providence
Driver, D-Richmond
Edwards, D-Tiverton
Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown
Fellela, D-Johnston
Ferri, D-Warwick
Fierro, D-Woonsocket
Fox, D-Providence
Gallison, D-Bristol
Gemma, D-Warwick
Guthrie, D-Coventry
Handy, D-Cranston
Hearn, D-Barrington
Jackson, D-Newport
Jacquard, D-Cranston
Kennedy, D-Hopkinton
Lally, D-South Kingstown
Lima, D-Cranston
Loughlin, R-Tiverton
MacBeth, D-Cumberland
Malik, D-Warren
Martin, D-Newport
Mattiello, D-Cranston
McCauley, D-Providence
McNamara, D-Warwick
Melo, D-East Providence
Murphy, D-West Warwick
Newberry, R-N. Smithfield
O’Neill, D-Pawtucket
Pacheco, D-Burrillville
Petrarca, D-Lincoln
Pollard, D-Foster
M. Rice, D-South Kingstown
Ruggiero, D-Jamestown
San Bento, D-Pawtucket
Savage, R-East Providence
Segal, D-Providence
Serpa, D-West Warwick
Silva, D-Central Falls
Sullivan, D-Coventry
Trillo, R-Warwick
Vaudreuil, D-Cumberland
Walsh, D-Charlestown
Wasylyk, D-Providence
Watson, R-East Greenwich
Williams, D-Providence
Winfield, D-Smithfield
Voting no
Baldelli-Hunt, D-Woonsocket
Brien, D-Woonsocket
DaSilva, D-East Providence
Gablinske, D-Bristol
Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket
Marcello, D-Scituate
Menard, D-Lincoln
Rice, D-Portsmouth
Schadone, D-North Providence
Did not vote
Flaherty, D-Warwick
Giannini, D-Providence
Naughton, D-Warwick
Palumbo, D-Cranston
Ucci, D-Johnston
Shallcross Smith, D-Lincoln
Ucci, D-Johnston
Williamson, D-Coventry
SOURCE: House roll call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Expungement in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Without notice expungements almost expanded
11:14 AM EST on Wednesday, November 4, 2009
By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE –– Amid the chaos of last week’s special legislative session, advocates of a bill that would automatically erase a whole new class of criminal records scored a short-lived victory at the State House.
With no debate on the merits, the House voted 57 to 9 on Thursday for a measure — vetoed by the governor a year ago — that would have required the state’s courts to “quash and destroy” the record of any crime for which an admitted criminal received a “deferred” sentence, regardless of the nature of the crime or criminal history of the offender, as long as he or she stayed out of trouble for five years.
In recent years, criminals receiving deferred sentences included accused stalkers, embezzlers, an accomplice to a gunpoint robbery in Waterplace Park, one of the coconspirators in the Lincoln bribery scandal and at least one child molester. Emerging almost 10 months after its only State House hearing in January, the bill appeared headed for easy passage by the Senate last Thursday. But then it hit an insurmountable snag and died.
Legislative leaders realized they had, in their haste, inadvertently passed a version that the state’s judges, through their lobbyist, had adamantly opposed last January. They renewed their objection after the seemingly dead bill was passed Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.
In the hours before the House convened Thursday for the last night of the two-day special session, court lobbyist R. Kelly Sheridan told key lawmakers the state’s judges have no position on the merits of extending the state’s existing expungement law to a new class of people, who may not currently be eligible. He said that is a “legislative call.”
But he said they objected strongly to the “automatic destruction” of any court record, in part, because the decision should be made by a judge after a hearing in which the attorney general has been given a chance to comment.
And, Sheridan said, there is a much larger issue: “Public bodies should not be destroying a record of an official act.”
“It would be akin to the General Assembly destroying evidence of some vote that was taken five years ago. It’s just not appropriate,” Sheridan said this week. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Joseph Almeida, a retired Providence police officer, who argues that a criminal record hampers people from getting jobs and, in some cases, housing.
