(a) The commission is hereby empowered to investigate allegations of violations of the
provisions of this chapter and, in furtherance of any investigation, the commission
shall have the power to:
(1) Compel the attendance of witnesses and require the production of evidence; and
(2) Take oral or written evidence under oath or affirmation.
(b) Any person, including any member of the commission, may file with the commission a
complaint alleging a violation of this chapter. Any complaint filed with the commission
shall be a statement in writing under oath which shall include the name of the person
alleged to have committed the violation and which shall set forth in detail the specific
act or acts complained of. The commission shall, within seventy-two (72) hours of
the filing of any complaint, cause a copy of that complaint to be served, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, upon any person alleged in the complaint to have committed
a violation of this chapter.
(c) Upon receipt of a written complaint alleging a violation of this chapter, the commission
shall within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of the written complaint complete
its investigation; provided that, the commission may, for good cause shown, grant
no more than two (2) extensions of sixty (60) days each.
(1) If the commission determines that the verified complaint does not allege facts sufficient
to constitute a knowing and willful violation of any of the provisions of this chapter,
it shall dismiss the complaint and notify the complainant and the respondent of the
dismissal. The contents and substance of any complaint so dismissed, any answer thereto,
and the notice of dismissal shall be made public.
(2) If the commission determines that the verified complaint alleges facts sufficient
to constitute a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, the commission
shall promptly investigate the allegations contained in the complaint, make a finding
on the complaint, and any amendment thereto.
(3) If the commission finds after its preliminary investigation that probable cause does
not exist to support the allegations of the complaint, the commission shall dismiss
the complaint and notify the complainant and the respondent of the dismissal. The
contents and substance of any complaint so dismissed, any answer thereto, and the
notice of dismissal shall be made public.
(4) If the commission finds that probable cause does exist to support the allegations
of the complaint, it shall prepare written findings which shall state in detail the
violations complained of and the manner in which they occurred and shall fix a time
for hearing on the matter; provided, however, that, before it issues any findings,
the commission shall permit the respondent to submit a written statement and/or to
appear in person or by counsel for the purpose of presenting arguments and/or written
evidence in response to the allegations against him or her. The respondent shall be
entitled to examine and make copies of all evidence in the possession of the commission
relating to the complaint. Upon the issuance of any findings, the commission shall
notify the complainant and the respondent of its action.
(5) If the commission, during the course of its investigation, has probable cause to believe
that violations of this chapter, other than those contained in the complaint, have
been committed, it may, upon its own motion, amend the complaint to include the violations.
The commission shall, within seventy-two (72) hours of any amendment, cause a copy
of the amended complaint to be served, by certified mail, return receipt requested,
upon any person alleged in the amended complaint to have committed a violation of
this chapter. Any person alleged by an amended complaint to have committed a violation
of this chapter shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations
contained therein.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the commission to make any
of its investigatory records public.
(d) The commission, upon a finding pursuant to this section that there fails to exist
probable cause for a violation of this chapter, shall issue an order dismissing the
complaint, and if it finds the complaint to be frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless,
the commission shall require the person filing the complaint to pay a civil penalty
of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), all or part of which may be paid
to the subject of the complaint in reimbursement of said subject’s reasonable expenses
of defense.
Notes of Decisions
Carmody v. Rhode Island Conflict of Interest Comm'n, 509 A.2d 453 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 8× “'" [5] After examining the definitions that other courts have employed, the trial justice stated that "knowing and wilful" violations of civil statutes occur "when the actor consciously decides to perform an act or refrain from acting which act or non-act results in a violation…”
Operation Clean Gov't v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 315 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 16× “” After this dismissal, Respondents Carl and Barrette submitted a motion to RIEC requesting that the Commission make a determination as to whether OCG’s three complaints against them were “frivolous, unreasonable and groundless,” warranting sanctions under the Roney Amendment,…”
Clarke v. Morsilli, 714 A.2d 597 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 10× “The Rhode Island Ethics Commission (commission) seeks this Court’s review of a final judgment and order of the Superior Court, which reversed a decision and order of the commission because of the commission’s failure to comply with the statutorily imposed time limitations set…”
In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 732 A.2d 55 (R.I. 1999).
