Homeless in Arizona

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said his top priority is raises for his staff.

Source

Arpaio softens budget pitch, saying new jail can wait

By Michelle Ye Hee Lee The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:37 PM

Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn’t actually want a new jail — yet.

Arpaio’s top administrators made a budget presentation to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors this week that included up to $274 million in new funding. Most of that — $240 million — they proposed to spend on a new jail.

But Arpaio said Thursday the new jail can wait; his top priority is raises for his staff.

Arpaio said he saw The Arizona Republic’s coverage of the presentation and thought: “Wait a minute, I can prolong that.” Arpaio was the only elected county officer who did not attend his office’s budget presentation. He said he did not want to distract from it, having heard protesters planned to disrupt it.

“Let me put it clear: That was just a wish list,” he said. “I’m not asking for that ($274 million). That’s just something, if they have tons of money, we’d love to have it.”

9 Step Reid Method gets another false confession???

Source

In 2nd legal victory, Chicago mom ordered released from prison

By Duaa Eldeib, Chicago Tribune reporter

8:26 p.m. CST, February 21, 2013

Just months after a federal appeals court threw out Nicole Harris' murder conviction, the Chicago woman has won another legal victory.

The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordered Harris released from prison no later than noon on Monday — seven years into her 30-year sentence for the murder of her son.

"This really is extraordinary, and it bespeaks (the justices') continued concern with the injustice here," said Alison Flaum, an attorney with Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions, which along with the law firm Jenner & Block, represents Harris. "They clearly felt that Nicole has suffered enough."

In May 2005, Harris' 4-year-old son Jaquari was found with an elastic bedsheet cord around his neck in the bedroom of their Northwest Side home. After a 27-hour interrogation, Harris, then 23, confessed to killing him, though she has maintained that it was a false confession and that Jaquari died accidentally.

In October, the federal appeals court reversed her conviction. The judges wrote that Harris' older son Diante should have been allowed to testify. Diante, who was 5 at the time, had told authorities he saw Jaquari wrap the cord around his neck while playing Spider-Man.

In addition, the appeals judges wrote that there remain "many reasons" to question Harris' confession, which they called "essentially the only evidence against her." They also noted that an earlier confession to police — one Harris denies giving at all — included details that were "undisputably false," according to the most recent court order, filed late Wednesday.

Harris has remained in prison while the state appeals the October decision. Prosecutors have argued in part that Diante gave conflicting statements to authorities, including that he was asleep when Jaquari died. The Illinois attorney general's office has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, a spokeswoman said.

The federal appeals court also issued the state an extension to decide whether to retry Harris, a decision that will be made by the Cook County state's attorney's office.

"We are still in the process of thoroughly reviewing the case," a spokeswoman for the state's attorney said Thursday.

The order releasing Harris from prison lists a number of conditions, including that she must report to a probation officer. There are no restrictions placed on contact with her surviving son, who wrote a letter to the court on her behalf.

"We're just very, very happy for Nicole," said attorney Bob Stauffer, of Jenner & Block. "She's waited a long time in prison for something that she didn't do. It's been a long time coming."

deldeib@tribune.com

Cannabis no alivia el dolor, pero lo hace más tolerable

Marijuana doesn't relieve pain, but it makes it more tolerable

Cannabis no alivia el dolor, pero lo hace más tolerable

Realizaron un seguimiento de 12 personas a las que se les administró una pastilla de 15 mg de THC.

El cannabis no sirve para aliviar el dolor pero sí lo hace más tolerable para algunas personas, según indica un estudio de la universidad inglesa de Oxford difundido en el Reino Unido.

Los autores del estudio, que publica en su último número la revista Pain, descubrieron, mediante un experimento en el que utilizaron escáneres cerebrales, que la sustancia psicoactiva del cannabis reducía la actividad en partes del cerebro asociadas a la parte emocional del dolor.

En cambio, esos cambios no se registraron en la parte del cerebro asociada directamente a la sensación de dolor, que es la que se activa con otro tipo de fármacos.

Los expertos señalan que el cannabis puede hace más tolerable el dolor, aunque no en todos los casos, ya que algunas personas no son sensibles a sus efectos o estos no les benefician.

