Judge Upholds Controversial Search of Central Falls Soccer Players

U.S. District Judge William E. Smith recently ruled that Coventry police officers who searched a bus full of Central Falls soccer players for stolen cell phones and iPods were protected by qualified immunity according to a report in the Providence Journal.

The soccer game ended in a tie three years ago, but what unfolded next was a search by Coventry police officers before jeering onlookers of visiting Central Falls players accused of stealing cell phones and iPods. The officers’ search turned up nothing.

Eleven of those players filed suit in federal court, alleging the police violated their right to be free from unreasonable searches, invaded their privacy and amounted to racial profiling and ethnic intimidation.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge William E. Smith said he was dismayed and disappointed by the officers’ lack of professional judgment and the appalling actions of the crowd. But, he said, the officers were protected by qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability as long as their conduct does not violate rights of which any reasonable person would have known.

The players, who are no longer in school, appealed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week.

…The varsity soccer game between Central Falls and Coventry had just ended in a 2-2 tie. Six Central Falls players used the bathrooms in the boys’ locker room as a security guard looked on. Coach Bobby Marchand sent the players to the bus, where they were met by about 20 Coventry football players who swore as they accused the Central Falls players of stealing the iPods. The coach said he would get to the bottom of it and spent about 25 minutes searching the players’ bags. None of the missing items was found.

The crowd, by this time, grew to 50. They shouted derogatory and racist remarks and threatened not to leave until the items were found.

Four Coventry police officers arrived and boxed the bus in. The topic of whether the police could conduct their own search arose; Marchand consented. He later testified he felt compelled to do so under the circumstances.

The officers ordered the players to exit the bus with their belongings and stand with their backs against the bus as the crowd continued to shout racial epithets and accusations. The police ordered each player to step forward with his bag. The officers searched the bags and held each cell phone or iPod found up for the purported “victims” to identify, the ruling states.

Smith found that the officers were shielded by qualified immunity but that “it was a close call as to whether a constitutional violation occurred.”

“And,” he wrote, “it is undisputed that the police did not have a search warrant and the search of the boys was not supported by probable cause.”

The opinion is here.

Connecticut Lawsuit Alleges Retaliation in ICE Raid

The American Association for Justice reports that residents of New Haven, Connecticut, with the assistance of the Legal Services Office of Yale University, have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, charging that ICE agents violated their civil rights in a June 2007 raid in which 29 people were arrested and detained.

According to the complaint, about 20 ICE agents swept through the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Fair Haven, without search warrants or probable cause, and arrested people “based on their skin color and physical appearance.” Fair Haven residents caught up in the early-morning raid were detained without legal counsel and without being informed of their rights, they allege. Some were locked up for weeks.

Plaintiff José Solan-Yangua said in a statement that he was “terrified and humiliated” during the raid. “We are bringing this suit because we refuse to let our families and community live in fear,” he said.

The raids were conducted under an ICE program known as the National Fugitive Operations Program, which was designed to find dangerous fugitives who do not have legal immigration status. According to the lawsuit, agents have strict quotas for arrest numbers, and when the agents in Connecticut failed to meet these quotas, senior ICE officials “amended the program to permit individual teams to count arrests of nondangerous, noncriminal nonfugitives—in other words, bystanders—toward their annual quotas.”

In addition to violations of the residents’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, the suit alleges that the ICE agents violated the Tenth Amendment because the raid was retaliatory and represented federal interference in a local government’s right to self-regulate. Shortly before the raid, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. had approved a program called the Elm City Resident Card, the first municipal resident card in the country, which federal authorities viewed as a threat to their authority, the lawsuit claims.

The card—which functions as an identification card, library card, debit card, access card for city parks and pools, and a way to pay parking meters—is issued to all residents of New Haven, regardless of their immigration status.

According to the lawsuit, ICE responded by raiding the Fair Haven community two days after the card was approved by the city’s Board of Aldermen. DeStefano told the New York Times that he had no doubt the raid was a response to the card program.

The case is Diaz-Bernal v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., No. 3:09-CV-01734 (D.Conn. filed Oct. 28, 2009).