· cites it 3× “This charge was fulfilled by the Legislature through the enactment of G.L. 1956 §§ 36-14-12, 36-14-13, and 36-14-14.”
Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 973 A.2d 1124 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See G.L. 1956 § 36-14-12(c)(1). After making the initial determination that the facts alleged in the verified complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action, the Ethics Commission conducted a preliminary investigation to determine whether probable cause existed to support…”
Doe v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 707 A.2d 265 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 7× “G.L.1956 § 36-14-12 entitled "Investigative powers of the commission” states in pertinent part, "(c)(4) * * * before it issues any findings, the commission shall permit the respondent to submit a written statement and/or to appear in person or by counsel for the purpose of…”
Providence Journal Co. v. Newton, 723 F. Supp. 846 (D.R.I. 1989).
· cites it 2× “nowingly and wilfully make public any complaint or the content of any complaint filed under this chapter without the consent of the person aginst whom the complaint has been filed, unless and until an adjudicative panel of the commission renders a final decision on the complaint…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(4) — 1 case
Carmody v. Rhode Island Conflict of Interest Comm'n, 509 A.2d 453 (R.I. 1986).
“'" [5] After examining the definitions that other courts have employed, the trial justice stated that "knowing and wilful" violations of civil statutes occur "when the actor consciously decides to perform an act or refrain from acting which act or non-act results in a violation…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(c) — 2 cases
Clarke v. Morsilli, 714 A.2d 597 (R.I. 1998).
“The Rhode Island Ethics Commission (commission) seeks this Court’s review of a final judgment and order of the Superior Court, which reversed a decision and order of the commission because of the commission’s failure to comply with the statutorily imposed time limitations set…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(c)(1) — 1 case
Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 973 A.2d 1124 (R.I. 2009).
“See G.L. 1956 § 36-14-12(c)(1). After making the initial determination that the facts alleged in the verified complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action, the Ethics Commission conducted a preliminary investigation to determine whether probable cause existed to support…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(c)(3) — 1 case
Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 973 A.2d 1124 (R.I. 2009).
“See G.L. 1956 § 36-14-12(c)(1). After making the initial determination that the facts alleged in the verified complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action, the Ethics Commission conducted a preliminary investigation to determine whether probable cause existed to support…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(c)(4) — 1 case
Doe v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 707 A.2d 265 (R.I. 1998).
“G.L.1956 § 36-14-12 entitled "Investigative powers of the commission” states in pertinent part, "(c)(4) * * * before it issues any findings, the commission shall permit the respondent to submit a written statement and/or to appear in person or by counsel for the purpose of…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(c)(5) — 1 case
Clarke v. Morsilli, 714 A.2d 597 (R.I. 1998).
“The Rhode Island Ethics Commission (commission) seeks this Court’s review of a final judgment and order of the Superior Court, which reversed a decision and order of the commission because of the commission’s failure to comply with the statutorily imposed time limitations set…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(d) — 1 case
Operation Clean Gov't v. Rhode Island Ethics Comm'n, 315 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D.R.I. 2004).
“” After this dismissal, Respondents Carl and Barrette submitted a motion to RIEC requesting that the Commission make a determination as to whether OCG’s three complaints against them were “frivolous, unreasonable and groundless,” warranting sanctions under the Roney Amendment,…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(d)(4) — 1 case
Providence Journal Co. v. Newton, 723 F. Supp. 846 (D.R.I. 1989).
“nowingly and wilfully make public any complaint or the content of any complaint filed under this chapter without the consent of the person aginst whom the complaint has been filed, unless and until an adjudicative panel of the commission renders a final decision on the complaint…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 36-14-12(e)(5) — 1 case
Clarke v. Morsilli, 714 A.2d 597 (R.I. 1998).
“The Rhode Island Ethics Commission (commission) seeks this Court’s review of a final judgment and order of the Superior Court, which reversed a decision and order of the commission because of the commission’s failure to comply with the statutorily imposed time limitations set…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.