RI Expungement Lawyer

“Expungement” is a legal procedure. It allows eligible and deserving individuals to have any and all records relating to their criminal charges removed, both from public records and those of law enforcement agencies. Many times, although a case has been dismissed or the filing period has expired, the records of the arrest are not automatically expunged. In my experience, many people discover this fact the hard way.

Of course not anyone with a criminal record is eligible for expungement -the law provides that any criminal charge, with the exception of a “crime of violence”, is eligible for expungement. The law defines a “crime of violence” as follows: murder, manslaughter, first degree arson, kidnapping with intent to extort, robbery, larceny from the person, first degree sexual assault, second degree sexual assault, first and second degree child molestation, assault with intent to murder, assault with intent to rob, assault with intent to commit first degree sexual assault, burglary, and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit murder, robbery, sexual assault, or larceny. Anyone convicted of a “crime of violence” is ineligible for “expungement”. Anyone who is a “first offender” is eligible to have their criminal record expunged.

The law defines a “first offender” as follows: a person who has not been previously convicted of or placed on probation for a felony or a misdemeanor and against whom there is no criminal proceeding pending in any court.
Anyone convicted or placed on probation on more than one occasion is ineligible for expungement. The waiting period for expungement is as follows:

For misdemeanors - (5) years after the successful completion (no intervening convictions, probation, or pending cases) of your sentence and/or probation.

For felonies - (10) years after the successful completion (no intervening convictions, probation, or pending cases) of your sentence and/or probation.

Whether you are eligible and deserving of an expungement must be determined by a judge of the court that originally heard the case. As mentioned previously in order to be eligible to have your criminal record expunged you must be a “first offender” and not have been convicted of a “crime of violence”.

The law also requires that in order to have your criminal record expunged you must be deserving of it. That is, you must be able to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that you are of good moral character; have been rehabilitated and; the expungement of your criminal record is consistent with the public interest, proof of which can include but is not limited to the following:
o Regular employment and financial and other support of family
o Successful completion of substance abuse and/or mental health counseling.
o Community or other public service
o Professional certification or licensing in field of employment
o Otherwise eligible for induction into the armed forces of the United States

The actual procedure for obtaining expungement is commenced by filing a motion to expunge with the court. Some but not all courts have blank motions to expunge that you can fill out and file with the court yourself. An attorney can assist you with completing the necessary paperwork including scheduling the motion for a hearing and giving you the date that it will be heard by the court. After filing the motion to expunge you are required to give notice of the date that it will be heard by the court to the Department of Attorney General and the police department that originally brought the charge. On the day that your motion to expunge is heard by the court you should be prepared to provide the following information about yourself to the judge hearing the motion:
o Have not been convicted or received probation for a “crime of violence”
o Are a “first offender”
o Possess good moral character
o Have been successfully rehabilitated and
o The expungement of your criminal record is consistent with the public interest

If your motion to expunge is granted, the court will provide you with copies of an order requiring that any and all records relating to the expunged case be deleted from the public record. A copy of this expungement order should be mailed to the Department of Attorney General and any other law enforcement agency known to have copies of these records. With certain very limited exceptions, any person having his or her record expunged shall be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the crime of which he or she had been convicted.

Again, with certain very limited exceptions, in any application for employment, license, or other civil right or privilege, or any appearance as a witness, a person whose conviction of a crime has been expunged pursuant to this chapter may state that he or she has never been convicted of the crime. According to RIGL § 12-1 3-4 (b), any person who is "an applicant for a law enforcement agency position, for admission to the bar of any court, an applicant for a teaching certificate, under chapter 11 of title 12, a coaching certificate under § 16-11. 1-1, or the operator or employee of an early childhood educational facility pursuant to chapter 48-1 of title 16," is required to disclose the fact of a conviction.

24 Hour RI Lawyer Defending Your Freedom

24 Hour Rhode Island Lawyer Defending Your Freedom – (401)-487-8691

Unfortunately, arrests and investigations don’t occur only between the hours of 9 and 5, they occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Police forces and federal agents work 24/7, so we are available to defend you or your loved one’s freedom 24/7 as well.

Our 24 hour criminal lawyers are on call for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless of whether it’s a weekend or a holiday. If you or your loved one has been arrested or believe you are the target of a criminal investigation, contact our criminal defense lawyers now at (401)-487-8691.

Our Rhode Island criminal lawyers are on call 24 hours to come to the police station to defend your rights, get you out of jail any time of day or night, and rush to a night arraignment to try to get you released rather than spend time behind bars.