Update on James Woods Medical Malpractice Case

The Associated Press reports that opening arguments begin Monday in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the actor James Woods over the death of his 49 year old brother, Michael Woods, at Kent Hospital in Warwick.  Woods alleges that his younger brother received negligent care when he died in 2006 of what was believed to be a heart attack.

The case – James Woods, et. al. v. Kelli Naylor, et. al. KC-2007-0630 – will be heard Monday in front of RI Superior Court Associate Justice Daniel Procaccini.  Mark Decof is representing the plaintiffs and Dave Carroll is representing the defendants.

Update #1:  The Providence Journal has a good report on the opening arguments.

Update #2: The Providence Journal reports that four witnesses took the stand and described Michael Woods’ symptoms on the day he presented to Kent Hospital.

Update #3: The Providence Journal reports that the emergency room physician and nurse assigned to Woods when he first presented to Kent Hospital took the stand and testified.

Update #4: Another nurse who treated Woods testified in Court according to this report from the Providence Journal.

Update #5: According to the Providence Journal, plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Jeffrey Garrett, a Pittsburgh cardiologist, told the jury that the care Woods received fell below the standard care and that had he received the proper care, more likely than not, he would not have died.

Update #6: The Providence Journal reports that the defendant doctor – Kelli A. Naylor, M.D. – took the stand and testified that she ordered a heart monitor for Woods, but her order was not followed.

Update #7: According to the Providence Journal, plaintiff’s expert – Dr. John A. Schriver, chief of emergency medicine at Rochester General Hospital – testified that the Kent Hospital emergency department did not meet the standard of care when they treated Woods on July 26, 2006.  Schriver also testified that had Woods been on a heart monitor and treated with medications commonly given to heart patients, it is more likely than not that Woods would have lived.

RI Women’s Bar Association Forum: Restoring Civility in Civil Procedure

The Rhode Island Women’s Bar Association’s is hosting the second part of their Women in Law Series with an event entitled, “Restoring Civility in Civil Procedure: How to Decode the Unwritten Rules of Practice and Successfully Navigate the Discovery and Trial Process.”

Learn from the pros how cooperation, respect and flexibility generally serve the best interests of the court, the client and the attorney. Lunch is included and participants will earn 1 MCLE credit for this seminar.

PRESENTED BY: The Honorable Susan McGuirl, Associate Justice, RI Superior Court; Rebecca Tedford Partington, Assistant Attorney General; Melody A. Alger, Alger Parker LLP

Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 12:30 p.m. -1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 1
Licht Judicial Complex
$25.00 for Members and $35 for Non-Members

Please return checks payable to “RIWBA” to:
Melody Alger
Alger Parker LLP
95 Chestnut Street, Providence, R.I. 02903

You can RSVP on Facebook here.

RI ACLU Takes on the Orange Stickers

The Rhode Island ACLU has filed a motion in federal court, seeking a declaration, without the need for a trial, that the Town of Narragansett’s highly-publicized “orange sticker” ordinance is unconstitutional. In a 22-page brief accompanying the motion for “summary judgment,” the ACLU also requests a permanent injunction against the Town, barring enforcement of the ordinance.

The ACLU filed suit last year against the ordinance, which authorizes police both to charge tenants and landlords for allowing “unruly gatherings,” and to place orange stickers on houses that have allegedly been the site of such gatherings. The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish, is on behalf of the URI Student Senate, as well as four students and three landlords who have been affected by enforcement of the ordinance.

The ACLU brief, filed yesterday, argues that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, by failing to “provide fair notice to students, tenants or landlords of what constitutes illegal behavior” and by not providing “appropriate guidance to the police to ensure non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary enforcement.”  The brief also claims that the ordinance violates the plaintiffs’ due process rights.  It notes:

“The act of affixing a 10 inch by 14 inch orange sticker to the front door of a rental property is left to the sole discretion of the police with no opportunity for a hearing either before or after the posting of the orange sticker. Since the orange sticker can not be removed until the end of the school year without financial penalty, regardless of the presence or absence of the original ‘unruly’ tenants, its presence stigmatizes the reputations of the landlord and any and all tenants, and reduces the value of the property, in effect depriving the landlord of fair use of the property.”

