Preview:

Supreme Court No. 2011-81-M.P. (PC 10-5700)

State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management v. Administrative Adjudication Division.

:

: :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Tel. 222-3258 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

Supreme Court No. 2011-81-M.P. (PC 10-5700)

State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management v. Administrative Adjudication Division.

:

: :

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.

OPINION Justice Flaherty, for the Court. The discovery of a catch of flounder that exceeded the allowable limit by thirty-seven pounds has led to a dispute that eventually has wended its way to this Court. On May 22, 2007, the F/V Cracker Jac, owned by Daniel R. Barlow, was tied to the dock at the fishing pier at Point Judith in Narragansett. Two enforcement officers of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) boarded the boat at a time when Barlow was not on board and said they discovered that the amount of summer flounder he had caught that day was more than was permitted under the applicable regulations. A notice of violation followed, and a trail of litigation ensued that now terminates in this Court. Barlow seeks review by way of certiorari of a judgment of the Superior Court that reversed a hearing officer's decision and reinstated DEM's decision, which found Barlow ineligible to participate in its 2010 Summer Flounder Sector Allocation Pilot Program (pilot program). That agency determined that Barlow was ineligible to participate in the pilot program because of a previous consent agreement he had entered into with the department. The

-1-

agreement reflected a settlement of the above-mentioned allegation that Barlow had violated a state marine fisheries regulation for catch limits. The DEM contended that the consent

agreement was an administrative penalty that justified disqualifying Barlow from participating in the pilot program. On appeal from the Administrative Adjudication Division of DEM (AAD), a justice of the Superior Court agreed. Barlow then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted on June 8, 2011. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on September 27, 2012, based on an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown, and we proceed to decide the appeal at this time without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we quash the judgment of the Superior Court. I Facts and Travel The facts underlying this controversy are not subject to significant dispute. On May 22, 2007, DEM law enforcement officers alleged that Barlow violated Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Regulation

Download 11-81.pdf

Rhode Island Law