Rhode Island employs the assistance of Justices of the Peace to handle after hours arraignments and weekend arraignments. These officers of the court are generally practicing practitioners who share a rotation with the other appointed members. A night or weekend arraignment in Rhode Island can cost anywhere from $50.00 to $200.00 dollars exclusive of funds required for bail. Of course, Police Departments may not choose to utilize this off hour option, and a criminal defense lawyer can often act as a liaison in order to facilitate the process.

Do not hesitate to take advantage of this 24 hour criminal law service. Prompt and effective representation at night can even the playing field between the police and the accused. Simply call (401)-487-8691.

"Operations Elements of DUI Cases"

Rhode Island DUI, Rhode Island DWI, and RI Driving Under the Influence cases require that the prosecution prove that the suspect was actually operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyers are accustomed to reviewing police reports and interviewing witnesses in an effort to determine if the “operation” element of a DUI case can be proven by the prosecutor.

Rhode Island’s statute defining the offense of driving while intoxicated requires that the defendant exert some type of control over the vehicle. If a question exists concerning such control, the defense attorney should certainly investigate the matter. Also, the place where the vehicle was observed in operation is very important. Many statutes prohibit the operation of vehicles by an intoxicated driver only on certain types of public property. If any reasonable question exists as to the public character of the property, the defense attorney should consider the use of surveyors and title attorneys, if necessary, either to prove the private character of the area where the vehicle was operated, or to create reasonable doubts as to its public nature.

Rhode Island DUI, Rhode Island DWI, and RI Driving Under the Influence cases require that the prosecution prove that the suspect was actually operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyers are accustomed to reviewing police reports and interviewing witnesses in an effort to determine if the “operation” element of a DUI case can be proven by the prosecutor.

Rhode Island’s statute defining the offense of driving while intoxicated requires that the defendant exert some type of control over the vehicle. If a question exists concerning such control, the defense attorney should certainly investigate the matter. Also, the place where the vehicle was observed in operation is very important. Many statutes prohibit the operation of vehicles by an intoxicated driver only on certain types of public property. If any reasonable question exists as to the public character of the property, the defense attorney should consider the use of surveyors and title attorneys, if necessary, either to prove the private character of the area where the vehicle was operated, or to create reasonable doubts as to its public nature.

The following cases serve to shed some light on the legal context in which the aforementioned issues arise:

Driving while intoxicated conviction was reversed where finding that defendant was in "actual physical control" of vehicle could not be sustained on evidence that unconscious defendant was hanging partially from window of driver's side of truck with engine off and appearance of vomit on mouth and front of shirt while emitting strong odor of alcoholic beverage. State v. Zavala (1983) 136 Ariz 356, 666 P2d 456.

The evidence supported findings that defendant, a minor, drove under the influence of alcohol and caused injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury, even though at the time of the accident, she was not sitting in the driver's seat, but was operating the steering wheel while another person operated the brakes and accelerator. Veh. Code, § 305, provides that a driver is a person "who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." Defendant's act of steering the car, although she was not operating the accelerator or brakes, rendered her a driver within the meaning of Veh. Code, §§ 305, 23153. Indeed, it was defendant's decision to negotiate a left turn that placed the vehicle in the path of an oncoming motorcycle. Thus, she was quite literally in control of the vehicle at the time the motorcycle's right of way was violated. Re Queen T. (1993, 4th Dist) 14 Cal App 4th 1143, 17 Cal Rptr 2d 922, 93 CDOS 2500, 93 Daily Journal DAR 4183.

Fact that motorist's vehicle was parked on the right shoulder of interstate with left turn signal flashing did not aid in establishing a substantial basis in fact to find that motorist was "operating" vehicle within meaning of statute providing that any person who "operates" motor vehicle shall be deemed to have given such person's consent to chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath or urine and, if results of such test indicate that person has elevated blood alcohol content, police officer shall immediately revoke and take possession of motorist's driver's license; turn signal was not capable of setting in motion the motive power of the vehicle. C.G.S.A. § 14-227b. Sengchanthong v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 92 Conn. App. 365, 885 A.2d 218 (2005), certification granted in part, 277 Conn. 912, 894 A.2d 992 (2006).