RI ACLU attorney Melish said: “The ordinance is clearly aimed at shaming students and landlords by branding their residences with large orange stickers, the town’s modern-day version of scarlet letters. We look forward to the Court’s ruling on our constitutional challenge to this ill-conceived ordinance.”

Update: Judge William Smith will hear oral arguments in this case in the appellate courtroom at Roger Williams University School of Law this Tuesday, November 17th, starting at 500pm.

Rhode Island Considers Legalizing and Taxing Marijuana

A legislative commission is exploring how much revenue could be generated by legalizing and taxing marijuana sales:

The group intends to study issues surrounding the state’s position on marijuana, including money the state might make if it legalized it and enacted a $35 “sin tax” for purchases of an ounce or more.

Other topics to be explored are the effects and costs of Rhode Island’s prohibition of the drug, except to sick people; whether adult use has increased since it was banned in 1918; whether its sales are financing drug cartels and fomenting violence; and its current availability to young people. The group will also look at how states and countries that have decriminalized the drug have fared.

One of the first subjects the panel will examine is Massachusetts’ experience since voters there overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure in November 2008 that decriminalized possessing small amounts of marijuana. People caught with less than an ounce face a $100 civil fine, but not criminal charges.

The group will gauge the effectiveness of that state’s policy and its impact on law enforcement and prison resources, said Sen. Joshua Miller, D-Cranston, one of five sponsors of the bill that created the commission.

The commission is set to submit its findings in a report by January 31, 2010.

State of Rhode Island Loses LNG Appeal at the First Circuit

In a big loss to Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Patrick Lynch (who has made his anti-LNG stance a big campaign issue), the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s Coastal Resources Management Council forfeited its ability to oppose a controversial LNG proposal to bring supertankers up Narragansett Bay by failing to timely make a decision on the proposal.  Here’s the beginning of the opinion authored by Chief Judge Sandra Lynch:

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (“CRMC”) challenges a decision by the federal district court, which has rejected two regulatory barriers CRMC imposed to plans to build a Liquified Natural Gas (“LNG”) terminal in the City of Fall River with a berth in Massachusetts coastal waters of Mount Hope Bay. Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC (“Weaver’s Cove”) is the sponsor of the LNG terminal. Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. R.I. Coastal Res. Mgmt. Council, 583 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.R.I. 2008). The barriers, which CRMC has attempted to impose, are to necessary dredging by Weaver’s Cove in Rhode Island navigable waters, in a federal navigation channel. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) generally approved the project in 2005, subject to certain conditions. Until those conditions are met, Weaver’s Cove cannot start construction. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, joined by the City of Fall River, has filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of CRMC.

We address three main issues. The first is whether we have Article III jurisdiction to decide these matters. The second is whether the district court erred in holding that CRMC’s failure to respond within six months to Weaver’s Cove’s application for federal consistency review requires there be a presumption of concurrence in the project, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (“CZMA”). The third is whether CRMC’s use of its state law licensing program for alterations to the coast, 04-000-010 R.I. Code R. §§ 100.1, 300.1, to block the project is preempted by the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”).

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s decision.

RWU Law Panel Reflects on the Judicial Selection Process in Rhode Island

Congratulations to RWU School of Law and Professor Michael Yelnosky for having a great forum on the process by which judges are selected in Rhode Island:

The percentage of state judges who earned degrees from Suffolk University Law School has grown since the state overhauled its judicial-selection process to be based on qualifications, not political connections, 15 years ago. The percentage of lawmakers heading to the bench dropped during the same period.

Likewise, the percentage of judges to attend elite law schools fell, while the percentage of native Rhode Islanders donning judicial robes grew.

Those were some of the facts that emerged Friday at a forum on Judicial Selection in Rhode Island: Assessing the 15-year Experience with Merit Selection at the Roger Williams University School of Law. The figures were presented by Michael J. Yelnosky, the RWU law professor who led the session.

Opinions were many, but one consensus was clear: It’s impossible to remove politics from the process altogether, despite the best efforts.

But, he said, the system will only work if its players — commission members, legislators and the governor — are committed to excising politics.

This reflection on the state of judicial selection in Rhode Island comes 15 years after the the process was reformed in 1994 – creating the 9-member Judicial Nominating Commission – after scandals forced the resignations of Supreme Court Chief Justices Bevilacqua and Fay.