El equipo de investigadores del centro de resonancias magnéticas del cerebro de la universidad de Oxford, dirigido por Michael Lee, basó sus conclusiones en un pequeño experimento con 12 personas sanas.

A estas personas se les hizo un seguimiento de la actividad cerebral después de administrarles una pastilla de 15 mg de THC, la sustancia psicoativa del cannabis que causa la sensación de subidón, y de provocarles dolor untándoles en la pierna una crema con el componente que da el picor a las guindillas.

También se les hizo ese seguimiento administrándoles un placebo en lugar de las sustancias anteriores.

En general, los investigadores observaron que, con el THC, los voluntarios valoraban que el dolor -con la misma intensidad- era más tolerable.

Además, notaron que se activaba la región del cerebro que determina "la reacción emocional al dolor", y no la que codifica "la sensación" de dolor, señala el doctor Lee.

También detectaron ciertos cambios en la actividad cerebral de las personas a quienes el cannabis hizo más efecto, lo que indica que en el futuro se podría llegar a predecir qué personas pueden beneficiarse más de su consumo, apunta el experto.

De todas formas, Lee subraya en el artículo que, para corroborar estas conclusiones, haría falta un estudio más amplio con personas con dolor crónico y por un plazo más largo de tiempo.

Arizona checkpoint yields drugs in chicken buckets

Source

Arizona checkpoint yields drugs in chicken buckets

Associated Press Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:40 AM

TUCSON — Authorities say two women aboard a commercial shuttle van have been arrested after Border Patrol agents found methamphetamine hidden in two buckets of chicken.

Border Patrol says the agents discovered the drugs Thursday during a stop at an Interstate 19 checkpoint near Nogales.

Authorities say the drugs weighed about six pounds and were valued at more than $58,000.

The suspects have been held pending federal prosecution, and the methamphetamine has been turned over to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The identities of the suspects were not immediately released.

Border drug-smuggling tunnel shut down by authorities

Source

Border drug-smuggling tunnel shut down by authorities

By Michael Clancy The Republic | azcentral.com

Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:38 PM

Federal authorities in the United States and Mexico shut down an incomplete, cross-border smuggling tunnel Friday during a border sweep in Nogales.

Nogales Station Border Patrol agents, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s tunnel task force and Mexican federal police located the tunnel west of the DeConcini Port of Entry in the center of Nogales.

The tunnel originated in Mexico and had reached five feet into the United States, but did not open at the U.S. end.

Mexican authorities took one individual into custody who was actively digging.

The tunnel was the first found along the Arizona-Mexico border since July, when an elaborate, 240-foot long tunnel was found at the border in the town of San Luis, south of Yuma.

That tunnel, more than 4 feet wide and 55 feet underground, was used to smuggle methamphetamine and other drugs, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said.

In Nogales, the last tunnel found was last March. It was 2 feet square in size, and 110 feet long. Police found 550 pounds of marijuana stashed inside.

Between 2007 and 2011, border enforcement officials found and shut down 75 tunnels crossing the border between Mexico, California and Arizona.

A Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman said seven tunnels were found in fiscal 2012 in the 262-mile long Tucson sector, and two have been found so far in fiscal 2013.

More on that Police Motorcycle gang that beat up a Glendale man!!!!

Source

Prescott bar-fight report released

By Michael Clancy The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:42 PM

The Arizona Department of Public Safety is trying to get to the bottom of a Christmas-season bar fight at a tavern on Prescott’s Whiskey Row that involved a motorcycle club that includes law-enforcement personnel, possibly three or more high-ranking officers.

The DPS late Thursday released the full initial report from the Prescott Police Department, which was called to the scene after Justin Stafford, 23, was taken to the hospital.

Surveillance video of the scene shows Stafford being struck and knocked down by a man wearing the insignia of the Iron Brotherhood motorcycle club as he was talking to a second member of the club, according to police records.

Prescott police turned the investigation of the Dec. 22 fight over to the DPS, citing a conflict of interest for several departments in Yavapai County.

On the night of the incident, Prescott police spoke to the owners and managers of two businesses involved in the fracas — Moctezuma’s Bar and Hooligan’s Pub.