Year after year, Almeida asks a version of this question he posed in an interview this week: “How long do we keep punishing somebody if many years have gone by and they have not done anything [else] wrong or illegal?”
Rhode Island already has what the governor, the attorney general and the state police describe as one of the most liberal expungement laws in the nation. It allows judges to permanently seal the records of a nonviolent offense by a first-time offender 5 years after the individual has completed his or her sentence for a misdemeanor, 10 years after for a felony.
It also specifically allows those whose records have been expunged to tell prospective employers that they have never been convicted of a crime. Last year, 4,418 criminal case records of first-time offenders were sealed.
Almeida’s bill went a step further in requiring the courts to automatically destroy any public record of any crime that resulted in a deferred sentence, as soon as the deferral period ended, without any waiting period or regard to the nature of the crime, or history of the offender.
Almeida’s bill would have extended the opportunity to an unknown number of people who are not currently eligible, and substantially reduced the waiting period for many of those who are.
A deferred sentence usually comes as a tradeoff for a no-contest or guilty plea that spares the state from having to go to trial. The underlying notion: stay out of trouble, stay out of jail. No specific sentence is initially imposed. Instead, it provides a window of time in which a sentence could be imposed if the offender commits another crime.
An earlier version was vetoed by Governor Carcieri in 2008 on grounds it would “permit expungement for a violent felony … [after] a period of time, that usually runs five years, and by so doing, make it impossible for employers — including the state itself — to do meaningful criminal background checks.”
The governor said the legislation would also allow “early expungement” of offenses that would normally disqualify someone from working with children in a child-care center, as a child-care provider in a private home, or as a foster or adoptive parent.
Rep. Donald Lally, a Narragansett Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, described what happened to the bill in last week’s session.
In the months since the House last met in June, he said Almeida “lobbied” House Speaker William J. Murphy and House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox to resurrect his bill. They agreed and told Lally, as judiciary chairman, that they wanted his committee to vote on it. The bill cleared the committee 9-to-2 Wednesday.
The next day, Sheridan — who had last testified on the bill in January –– presented a letter spelling out the changes the judges wanted: replacement of the words “automatically quashed and destroyed,” with a description of the petition-and-hearing process that applies to current bids for an expungement.
Through a series of miscues, the bill that eventually reached the Senate didn’t have the changes the judge’s requested and there was no final vote.
“You know, last minute, and sometimes things falls through the cracks,” Lally said.
While disappointed his bill failed again this year, Almeida says he’ll “just bring it back again next year … [because] people need a second start in life … and it [is] an issue that we have been fighting for a very long time.”
And Murphy, through a spokesman, said he “is committed to continue to work on the bill toward passage next year.”The House vote Voting yes
Ajello, D-Providence
Almeida, D-Providence
Azzinaro, D-Westerly
Caprio, D-Narragansett
Carnevale, D-Providence
Carter, D-North Kingstown
Coderre, D-Pawtucket
Corvese, D-North Providence
Costantino, D-Providence
DeSimone, D-Providence
Diaz, D-Providence
Driver, D-Richmond
Edwards, D-Tiverton
Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown
Fellela, D-Johnston
Ferri, D-Warwick
Fierro, D-Woonsocket
Fox, D-Providence
Gallison, D-Bristol
Gemma, D-Warwick
Guthrie, D-Coventry
Handy, D-Cranston
Hearn, D-Barrington
Jackson, D-Newport
Jacquard, D-Cranston
Kennedy, D-Hopkinton
Lally, D-South Kingstown
Lima, D-Cranston
Loughlin, R-Tiverton
MacBeth, D-Cumberland
Malik, D-Warren
Martin, D-Newport
Mattiello, D-Cranston
McCauley, D-Providence
McNamara, D-Warwick
Melo, D-East Providence
Murphy, D-West Warwick
Newberry, R-N. Smithfield
O’Neill, D-Pawtucket
Pacheco, D-Burrillville
Petrarca, D-Lincoln
Pollard, D-Foster
M. Rice, D-South Kingstown
Ruggiero, D-Jamestown
San Bento, D-Pawtucket
Savage, R-East Providence
Segal, D-Providence
Serpa, D-West Warwick