Rhode Island is now 1 of 32 other states that employs some form of a merit-based system, 1 of 9 other states to publicly interview applicants and only 1 of 5 other states whose nominating committee publicly votes, according to this Providence Journal article.

Yet, politics still pervades in the judicial selection process in Rhode Island since the Governor ultimately nominates a candidate and the Senate must approve lower court appointments and both the House and the Senate must approve Supreme Court appointments.

There is a perception, said panelist Alan S. Flink, a former JNC member, “if you don’t have a political sponsor don’t bother to apply. …

For its faults, Rhode Island’s process is still much better than those states employing judicial elections, where politics and money play a much larger and more dangerous role (as Caperton v. AT Massey Coal showed).

First Circuit Finds that Courts can Inquire into Juror Bias

Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly reports on a recent First Circuit opinion that found that a trial judge could conduct an inquiry into jury bias after one juror, following a bank robbery trial, reported that another juror had made a racially discriminatory remark. The 28-page decision in United States v. Villar, written by Judge Saris, is available here.  Here’s an excerpt:

After a jury trial, Defendant-appellant Richard Villar, a Hispanic man, was convicted of bank robbery. Hours following his conviction, defense counsel received an e-mail message from one of the jurors disclosing that during deliberations another juror said, “I guess we’re profiling but they cause all the trouble.” When defense counsel filed a motion for a court inquiry into the validity of the verdict, the court held a hearing in which the juror was asked only to authenticate the e-mail. Concluding that an allegation of ethnically biased statements within the jury room was not, as Villar argued, an external matter open to post-verdict inquiry, the district court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precluded the court from engaging in any further examination beyond the mere authentication of the e-mail.

Appellant now challenges the conviction on the grounds that the district court erred when it ruled that Rule 606(b) prohibited it from taking juror testimony about ethnically biased comments during the course of deliberations, and that the appellant was denied the right to due process and the right to an impartial jury in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. While we agree with the trial court that Rule 606(b) precludes inquiry into juror prejudice, we hold that the court has the discretion to conduct such an inquiry under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the Court reverses the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion to make an inquiry into the validity of the verdict, and remands to the trial court. Appellant also argues that the District Court incorrectly applied the four-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D), an argument that we find has no merit.

TONIGHT: New Attorney’s Event at the RI Bar Association

Attention New Attorneys!  Don’t forget to come by the RI Bar Association tonight for this great event!

New lawyers often run in survival mode, and many are still trying to figure out what they want and expect from their careers.  On Thursday, November 12, 2009, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., the Rhode Island Bar Association New Attorney Advancement Task Force offers an evening to step back and take a look at the big picture.  Shaping your career to your satisfaction takes a little vision and a lot of perseverance.  It is about taking the time to grab the wheel and plot your course for the long haul. Listen to the examples of others who have been there, done that, and ask them questions about how to make the practice of law a satisfying journey as you strive to meet your personal and professional goals.

The event is free to Bar members, and hors d’oeuvres and refreshments will be served. As space is limited, reservations are required by November 6, 2009. Please contact Bar Association Membership Coordinator Kathleen Bridge by telephone: (401) 421-5740 or email: kbridge@ribar.com.

Event Presenters:

Constance A. Howes, Esq., President and CEO of Women & Infants Hospital previously served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of Women & Infants; vice president and general counsel for Care New England; vice president and general counsel for Women & Infants Hospital; and as an attorney with Tillinghast, Collins & Graham where she practiced primarily in the area of business law.

Philip M. Weinstein, Esq. has private law practices in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. He is a Past President of the Rhode Island Bar Association with a long history of involvement in Bar committees, CLE seminars and governance. He has participated in a medical mission with Turtle Will, a non-profit corporation doing medical charitable work in Ethiopia, Mali and Niger.

Keeva Terry, Esq., a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has an interesting career path from tax consultant, to a tax/mergers & acquisitions lawyer in a large law firm, to in-house counsel, to her current position where, in addition to teaching, she is working on an article entitled Betwixt and Between, Taxing Same Sex Marriage in Community Property States.

