A new twist on the endless battle over shoreline access
By
Will Collette
The
Public’s Radio South County bureau chief Alex Nunes has probably done more in-depth
coverage of the on-going battle between beachgoers and shoreline property
owners than anyone. Signs warning of ticket penalties posted by Nope’s Island Conservation Association.
Credit: Courtesy of Stephen Cersosimo
Even though the right of beach access is written into the
RI Constitution and a new state law was passed last year to define those rights,
the issue is far from resolved.
Along
the way, Alex has written about fences, signage, walls, nose-to-nose conflicts,
legislative fights and a conveyor belt of lawsuits filed for and against beach
access. We’ve learned about “fake
fire districts,” glorified homeowner associations that actually don’t fight
fires but serve as a tax dodge and beach bulwark.
In
a separate article, we’ll cover a brand-new problem – a federal judge’s rulingthat calls RI’s shoreline access right into question, but for now, let’s look
at the issue of privacy and vigilantism.
Charlestown
police accused of empowering ‘vigilantes’ to help patrol local beach
Under
a new policy, the Charlestown Police Department is using video surveillance
captured by private individuals to help enforce a town driving ordinance on a
barrier beach.
BAlex Nunes July 12, 2024, The Public's Radio
Shoreline
access and civil liberties advocates are crying foul over a new policy in
Charlestown welcoming private individuals to collect surveillance evidence for
police to use in enforcing a vehicle ordinance on a barrier beach at the center
of multiple beach access legal fights.
Under
the new policy rolled out by the Charlestown Police Department this summer
season, people who believe they see someone violating a seasonal restriction on
driving on the beach face at the Quonochontaug Barrier Beach can record video
to send to the police department for officers to investigate and possibly act
on, according to Charlestown Town Administrator Jeffrey Allen.
“The
police department has been accepting time-stamped videos of potential
violators, and they research it, and they obtain a written statement from the
person who was responsible for taking the video, and they will look into it and
potentially write summonses,” Allen said. “We’re basically getting the
information from a private property owner.”
In
explaining the policy, he said the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management also accepts evidence from individuals “in these types of situations
where there’s not a lot of active enforcement for whatever reason – right, lack
of manpower, or situations where this is hard to get to.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: For many years, law enforcement has not only
accepted, but often solicited photos and video to help catch criminals. The
Boston Marathon bombing is a famous example. Private cellphone video of the police
murder of George Floyd was crucial in convicting the officers involved. Few
would question the value or legitimacy of those uses. – Will Collette
Charlestown
police have already issued two tickets using the new system, Allen said. While
it’s not clear what fine the tickets levy, the municipal ordinance they are
issued under provides for penalties up to a $500 fine or 30 days imprisonment.
Allen,
who previously served as chief of the Charlestown Police Department during a
32-year law enforcement career, said the new policy was “a first for me.”
“I
never really heard of it,” Allen said. “But times are changing, right?”
Steven
Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil
Liberties Union, had a stronger reaction to the new policy.
“It
sounds very disturbing,” Brown said. “The idea of delegating private citizens
to engage in this type of law enforcement activity seems quite inappropriate.”
“That’s
something that we might very well look into once we get more information about
what’s going on,” he added. “If the town is essentially deputizing private
residents to enforce a local ordinance, it’s problematic.”
Scott
Keeley, a shoreline access advocate and Charlestown resident, said the policy
has created “vigilantes” gathering information for law enforcement.
“It
doesn’t sound right to me at all,” Keeley said. “I didn’t even know that was
possible.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Weaponizing video or photo taking as a tool for harassment
is, in my opinion, way over the line. Charlestown Citizens Alliance leader
Cliff Vanover used to use his camera to provoke opponents or bait them into a
fight. He did that to me. He succeeded in provoking then Town Council President
Jim Mageau to push away Vanover’s camera. That led to an assault charge by Vanover
against Mageau that ended up in a circus trial. But the actual legality of
Cliff’s actions has never been judged in court. – Will Collette
The
new policy comes as the town continues to navigate a fraught situation on the
Charlestown side of the Quonochontaug Barrier Beach, which begins in Westerly
and stretches 1.7 miles east before ending at a state breachway.