They then put together a 29-page report that previously had been released in redacted form. On Thursday, a more comprehensive report was issued.

The report has “severe inaccuracies,” said DPS spokesman Carrick Cook, but he would not specify what they were.

The motorcycle club was holding a Christmas party at Hooligan’s, bar manager William Bennett told police. He cut drinks off to several members, who then went to Moctezuma’s.

The report said Moctezuma’s owner Bruce Reid and Stafford said the attack was unprovoked. The report also said video backed up the pair’s stories. Video also showed several Iron Brotherhood members swinging at bar staff and other patrons, the report said.

The police who were part of the Iron Brotherhood, including Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Bill Suttle, gave a slightly different account of the fight, the report said. Suttle said Stafford was talking to Prescott Valley Police Chief Bill Fessler when Stafford grabbed Fessler aggressively. Another Iron Brotherhood member pulled him away. Fessler left immediately, he told police, and Suttle said he helped break up the fight. Both men said they did not know the name of the man who hit Stafford.

Suttle said Prescott police Deputy Chief Andy Reinhardt was at Moctezuma’s at the time but took Suttle’s advice and left when the fight broke out.

Prescott police spokesman Ken Morley said the department turned the investigation over to the DPS the next day. He said the department has no comment on the investigation.

DPS spokesman said the investigation would be complete within a month.

Legislation would require reporting dangerous people to police

Source

Legislation would require educators to report potentially dangerous people to police

Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:12 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Calling it a key to preventing mass shootings, a House panel voted Wednesday to require teachers and health professionals to report potentially dangerous people to police.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said all the proposals to keep people safe with new regulations on guns or even police in classrooms really won't stop someone from shooting up a school. He said the only thing that really works is stopping it before it happens.

Kavanagh, sponsor of HB 2555, cited reports that various teachers and officials at Pima Community College knew about what was described as bizarre behavior by Jared Loughner before he killed six and wounded 13 two years ago in a Tucson Safeway parking lot, including then-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The same committee also approved HB 2618 to require additional training of police cadets on identifying those with dangerous mental illness so they can detain those people for additional mental health treatment.

But the panel also gave the go ahead for a third Kavanagh measure which would expand the ability of individuals to bring their guns into public buildings.

HB 2554 says that a mere sign banning weapons, by itself, would not be enough to make a building gun-free. Nor would be the availability of gun lockers somewhere else.

Instead, a government agency seeking to keep out armed patrons would have to provide lockers within 200 feet of the building entrance for individuals to store their guns.

That proposal drew sharp criticism from Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, in part because of the cost to taxpayers of having to install lockers at all public buildings.

"I'm sorry there are some people that live in a state of paranoia where they have to have their weapon with them at all times,'' he said. "But I don't see how that has to be at taxpayer cost.''

That comment drew derision from Rep. Sonny Borelli, R-Lake Havasu City.

"People are only paranoid because there are crazy evil people out there,'' he responded. And Borelli, citing Gallego's Marine Corps experience, said he should know that.

"We've been in places where everybody's armed and you'd be surprised how polite people can really be.''

And Kavanagh said there's a simple solution for communities that don't want to install gun lockers: Let people carry their guns into the building.

None of this would affect courts, college campuses or other buildings which have guards and metal detectors, where guns still could be prohibited.

But it was the measure to mandate reporting of those with mental health problems that proved the most controversial.

Kavanagh said his legislation has safeguards. He said it requires someone to personally observe conduct that shows the person is a danger to self or others.

The only exception to that personal observation would be if there is "an actual communicated threat'' and that the student or client has both the intent and the ability to carry out that threat.

Anyway, he said, calling the police does not necessarily mean anyone is going to be locked up in the state hospital. It simply gives officers the ability to analyze the situation and either call for a mental health crisis intervention team or detain the person for further observation.

None of that comforted Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert. He questioned forcing teachers to call the police based on someone being consider a "danger to self or others.

"When you're talking about kids on a playground and they're throwing rocks or they get in a fight, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with mental illness or health issues,'' Farnsworth said.

"I think that that language is exceptionally broad,'' he said. "I think you're going to have teachers that are going to be reporting kids who are a danger, but not a real danger that we normally expect.''