Silva, D-Central Falls
Sullivan, D-Coventry
Trillo, R-Warwick
Vaudreuil, D-Cumberland
Walsh, D-Charlestown
Wasylyk, D-Providence
Watson, R-East Greenwich
Williams, D-Providence
Winfield, D-Smithfield
Voting no
Baldelli-Hunt, D-Woonsocket
Brien, D-Woonsocket
DaSilva, D-East Providence
Gablinske, D-Bristol
Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket
Marcello, D-Scituate
Menard, D-Lincoln
Rice, D-Portsmouth
Schadone, D-North Providence
Did not vote
Flaherty, D-Warwick
Giannini, D-Providence
Naughton, D-Warwick
Palumbo, D-Cranston
Ucci, D-Johnston
Shallcross Smith, D-Lincoln
Ucci, D-Johnston
Williamson, D-Coventry
SOURCE: House roll call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Expungement in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Friday, October 30, 2009
RI Disorderly Conduct Defense Attorney Macktaz announces another successful case defense.
RI Disorderly Conduct Defense Attorney Macktaz announces another successful case defense. If you have questions about this article or are interested in Disorderly Conduct Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Disorderly Conduct
Police Report: Lincoln Police respond to a report of a disorderly patron at the Twin River valet. Police find Client yelling and screaming at the valet in front of numerous other guests. Valet was concerned that Client had too much to drink and would not bring out the car. Client then begins to yell and scream at Lincoln Police and is arrested for Disorderly Conduct.
Result: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Disorderly Conduct Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Disorderly Conduct
Police Report: Lincoln Police respond to a report of a disorderly patron at the Twin River valet. Police find Client yelling and screaming at the valet in front of numerous other guests. Valet was concerned that Client had too much to drink and would not bring out the car. Client then begins to yell and scream at Lincoln Police and is arrested for Disorderly Conduct.
Result: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Disorderly Conduct Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Rhode Island Assault and Battery Defense Attorney Macktaz announces another successful defense.
Rhode Island Assault and Battery Defense Attorney Macktaz announces another successful defense. If you have questions about this article or are interested in Assault and Battery Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Assault and Battery
Police Report: Client is charged with assaulting bartender at Providence restaurant when asked to leave due to intoxication. Providence Police respond to the scene and have to chase client for a few blocks and then tackle Client in lobby of his hotel in order to arrest him.
Result: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Assault and Battery Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Assault and Battery
Police Report: Client is charged with assaulting bartender at Providence restaurant when asked to leave due to intoxication. Providence Police respond to the scene and have to chase client for a few blocks and then tackle Client in lobby of his hotel in order to arrest him.
Result: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Assault and Battery Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
RI Defense Attorney Macktaz represents man charged with stealing a firearm in AK-47 incident in South Kingston
Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz representes man charged with stealing a firearm. If you have questions about this post or need Criminal Defense contact RI Attorney Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email. Article published by Providence Journal.
Man who turned in AK-47, 3 others face charges
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, October 10, 2009
By Donita Naylor - Journal Staff Writer
A man who walked into the South Kingstown police station with a loaded AK-47 assault rifle is one of four men being charged or sought after a two-week investigation, the police said Friday.
Mark A. Smith, 51, of Dam Street, turned in the rifle Sept. 24, saying he’d been driving on Route 108 near the Meadowbrook Apartments around 9 a.m. when he saw two boys about 12 years old playing army with the gun. He told the police that he stopped and took the rifle from the boys, cleared the chamber of a live round and brought it directly to the police station, less than a half-mile away, along with a full clip of ammunition. He faces a misdemeanor charge of filing a false police report, South Kingstown Police Capt. Jeffrey Allen said.