Even if motorist, fully reclined and sleeping in driver's seat, was in a position to control movements of vehicle, motorist was not doing any act, manipulating any machinery or making use of any mechanical or electrical agency that alone or in sequence would set in motion the motive power of the vehicle, and thus, motorist was not "operating" vehicle within meaning of statute providing that any person who "operates" motor vehicle shall be deemed to have given such person's consent to chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath or urine and, if results of such test indicate that person has elevated blood alcohol content, police officer shall immediately revoke and take possession of motorist's driver's license. C.G.S.A. § 14-227b. Sengchanthong v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 92 Conn. App. 365, 885 A.2d 218 (2005), certification granted in part, 277 Conn. 912, 894 A.2d 992 (2006).

The corpus delicti of DUI manslaughter was sufficiently established by evidence independent of truck driver's admission, where the investigating officer found driver standing next to his tractor-trailer which was illegally blocking the highway, a motorcycle was in a nearby lane, the dead motorcyclist was lying near the truck, driver's speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot, he smelled strongly of alcohol, and driver's supervisor asked if driver could drive his vehicle away and continue his run, but driver contended that the corpus delicti was established solely by his admission that he had been drinking heavily all night. Burks v. State (1993, Fla) 613 So 2d 441, 18 FLW S 71.

Evidence was sufficient to support convictions for driving under the influence (DUI), being habitual violator, and failure to maintain lane; truck landed in ditch, witness stated that two men had gotten out of truck and were walking down street holding each other up, officer found them, both men were intoxicated and had strong odor of alcohol, they told officer that they had been involved in accident, defendant had cuts and scratches consistent with injuries that would have resulted from being driver, defendant had red knot on his forehead that matched break in windshield on driver's side, in video while two were alone in officer's cruiser, defendant told passenger that he should say that he was driving because defendant would not spend another night in jail, and defendant's blood alcohol level registered.210 approximately two hours after accident. Becker v. State, 280 Ga. App. 97, 633 S.E.2d 436 (2006).

Evidence did not show that vehicle occupied by defendant was operable, and absent such evidence, defendant could not be convicted of being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; defendant was seated in driver's seat of his vehicle with motor running, but there was no direct evidence that vehicle was capable of moving, nor any circumstantial evidence from which operability could be inferred, defendant showed that his vehicle was mechanically disabled and could not be made operable without significant effort and cost, and defendant's car was not parked on an incline, nor being coasted, towed, or pushed. I.C. § 18-8004(1). State v. Adams, 142 Idaho 305, 127 P.3d 208 (Ct. App. 2005), review denied, (June 8, 2005).

Driver was properly convicted of operating vehicle while intoxicated where police officer found defendant behind steering wheel of car stuck in snowbank with lights on and engine running. Garland v. State (1983, Ind App) 452 NE2d 1021.

Sufficient evidence supported conclusion that defendant was operator of vehicle, as necessary to support conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense; defendant, upon returning to vehicle from woods, retrieved her pocketbook from vehicle, vehicle's ignition was on, there was no other person in the vicinity, defendant was headed to vehicle when she came out of the woods, which was a distance of less than ten feet, one could fairly infer that vehicle was brought to a halt by running off road and going over some obstacle that punctured the two right tires, defendant was, manifestly, not in any condition to drive safely or competently, and her behavior was entirely consistent with her having been the operator. M.G.L.A. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). Com. v. Congdon, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 782, 864 N.E.2d 1227 (2007).

Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove the elements of driving while intoxicated (DWI), but in those cases in which the accused's engine was not running at the time in question, the state must present significant additional evidence of driving and the connection of driving in an intoxicated state. V.A.M.S. §§ 577.001(2), 577.010. State v. Chambers, 207 S.W.3d 194 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2006), reh'g and/or transfer denied, (Nov. 13, 2006) and transfer denied, (Dec. 19, 2006).

Trial court erred in dismissing charge of driving under influence of alcohol against tractor driver who was mowing weeds at side of public highway while intoxicated, since state statutory definitions of "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" amply supported state's contention that tractor was subject to drunk driving laws. State v. Richardson (1992, App) 113 NM 740, 832 P2d 801, cert den (NM) 831 P2d 989.

Drunk-driving statute that was applicable to public roads and such places as parking lots that are open to public did not apply to driver who was found passed out in vehicle with motor turned off in private driveway. State v. Haws (1994, Okla Crim) 869 P2d 849.

Defendant could be found to have been in physical control of automobile notwithstanding fact automobile had flat tire. State v. Farmer (1984, Tenn Crim) 675 SW2d 212.

Experienced Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyers understand that “operation” can be inferred pursuant to Rhode Island case law; however, the burden of proof always remains with the prosecutor to prove this element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.