Kavanagh assured lawmakers that the state Department of Health Services would distribute information to teachers to identify true problems "so it's not just their own subjective personal opinion.''

And Kavanagh told colleagues they don't need to look far for an example of why the legislation is needed, citing the Loughner case as a prime exhibit.

"School officials knew about this and nobody thought to call the police,'' he said.

But Farnsworth saw other problems with the measure, pointing to another provision to give teachers absolute immunity from lawsuit for calling police, whether the teacher acted reasonably or not.

"If they act in a way that they're going to report somebody just to get back at a parent that was upset at them, why should they have immunity?'' he asked.

But Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, said he sees the legislation from a different perspective because his wife is a teacher.

"She has been threatened with her life at school before,'' he told colleagues.

"It took three different times complaining to the principal at that time before the police were brought in,'' Livingston said. "Thank goodness nothing happened in between.''

He said this legislation would make it crystal clear that teachers not only have the right but the obligation to report such behavior to police.

Borelli, however, said he's not convinced that having teachers use their judgment about a student's mental health -- and calling police -- is necessarily a good thing.

He said that teachers were at the forefront of efforts years ago to convince parents their children were suffering from attention deficit disorder and should be medicated with Ritalin.

"What's wrong with a teacher who feels threatened to pick up the phone and call the parent?'' he asked.

All the measures now go to the full House.

Jobs program for cops and prison guards???

Source

Valley NAACP leader: Regents, who run universities, have conflict of interest over prison contracts

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:39 pm

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

A local civil rights leader is accusing two members of the state Board of Regents of having an illegal conflict of interest because they serve on the board of a company that builds private prisons for the state.

Oscar Tillman, president of the Maricopa County branch of the NAACP, contends it is improper for Dennis DeConcini and Anne Mariucci to be regents when are board members of Corrections Corporation of America. That company last year was awarded a contract last year to house 1,000 medium-security inmates for the state.

The formal complaint, filed with the Attorney General's Office, said that, at the very least, both should have declared that conflict. Attorney Dianne Post said that failure violates state law.

But Tillman said the issue is deeper.

He said both are involved in working to have the state put more and more money into putting people behind bars. The result, he said, has been less money for higher education.

"You're out here fighting and lobbying for more prisons and less for education,'' he charged.

As proof CCA and the universities are fighting for the same funds, the complaint says that since 1979 higher education's share of the state budget fell from 19.1 percent to 8 percent. At the same time, the amount spent on corrections went from 4.3 percent to 11 percent.

Tillman acknowledged that shift in priorities was approved not by the regents but ultimately the Legislature. He argued, though, some of that could be traced to money.

"You're going around the back door, giving legislators money for prisons,'' he said. "I don't know too many people that are giving legislators money to help them get more money for the schools and the colleges.''

That contract approved last year will pay CCA $65.43 a day for each of the 1,000 inmates once the facility is eventually built and open. That potentially makes it worth nearly $23.9 million a year.

Mariucci told Capitol Media Services that attorneys for the Regents have looked at prior complaints about a potential conflict and concluded they are " completely frivolous.'' DeConcini added a similar sentiment when reached late Friday.

"In fact, I would go further to say that privatizing prisons and defraying the capital costs away from the state that the private sector can provide in a private prison contract creates more money for education,'' she said. "I look at it as the opposite of a conflict wherein it's mutually complementary and it's a win-win for both industries.''

Added DeConcini: "I'm very disappointed the NAACP has to stoop to this kind of stuff. ... "There is no conflict of interest."

Post, in her formal complaint, does not see it that way.

More money for incarceration means less money for education,'' she wrote.

"It is not an appearance of conflict ? it is a direct conflict,'' Post continued. "DeConcini and Mariucci cannot serve two masters.''

She said fewer state dollars for higher education means a larger burden on students and their families.

"Students are increasingly forced to borrow more money for school, saddling them with debt when they are just beginning their careers'' she wrote. What's worse, Post said, is this shift comes "at a time when the economy is barely beginning to recover and unemployment rates are still quite high.''

Regents spokeswoman Sarah Harper said in a prepared statement the board "takes seriously'' the complaint. But she said staff council has reviewed the issue and determined there is no conflict of interest.