The weapon was legally imported from Romania by a New England distributor, Allen said. The South Kingstown police, working with agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracked the weapon from there to Universal Firearms, 265 Main St., in South Kingstown, where it was sold to Francis W. Farrell, 32, of South Kingstown.
Allen said Farrell didn’t report the weapon missing from his collection until after detectives and federal agents questioned him. Allen said Farrell was expected to turn himself in Friday or Saturday to face a misdemeanor charge of failure to report a stolen firearm.
A third man, Trevor Bishop, 33, who lives near the Richmond Town Hall and who Allen said is friends with Farrell, was arrested Friday on a felony charge of stealing a firearm. He was arraigned in District Court, South Kingstown, late Friday, with the police recommending he be released on $2,500 surety bail, or $250 cash, Allen said. In felony cases, bail is set in District Court, but a defendant must wait to enter a plea in Superior Court.
A warrant is out for the arrest of a fourth man, Mason E. Wilson, 21, of South Kingstown, whom Allen said is wanted on another warrant. He will be charged with possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a violent crime, which Allen said was delivery of crack cocaine. Wilson was sentenced June 28, 2008, to six years of probation with six years suspended.
Although the original report of children playing army with a loaded AK-47 was probably false, Allen said, “We know the gun was in a residence in our community where it could potentially have been handled by young adults and juveniles.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Man who turned in AK-47, 3 others face charges
01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, October 10, 2009
By Donita Naylor - Journal Staff Writer
A man who walked into the South Kingstown police station with a loaded AK-47 assault rifle is one of four men being charged or sought after a two-week investigation, the police said Friday.
Mark A. Smith, 51, of Dam Street, turned in the rifle Sept. 24, saying he’d been driving on Route 108 near the Meadowbrook Apartments around 9 a.m. when he saw two boys about 12 years old playing army with the gun. He told the police that he stopped and took the rifle from the boys, cleared the chamber of a live round and brought it directly to the police station, less than a half-mile away, along with a full clip of ammunition. He faces a misdemeanor charge of filing a false police report, South Kingstown Police Capt. Jeffrey Allen said.
The weapon was legally imported from Romania by a New England distributor, Allen said. The South Kingstown police, working with agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tracked the weapon from there to Universal Firearms, 265 Main St., in South Kingstown, where it was sold to Francis W. Farrell, 32, of South Kingstown.
Allen said Farrell didn’t report the weapon missing from his collection until after detectives and federal agents questioned him. Allen said Farrell was expected to turn himself in Friday or Saturday to face a misdemeanor charge of failure to report a stolen firearm.
A third man, Trevor Bishop, 33, who lives near the Richmond Town Hall and who Allen said is friends with Farrell, was arrested Friday on a felony charge of stealing a firearm. He was arraigned in District Court, South Kingstown, late Friday, with the police recommending he be released on $2,500 surety bail, or $250 cash, Allen said. In felony cases, bail is set in District Court, but a defendant must wait to enter a plea in Superior Court.
A warrant is out for the arrest of a fourth man, Mason E. Wilson, 21, of South Kingstown, whom Allen said is wanted on another warrant. He will be charged with possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a violent crime, which Allen said was delivery of crack cocaine. Wilson was sentenced June 28, 2008, to six years of probation with six years suspended.
Although the original report of children playing army with a loaded AK-47 was probably false, Allen said, “We know the gun was in a residence in our community where it could potentially have been handled by young adults and juveniles.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Marijuana Attorney Macktaz Interviewed by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly
A quick word with …
S. JOSHUA MACKTAZ
Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly
Published: September 10, 2009
Printed: September 14, 2009 issue
By Noah Schaffer
Age: 41
Graduated: Suffolk University Law School (1993)
Bar admission: 1993
Job: Sole practitioner, Providence
Practice area: Criminal defense, including marijuana crimes
A former special assistant attorney general, S. Joshua Macktaz has handled more than a thousand cases involving misdemeanor and felony marijuana possession, sale and distribution. In 1997, he left the AG’s Office and became a defense attorney. He discussed with Lawyers Weekly’s Matt Yas the issue of marijuana decriminalization and the Legislature’s passage of a bill earlier this year approving marijuana “compassion centers.”