Luis M. Matos, Esq. presently serves in the United States Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island. His legal career includes private practice as a civil litigator in Washington DC- based Newman & Holtzinger, LLC; service as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice’s Civil Division and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Delaware including a one-year detail in Washington, DC as Health Care Fraud Coordinator.

Opening Arguments Begin in James Woods Medical Malpractice Case

The Associated Press reports that opening arguments will begin Monday in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the actor James Woods over the death of his 49 year old brother, Michael Woods, at Kent Hospital in Warwick.  Woods alleges that his younger brother received negligent care when he died in 2006 of what was believed to be a heart attack.

The case – James Woods, et. al. v. Kelli Naylor, et. al. KC-2007-0630 – will be heard Monday in front of RI Superior Court Associate Justice Daniel Procaccini.  Mark Decof is representing the plaintiffs and Dave Carroll is representing the defendants.

Update:  The Providence Journal has a good report on the opening arguments.

JNC to Interview 7 Candidates for RI Superior Court Vacancy

According to the Providence Journal, the Judicial Nominating Commission will interview 7 candidates for a Superior Court associate judgeship that became vacant upon the elevation of Alice B Gibney as Presiding Justice of the Superior Court.

The candidates who will be interviewed include the following (in alphabetical order with descriptions from the Providence Journal):

• Richard K. Corley, of Warwick, owns Corley & Associates, which does civil and criminal law. He is on the legislative council that reviews proposed Judiciary Committee legislation at the State House. From 1984 to 1989, he was a Rhode Island assistant public defender. He received his law degree from George Washington University.
• Jeffrey J. Greer, of Providence, is deputy executive counsel to Governor Carcieri, advising on legal issues and legislation, appearing in state and federal courts for the governor on litigation and serving as counsel to the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency. Previously, he was in private practice in Florida and Rhode Island. He received his law degree from Northeastern University in Boston.
• Eva Marie Mancuso, of North Kingstown, is managing partner with the law firm Hamel, Waxler, Allen & Collins in Providence. She has been with the firm since 1989 and has been lead counsel in many civil jury trials. Previously, she was an assistant attorney general, prosecuting felony cases and arguing twice before the state Supreme Court.
• Paul D. Ragosta, of Providence, the son of retired Superior Court Judge Vincent A. Ragosta, has been in private practice in Providence for 24 years. He is legal counsel to the state auditor general. He received his law degree from New England School of Law in Boston.
• Albert R. Romano, of North Scituate, has worked in private practice for multiple law firms since the mid-1970s and is currently counsel to D’Alessandro & Wright in Providence. He received his law degree from Villanova University.
• Brian Van Couyghen, of Narragansett, has been a trial lawyer since 1984. He has also been legislative counsel to the state House of Representatives and state Senate since 2001. He received his law degree from the New England School of Law.
• Joseph Patrick Youngs III, of Warwick, has been chief of the white-collar crime unit of the Department of Attorney General since 2001. Since 1987, he’s been a special attorney general, an assistant attorney general, a deputy chief and chief of the criminal division. He received his law degree from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

The interviews will take place on December 15th followed by a public hearing on December 17th.  The JNC will then recommend 3-5 candidates to Governor Carcieri.  Carcieri can nominate one of these candidates or or choose from a list of past applicants to the Superior Court.

Consumer Alert: Maclaren Recalls 1 Million Strollers

On Monday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of some one million Maclaren strollers released nationwide from 1999 through November of this year after about a dozen children have gotten their finger tips amputated by a hinge.  Maclaren will give owners a protective cover to put over the hinges.

The Associated Press reports that the recall includes the following stroller models: Volo, Triumph, Quest Sport, Quest Mod, Techno XT, TechnoXLR, Twin Triumph, Twin Techno and Easy Traveller. They have been sold at Babies “R” Us, Target and other stores around the country since 1999. The strollers “were manufactured in China and distributed by Maclaren USA Inc of South Norwalk, Conn.”

The New York Times reports that Maclaren

“had received 15 reports of children placing their fingers in the hinge mechanism, resulting in 12 reports of fingertip amputation, the safety commission said. The risk occurs when a child’s finger is placed in the hinge mechanism of a stroller while it is being unfolded and locked into place.”

