The town of Westerly has dismissed a criminal case against a beachfront property owner police say repeatedly spray-painted a shoreline right-of-way sign in Watch Hill.
Last month, police charged David M. Roth, 76, with four counts of vandalism. Police believe Roth was responsible for vandalizing a sign that needed to be replaced multiple times over the summer because of the damage to it.
The sign is at the town-designated Everett Avenue public right-of-way next to Roth’s $10.8 million property. According to a police report, Roth told police he was upset about the sign’s placement at the access path, which he doesn’t believe is a legitimate public right-of-way to the beach. Roth is not a newcomer to beach access disputes and is currently challenging Rhode Island’s new shoreline access law in court.
Despite the evidence police say they gathered, Westerly’s prosecutor, Robert Craven, said he decided to dismiss the case after Roth agreed to pay the town $1,010.90 in restitution.
Craven made the decision under a rule that gives prosecutors discretion to dismiss cases, called Rule 48(a). Craven said he has dismissed other vandalism cases since being hired as Westerly’s part-time prosecutor in 2022.
In explaining his decision to dismiss the case, Craven mentioned Roth’s age, that he prefers to be lenient when someone does something “uncharacteristic and foolish” and no one gets hurt, and that Roth “admitted he did something wrong” by paying restitution.
“If the same fact pattern presented itself tomorrow, I would do the same thing,” Craven said.
Patrol led to arrest
Last week, the Westerly Police Department released Roth’s full police report, revealing accounts of an evening far from typical in the tony Watch Hill community.
Officer Mitchell Carrier said his encounter with Roth began at about 8:30 while he was on a directed patrol near the Everett Avenue right-of-way and saw a “shorter male, wearing a dark, dress style jacket.” Carrier said the man, later identified as Roth, had his jacket over his head and what appeared to be a white spray-paint can in his right hand.
“As I continued to approach the subject, I observed him turn around and look at me then quickly walk into the bushes in an attempt to conceal himself and the white can in his hand,” Carrier wrote in his official report.
When Carrier told Roth to walk towards him, the officer said he saw Roth wearing a medical facemask. Roth became “extremely nervous,” when Carrier asked him what he was doing, the officer said. Roth was brought to Carrier’s cruiser, patted down for weapons, “with negative results,” read his Miranda warnings, and taken to police headquarters, according to the report.
Carrier said Roth told police he had found a spray-paint can in his front yard and went to the right-of-way sign to see if it had been spray-painted.
“Roth then stated that he had the jacket over his head because there was a bee in the area and he did not want to get stung,” Carrier wrote.
Police say Roth admitted to spray-painting the sign on a separate occasion but did not admit to vandalizing the sign multiple times between May and August. Roth expressed that he was upset about the shore access path and “felt as though it wasn’t a true right of way open to the public,” Carrier said.
“Roth stated that because of the ongoing issue and people ‘abusing’ the beach and his property, he had taken a can of paint to cover the sign,” Carrier said.
According to the report, police had set up trail cameras because the right-of-way sign was being repeatedly vandalized. That led to images of a suspect who matched Roth’s description, the report said.
“The suspect was consistent in each obtained photo, appearing to be a thin, smaller built white male,” a statement from Sgt. Brian Bruno reads. “In these images the suspect would cover himself up with a jacket over his head.”
Roth’s defense attorney, Peter DiBiase, did not return a call seeking comment on the dismissal of the case. Roth pleaded not guilty earlier this month.
Roth has ‘strong feelings’ about shoreline access
Last year, Roth and his wife, Linda, filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging Rhode Island’s new shoreline access law that says people have the right to be on the beach up to 10-feet landward of the seaweed line.
The couple says the new law is an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation and was enacted in violation of Rhode Island’s separation of powers doctrine. In July, a Superior Court judge sided with the couple. Lawyers following the case expect the Rhode Island Supreme Court will eventually issue a decision on the law.
In 2017, David Roth spoke out against a town proposal to add vehicle drop-off points for beachgoers in Watch Hill.
The vandalism episode follows recent action taken by the town that could further solidify public beach access near Roth’s home. Last year, the Westerly Town Council referred the Everett Avenue right-of-way to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council for consideration as a state-designated right-of-way to the shore.
The police report says Roth was aware of the state review and believes the path is private and for property owners in the “Everett Farms Estate.”
“Roth revealed that he has strong feelings towards the right of way sign,” Sgt. Bruno said in his statement. “Roth admitted that he did not like people seeing the sign and knowing it was a right of way.”
Roth’s attorney on shoreline access matters, Gerald Petros, did not directly respond to an email seeking clarification on Roth’s stance on the Everett Avenue right-of-way and whether his client will challenge a state designation. A spokesperson for Petros said there was no news to share.
Craven, who is also a state representative from North Kingstown, pushed back on accusations already being made by some shoreline access advocates that he gave a special break to Roth in dismissing the case. Roth is a noted philanthropist from West Hartford, Conn, with a background in real estate investing, in addition to owning a substantial beachfront property in Watch Hill.
“I don’t ask how much money you have in your wallet when I make a decision that a case should be dismissed,” Craven said in an interview. “I’m looking at him as: What did he do? Is he a threat to society? And do you allow someone of this nature, or do you extend to someone of this nature, an opportunity to have a second bite at the apple so that he won’t have a criminal record?”
