Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2012, the City of Providence suspended cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) pension benefits for retired police and fire department members. The retirees challenged this suspension, leading to a series of legal actions. Most retirees settled, agreeing to a ten-year suspension of their COLA benefits, but some plaintiffs opted out and pursued further legal action, claiming breach of contract and constitutional violations.The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for the City on some claims and, after a bench trial, ruled against the plaintiffs on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Andrews I found that the 2012 ordinance violated the separation of powers doctrine by attempting to override prior consent judgments and judicial decisions. The case was remanded, and the Superior Court reinstated the plaintiffs' COLAs and awarded accrued benefits but did not address prejudgment interest.The plaintiffs then sought prejudgment interest on the past-due COLA payments, which the Superior Court denied, reasoning that the damages were not contractual in nature but were awarded based on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the plaintiffs' recovery of past-due COLAs was based on the enforcement of final judgments, not on a breach of contract. Since the award was rooted in constitutional law rather than contract law, the plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest under the relevant statute, which applies strictly to tort and contract claims. View "Andrews v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, retired police officers and firefighters, challenged the constitutionality of a 2011 Medicare Ordinance enacted by the City of Providence, which required retirees to enroll in Medicare upon eligibility and terminated city-paid health care coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees. The plaintiffs, who opted out of a settlement agreement that provided certain Medicare-related benefits, sought retroactive reimbursement for out-of-pocket health care expenses incurred during the litigation.The Superior Court initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of the City on some claims and, after a bench trial, denied relief on the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Andrews II remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment consistent with the specific provisions of the 2013 Final and Consent Judgment, which did not include retroactive reimbursement for health care expenses.Upon remand, the plaintiffs sought reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, but the Superior Court denied this request, concluding that such relief was outside the scope of the Supreme Court's mandate in Andrews II. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the mandate in Andrews II did not contemplate or include retroactive relief for health care expenses. The Court emphasized that the mandate was prospective in nature and aligned with the 2013 Final and Consent Judgment, which did not provide for reimbursement of past expenses. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had waived claims for individual damages during the trial and had not sought such damages in their amended complaint. View "Andrews v. Lombardi" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jason Ortiz, was charged with several criminal counts, including carrying a pistol without a license, domestic assault, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. The charges stemmed from an incident in which Ortiz was apprehended by police after a domestic dispute. The police found a pistol in the vicinity of Ortiz's arrest, and DNA evidence linked Ortiz to the weapon. Ortiz was nineteen years old and a resident of Massachusetts at the time of his arrest.In the Superior Court for Providence County, Ortiz filed a motion to dismiss the charge of carrying a pistol without a license, arguing that the Rhode Island statute requiring a license to carry a pistol violated his Second Amendment rights. The state objected, arguing that Ortiz lacked standing to challenge the statute because he had never applied for a license and therefore had not been denied one. The trial justice denied Ortiz's motion to dismiss, finding that Ortiz lacked standing to challenge the statute and that the statute was reasonably adopted to address the government's interest in reducing gun violence. After a bench trial, Ortiz was found guilty of carrying a pistol without a license and sentenced to five years imprisonment, with eighteen months to serve and the balance of the sentence suspended, with probation.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Ortiz argued that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to dismiss. He contended that the licensing statute violated his Second Amendment rights and that he had standing to challenge the statute because he was being punished for violating it. The state argued that Ortiz lacked standing to challenge the statute because he had not applied for a license. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, holding that Ortiz lacked standing to challenge the licensing statute because he had not applied for a license and would not have qualified for one had he applied due to his age and residency. The court declined to reach Ortiz's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the licensing statute. View "State v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

The case involves Napoleao Pires, who was convicted for carrying a firearm without a license and possession of a controlled substance. The conviction was based on evidence obtained when a police officer, responding to a dispatch, stopped and searched Pires. The dispatch reported a man matching Pires' description walking around with a gun. Upon arrival, the officer did not observe any criminal activity or see a gun, but stopped Pires based on the dispatch information. Pires challenged the trial justice’s decision to deny his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the seizure violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.The Superior Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress and concluded that the gun and cocaine had been lawfully seized. The court found that the officer's thirty years of experience, the dispatch sending him to a high-crime area, Pires' match to the dispatch description, Pires' noncompliance to the officer’s commands, and Pires' pivot to reach for his waistband amounted to the level of reasonable suspicion required to justify the warrantless stop.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reversed the decision on the motion to suppress and vacated the judgment of conviction. The court held that Pires was seized the moment he complied with the officer’s order to raise his hands. The court found that the state failed to submit adequate evidence to show that reasonable suspicion existed at the inception of Pires' encounter with the officer. The court concluded that Pires' Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the state failed to submit adequate evidence to show that reasonable suspicion existed at the inception of his encounter with the officer. View "State v. Pires" on Justia Law