The
Nope’s Island Conservation Association, which owns the majority of the land on
the barrier beach in Charlestown, has been pressuring the town to more strictly
enforce a town ordinance that prevents vehicles from traveling on the beach
face in Charlestown during the summer months. Nope’s
Island members say four-wheel-drive vehicles are damaging the dunes.
Allen
said the evidence that led to the two tickets was submitted to the police
department by the conservation group.
Shoreline
access advocates and fishermen who use the area have accused the conservation
association of overstating the threat of vehicles as part of a “ruse” aimed at
making the area less accessible to visitors. The Nope’s Island Conservation
Association is associated with the Weekapaug Fire District, which is fighting
two costly legal battles to prevent public access to the barrier beach shores.
The two organizations share the same address, the fire district headquarters,
and belong to a membership group that sets policies on the barrier beach.
People
pushing for increased police enforcement also contend the Sand Trail path that
leads down the barrier beach and onto the beach sand in Charlestown does
not give the public the right to access the state property at the breachway.
The path is currently before the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management
Council for consideration as a state designated right-of-way to the shore,
and the Weekapaug Fire District has taken the case to court to
prevent a public designation.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Weekapaug is one of those fake fire districts that lacks
the ability to fight fires, instead serving as a homeowners’ association. =
Will Collette
Earlier
this year, Charlestown Town Council member Stephen Stokes held a private
meeting with Nope’s Island and officials from Charlestown, Westerly, the CRMC,
DEM, and Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, which also owns property on the
barrier beach in Charlestown, to discuss concerns the conservation group has
about vehicles on the barrier beach.
The
town council later considered an ordinance change to expand the dates of the
beach driving restrictions, but the plan was abandoned following outcry from beach access
advocates and skepticism from some town council members.
People
interested in the issue had considered it settled for the time being. Then
photos surfaced this week of signs posted on Nope’s Island Conservation
Association land implying visitors could face enforcement action.
Two
signs photographed read:
“Sand
Trail Ends…Private Property
No
Vehicle Trespassing……Violators Will Be Ticketed By Camera”
Allen,
Charlestown’s administrator, said the signs do not belong to the town or state
and Nope’s Island Conservation Association President Michael Sands has
acknowledged that he placed them on Nope’s Island property.
Allen
said the town does not plan to remove the signs. When it was pointed out to him
that the signs could be read to suggest enforcement of trespass law, while
Nope’s Island is assisting the town with enforcing an ordinance about driving
on the beach face, Allen said, “Well, fine, then it’s not legally valid then.
So what’s the problem?”
“What
do you want me to say?” Allen said regarding the signs. “You want me to go down
there and throw them away? I’m not throwing them away. It’s on private
property. It’s on Nope’s Island property.”
Allen
said he forwarded the information to CRMC in case the signs violate state
regulations and CRMC is investigating the situation.
In
a statement sent to The Public’s Radio, Sands, the Nope’s Island president,
said his organization has “photographic resources and evidence of vehicles
illegally trespassing on our property that we share with respective law
enforcement officials. Those same photos may contain violations of Charlestown,
CRMC and DEM laws at the same time. That is for the respective agencies to
determine.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s not illegal for a private group to take photos
and videos and then forward them to law enforcement along with their
allegations. Does it have a chilling effect on beachgoers? Sure it does.
The
CRMC and DEM did not immediately respond when asked by email Friday morning if
the agencies had received any video or other image evidence from Nope’s Island
and acted on it.
Brown,
of the ACLU, called the signs Nope’s Island put up on the barrier beach
“completely inappropriate.”
“Private
residents have no right to be putting up signs saying that people are going to
be ticketed,” he said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Rhode
Island General Laws 11-14-1 makes it a crime to impersonate a “public
officer.” The law’s definition would apply to Charlestown Police, the Town of
Charlestown, CRMC or DEM. The Nope’s Island signs that claim that “Violators
will be ticketed by camera” looks to me like a fit. But hey, I’m not a lawyer. –
Will Collette
Keeley,
the shoreline access advocate, said the signs and video surveillance will have
the effect of scaring away people who have a right to visit the shore, which he
believes is the intent of Nope’s Island.
“They’re
getting a private beach for filming and turning people in,” Keeley said. “I’m
surprised that the Charlestown police would support that. Maybe they just don’t
understand its intent is to privatize the shore.”