Leading Women Attorneys in Rhode Island Discuss Work and Life

This Tuesday, there is a great forum exploring leading women lawyers and “defining success in work and life” sponsored by the RWU School of Law and the RI Women’s Bar Association

Leading Lawyers: Defining Success in Work & Life
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Law School Room 283

1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Keynote Address by Cynthia Thomas Calvert, Esq. – Barrier Update: The Glass Ceiling and Maternal Wall in Law Firms Today – Cynthia Thomas Calvert is the co-director of the Project for Attorney Retention (“PAR”), at the Center for WorkLife Law.  The Center studies law firms? retention and advancement of female attorneys and work/life issues in legal employment.   As one of its hallmarks, PAR works with all stakeholders to develop practical solutions to issues of attorney retention and the advancement of women lawyers.

2:15 – 3:30
Panel Presentation: Women Who Broke Through.  Moderator: Mary Holper, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law.  This panel will feature women who have broken through the “glass ceiling,” focusing on the path these women followed to their current position, including how they overcame challenges along the way.

• Beverly Ledbetter, Brown University
• The Honorable Judith Savage, RI Superior Court
• Patricia Sullivan, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
• Miriam Weizenbaum, Deluca & Weizenbaum, Ltd.

3:30 – 3:45
Break

3:45 – 5:00 p.m.
Panel Presentation: Balancing the Scales.  Moderator: Colleen Murphy, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law.  This panel will explore the strategies that women practitioners implement in their professional careers to address work/life issues, highlighting different ways that they both define and achieve success.

• Patricia Andrews, Law Offices of Patricia Andrews
• Ondine Galvez-Sniffen, Catholic Social Services of Fall River
• Martha Holt, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of RI
• Olayinka Oredugba, City of Providence

5:00 p.m.
Reception

RSVPs are requested but not required.  Please email Feinstein.Institute@rwu.edu if you plan to attend.

First Circuit Affirms Lobster Pot Decision

The Providence Journal reports that a final lid was put on the number of lobster pots allowed lobstermen in Rhode Island when the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by District Court Chief Judge Mary Lisi.

The case was initially brought by certain lobstermen as a state-court challenge to regulations promulgated by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management which imposed restrictions on lobster-trap allocations for Rhode Island waters.

The opinion, penned by Judge Bruce Selya, concludes there there is federal jurisdiction over the litigation and then quickly resolves the merits of the case:

The plaintiffs’ asseverational array involves claims that the contested regulation violates the Rhode Island Constitution and a myriad of state statutory provisions. See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 20-2.1-9, 20-7-9, 42-35-3, 42-35-3.3. This onslaught boils down to two principal assertions. First, the plaintiffs posit that the challenged regulation abridges their fundamental right of equal access to the fisheries, and denies them equal protection, R.I. Const. art. I, §§ 2, 17. Second, they maintain that the Commission did not really mandate the use of retroactive control dates when Addendum VII was adopted and, thus, the challenged regulation offends R.I. Gen. Laws § 20-2.1-9. The district court patiently explained why neither of these assertions holds water. See RIFA II, 2008 WL 4467186, at *5-11 (rejecting arguments based on state constitution); id. at *12-14 (rejecting plaintiffs’ suggested interpretation of Addendum VII). The court also convincingly dispatched the plaintiffs’ arguments arising out of other Rhode Island statutes. See, e.g., id. at *11-12, *14-16.

We often have said, and today reaffirm, that when a trial court addresses issues squarely and in detail, writes a persuasive opinion that faithfully applies the law to the facts, and reaches a correct result, there is no need for a reviewing court to write at length merely to hear its own words resonate. See, e.g., Vargas-Ruiz v. Golden Arch Dev., Inc., 368 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 2004) (collecting cases); Henry v. Connolly, 910 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir. 1990). This is precisely such an instance.

Here, the district court wrote a thoughtful and comprehensive rescript explaining its multi-faceted rationale for rebuffing the plaintiffs’ challenge to the contested regulation and granted summary judgment accordingly. We largely agree with the reasoning set forth in the lower court’s rescript, and uphold its merits ruling for substantially the reasons set forth in that opinion.