Q. What draws you specifically to marijuana cases?
A. For one thing, they’re easy to defend. They’re just not treated as harshly anymore. Since the changes in the laws, offenders are much more likely to have their cases dismissed or receive community service and expungement of the charges.
S. JOSHUA MACKTAZ
Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly
Published: September 10, 2009
Printed: September 14, 2009 issue
By Noah Schaffer
Age: 41
Graduated: Suffolk University Law School (1993)
Bar admission: 1993
Job: Sole practitioner, Providence
Practice area: Criminal defense, including marijuana crimes
A former special assistant attorney general, S. Joshua Macktaz has handled more than a thousand cases involving misdemeanor and felony marijuana possession, sale and distribution. In 1997, he left the AG’s Office and became a defense attorney. He discussed with Lawyers Weekly’s Matt Yas the issue of marijuana decriminalization and the Legislature’s passage of a bill earlier this year approving marijuana “compassion centers.”
Q. What draws you specifically to marijuana cases?
A. For one thing, they’re easy to defend. They’re just not treated as harshly anymore. Since the changes in the laws, offenders are much more likely to have their cases dismissed or receive community service and expungement of the charges.
Q. So the recent legislative changes have had a tangible effect?
A. No question. I am constantly citing the Massachusetts decriminalization of marijuana and the Legislature’s approval of compassion centers here in Rhode Island, a bill that passed on an override of the governor’s veto. These examples of the changes in perception about marijuana serve as effective arguments in court, particularly in the towns.
A. No question. I am constantly citing the Massachusetts decriminalization of marijuana and the Legislature’s approval of compassion centers here in Rhode Island, a bill that passed on an override of the governor’s veto. These examples of the changes in perception about marijuana serve as effective arguments in court, particularly in the towns.
Q. Can you cite an example of this turning tide toward more compassionate rulings?
A. I had a case involving two professional clients — one a special needs teacher — who attended the annual Charlestown Music Festival. An undercover cop witnessed what appeared to be a joint being passed around. He observed my clients partaking in, then disposing of and stomping out, the cigarette — so, clearly guilty. The case was dismissed in exchange for community service and a donation to the City Solicitor’s Victims’ Fund.
A. I had a case involving two professional clients — one a special needs teacher — who attended the annual Charlestown Music Festival. An undercover cop witnessed what appeared to be a joint being passed around. He observed my clients partaking in, then disposing of and stomping out, the cigarette — so, clearly guilty. The case was dismissed in exchange for community service and a donation to the City Solicitor’s Victims’ Fund.
Q. What are your feelings, as a citizen first and a lawyer second, about the illegal status of marijuana?
A. I think it’s ridiculous that possession is a crime. We’d be better off legalizing it, regulating it and taxing it. As a criminal defense attorney, I don’t mind the business, but good people are getting criminal records this way. As long as alcohol isn’t illegal, marijuana shouldn’t be, either. I’m sure the sale or cultivation of marijuana will never be legalized, or driving under the influence, but small amounts for simple possession should be. Then tax the heck out of it!
A. I think it’s ridiculous that possession is a crime. We’d be better off legalizing it, regulating it and taxing it. As a criminal defense attorney, I don’t mind the business, but good people are getting criminal records this way. As long as alcohol isn’t illegal, marijuana shouldn’t be, either. I’m sure the sale or cultivation of marijuana will never be legalized, or driving under the influence, but small amounts for simple possession should be. Then tax the heck out of it!
Q. Finally, are you aware that if an Internet user types “marijuana lawyer Rhode Island” into a Google search, yours is the first and only name to come up? Has that been a key to your steady stream of business?