The case involves Marklyn Brown, who was arrested and indicted for a shooting that resulted in the death of Ms. Berta Pereira-Roldan. During his seven-hour interrogation at the Providence Police Department, Brown consistently maintained his innocence and expressed his desire to speak with his mother. After three hours of questioning, the police allowed Brown to speak with his mother. The conversation between Brown and his mother was recorded and listened to by the police without their knowledge.The Superior Court heard Brown's motions to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation and the recorded conversation with his mother. Brown argued that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and his right under article 1, section 13 of the Rhode Island Constitution against self-incrimination were violated. He also argued that the surreptitious recording violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Rhode Island Constitution, and constituted an unauthorized wiretap pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 11-35-21. The trial justice suppressed both the interrogation and Brown's entire conversation with his mother, determining that Brown had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he spoke to his mother in the interview room.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the order of the Superior Court. The court concluded that Brown had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he spoke with his mother in the interview room, and that the police violated Brown's Fourth Amendment rights as well as his rights pursuant to article 1, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution when they recorded his conversation with his mother. The court rejected the state's arguments that Brown did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy because he did not ask for a private, unrecorded conversation, and that he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The defendant, Victor Tavares, was convicted by a jury on two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault. The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred at a party in 2012, where Tavares and another man, Franklin Johnson, were accused of sexually assaulting a woman named Mary. The evidence against Tavares included Mary's testimony, a used condom found at the scene, and DNA evidence linking Johnson to the condom. Tavares, who represented himself at trial and on appeal, raised twelve issues for consideration.Before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Tavares argued that the trial court erred in several ways, including by not dismissing the indictment based on the rule of consistency, the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and the General Assembly's lack of authority to enact criminal laws. He also claimed that the trial court improperly conducted voir dire and allowed the introduction of Johnson's DNA evidence.The Supreme Court rejected all of Tavares's arguments. It held that the trial court properly conducted voir dire and correctly allowed the introduction of Johnson's DNA evidence. The court also found that the General Assembly had the authority to enact the criminal laws under which Tavares was charged and convicted. Furthermore, the court ruled that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and the rule of consistency did not apply in this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed Tavares's conviction. View "State v. Tavares" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the superior court granting Defendants' motions to suppress evidence of approximately ninety-four pounds of marijuana seized from one defendant's vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the trial justice erred in granting Defendants' motions to suppress.Junjie Li was operating a vehicle and Zhong Kuang was in the passenger seat when a law enforcement officer initiated a traffic stop. While conversing with Li, the officer noticed Li began to exhibit nervous behavior and detected an order of marijuana coming from inside Kuang's vehicle. After a dog sniff, officers discovered marijuana. Li and Kuang moved, individually to suppress the marijuana. The trial justice granted the motions to suppress, holding that the extension of the traffic stop beyond its original scope was unreasonable because the officer did not have independent reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's orders, holding that the trial justice erred in concluding that the officer did not possess reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop based on the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Li" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the superior court granting motions to suppress filed by Defendants Jerome Joseph and Voguel Figaro, holding that the hearing justice did not err in granting Defendants' suppression motions.Figaro moved to suppress physical evidence seized as the result of a motor vehicle stop, arguing that the officer unconstitutionally prolonged the stop to perform a dog sniff. Joseph also filed a motion to suppress and joined the memorandum supporting Figaro's suppression motion. The hearing justice granted the motions to suppress, holding that reasonable suspicion did not support the prolonged traffic stop of Figaro's vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly found that the state police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Defendants. View "State v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the order of the district court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the State of Rhode Island, acting by and through the Division of Taxation (Division), in this appeal stemming from a series of transactions for the purchase and sale of gasoline, holding that the district court erred in granting the Division's motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.The tax at issue was levied on a transaction between Plaintiff and another party and was the subject of several transactions between various entities. Plaintiff reimbursed a third-party for the tax assessed on the sale of 300,000 barrels of gasoline and then initiated this action alleging constitutional violations and violations of the Motor Fuel Tax. The trial judge dismissed the case for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge erroneously dismissed the action based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. View "Gunvor USA, LLC v. State, ex rel. Division of Taxation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the order of the district court dismissing two actions challenging the State Division of Taxation's denial of Plaintiff's claim for a refund of $4,280,039 paid for Motor Fuel Tax assessed on the purchase and sale of 300,000 barrels of gasoline, holding that the the district court erred.Plaintiff purchased 300,000 barrels of gasoline from Defendant. The Division imposed a motor fuel taxes on the gasoline that was charged to Defendant, as the seller of the gas. Defendant sought reimbursement from Plaintiff, which sought a refund from the Division under R.I. Gen. Stat. 31-36-13. The Division denied Plaintiff's claim for a refund on the grounds that Plaintiff did not have a right to pursue a refund. Plaintiff then filed a complaint alleging constitutional violations and violations of the Motor Fuel Tax, among other claims. Plaintiff then appealed the Division's denial of its request for a refund. The hearing officer concluded that Plaintiff's claim was barred by both res judicata and administrative finality. Ultimately, both cases were dismissed. The Supreme Court quashed the decisions below, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing; (2) the trial judge erred in concluding that res judicata barred Plaintiff's appeal; and (3) the doctrine of administrative finality did not apply to bar Plaintiff's claims. View "Apex Oil Co. v. State, ex rel. Division of Taxation" on Justia Law