A. I have a good web optimizer — I have to credit him for that one. But the business has been consistent regardless, because I have been able to resolve so many cases in this area favorably.
A. I have a good web optimizer — I have to credit him for that one. But the business has been consistent regardless, because I have been able to resolve so many cases in this area favorably.
Published on September 10, 2009 in the RI Lawyers Weekly Blog. This article can also be found in the Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly's September 14th publication on newstands through out Rhode Island. RILawyersWeekly.com is a subscription based online publication available to the public.
Contact Rhode Island Marijuana Lawyer S. Joshua Macktaz by Email or call today at (401) 861-1155 and we will respond to you as soon as possible.
For more information on Marijuana Crimes and Defense Lawyer services in Rhode Island visit our website pages dedicated to Marijuana Laws and Criminal Defense in Rhode Island:
- Rhode Island Marijuana Information - Marijuana Possession and other Marijuana Crimes Defense in Rhode Island
- Drug Laws and Penalties In Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Criminal Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Marijuana Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Rhode Island DUI Defense Lawyer Macktaz announces recent victory for Breathalyzer Refusal Client
RI Drunk Driving Attorney Macktaz announces a recent win for his client arrested for DUI and Breathalyzer Refusal. If you have questions about or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Refusal to Take a Breathalyzer Test
Police Report: A Warwick Police Officer on a fixed post at 2:30am observes Client “spinning his wheels” coming off the Jefferson Blvd. exit to 95 south. Officer observes Client’s vehicle to cross the center line on at least 2 occasions. After stopping Client, police officer observes strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and slurred speech. Client takes and fails 3 field sobriety tests.
Result: Count One: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: Refusal to Take a Breathalyzer Test
Police Report: A Warwick Police Officer on a fixed post at 2:30am observes Client “spinning his wheels” coming off the Jefferson Blvd. exit to 95 south. Officer observes Client’s vehicle to cross the center line on at least 2 occasions. After stopping Client, police officer observes strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and slurred speech. Client takes and fails 3 field sobriety tests.
Result: Count One: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in DUI or Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
RI Sexual Assault Criminal Defense Attorney Macktaz announces another recent victory.
Rhode Island Sexual Assault Attorney Macktaz announces the successful results of a recent clients defense in Rhode Island. If you have questions about or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: First Degree Sexual Assault (rape)
Police Report: Alleged victim tells Providence Police that she is out with Client and a large group of friends in Providence. After spending the night “clubbing”, Client and a friend accompany alleged victim to her home while her mother is home. Alleged victim claims that Client sexually assaulted her in her bedroom while his friend watched. Alleged victim goes to R.I. Hospital for a rape-kit test, gives a written statement against Client, and testifies in court at Client’s bail hearing.
Result: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Criminal Charges: First Degree Sexual Assault (rape)
Police Report: Alleged victim tells Providence Police that she is out with Client and a large group of friends in Providence. After spending the night “clubbing”, Client and a friend accompany alleged victim to her home while her mother is home. Alleged victim claims that Client sexually assaulted her in her bedroom while his friend watched. Alleged victim goes to R.I. Hospital for a rape-kit test, gives a written statement against Client, and testifies in court at Client’s bail hearing.
Result: DISMISSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this article or are interested in Criminal Defense in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney Joshua Macktaz at 401-861-1155 or CONTACT him via email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
As a Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney I bring my clients knowledge and expertise as a former Rhode Island Special Assistant Attorney General from 1993-1997. During those years I prosecuted hundreds of criminal cases ranging from disorderly conduct to first degree murder in every Rhode Island county. Additionally, along with other prosecutors, I lectured in-coming police academy cadets on proper drunk driving investigations and prosecutions. This unique experience has allowed me a wealth of knowledge not readily available to the average criminal defense attorney. Since 1997 I have been applying all that I learned as a prosecutor in order to better benefit my private clients. 