"Both Regents Mariucci and DeConcini serve tirelessly to support higher education in Arizona to ensure affordable access for all Arizonans and the Board appreciates their dedicated service,'' the statement reads.

The most recent proxy statement by CCA, issued last March, showed DeConcini at that time had beneficial ownership of 36,396 shares. DeConcini, a former Pima County attorney before becoming a U.S. senator in 1977 where he served until 1995, has been on the board since early 2008 and had total annual compensation, including fees, stock awards and options in 2011 of $176,656.

That same proxy statement showed Mariucci with no shares and just $44,904 in compensation for 2011, in part because she had been named to the board just that past December. She is a private equity investor and also serves on the board of Southwest Gas.

Innocent Oakland man released from prison

Innocent Oakland man released from prison after seven years

By Paul T. Rosynsky

Oakland Tribune

Posted: 02/22/2013 02:05:00 PM PST

OAKLAND -- A 51-year-old who spent almost seven years in prison for attempted murder was released from custody Friday after Santa Clara University law students and a powerful law firm proved his innocence.

Ronald Ross bowed his head and broke down in tears as Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Rolefson ordered him released in a hearing that ended an almost decadelong saga sparked by a sloppy Oakland Police Department investigation.

Moments after the order was made, Ross' mother, Thelma, was allowed to embrace her son for the first time since he was arrested in 2006.

"Oh, Lord. Oh, Lord," Thelma Ross, 77, cried as she hugged her son. "Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Jesus."

"Today is a great day for justice," said Cookie Ridolfi, executive director of the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University.

Ross was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison on June 29, 2007, in the shooting of Renardo Williams, a onetime neighbor of Ross' mother.

Ross became the primary suspect in the case after former Oakland police Sgt. Steven Lovell placed his photo in a lineup, and Williams wrongly identified Ross as the man who shot him.

Ross' photo was included in the lineup because his mother was Williams' neighbor 10 years before the shooting. Court documents indicate Lovell placed Ross' photo in the lineup to fill a spot and because he had a past criminal record for minor drug offenses.

But when Williams selected Ross' photo three days after the shooting, while lying in a hospital bed with an intravenous morphine drip, Lovell disregarded other evidence and focused his investigation on the innocent man, court documents say.

Police focused on Ross despite other evidence that showed Williams might have been shot by the father of a teen who had gotten into a fight with Williams a day before the shooting.

Williams told police that the teen's mother had threatened him after the fight, saying "her man" was going to settle the score. In addition, Williams initially told police that he believed the teen's father was the shooter.

Had Lovell investigated that man, Steven Embrey Sr., he would have found a man with several serious and violent criminal convictions. In fact, court papers show that since 2006, Embrey committed numerous violent felonies and is now awaiting trial in an unrelated attempted murder case.

But with Lovell's focus on Ross, prosecutors built a case against him fueled by lying witnesses and the ignoring of discrepancies that also were not fully investigated by Ross' court-appointed defense attorney.

At least three witnesses lied to the jury during the trial, including the teen, Steven Embrey Jr., Williams and the teen's mother, Nikki Stuart. The younger Embrey and Williams both testified they were confident Ross was the shooter, and Stuart testified she hadn't seen the elder Embrey for months even though she had.

Also, Ross, who has below-average intelligence, testified during the trial that he was at home watching a basketball playoff game at the time of the shooting. However, there was no playoff game on at the time.

The Alameda County District Attorney's Office used that misstatement to argue to the jury that Ross was lying about where he was. Ross' defense attorney never presented evidence showing that Ross was most likely watching a Golden State Warriors regular season game, which was airing the night of the shooting.

After the verdict, Ross' defense attorney, Michael Berger, contacted the Innocence Project in hopes of finding help for his client. The project began investigating the case with help from the San Francisco law firm Keker & Van Nest.

The investigation, which began soon after Ross was sentenced, produced new evidence including sworn statements from the younger Embrey that he had lied during the trial and that his father was the shooter. The elder Embrey also gave a sworn statement blaming the shooting on another man and saying Ross was not involved.

Initially, the District Attorney's Office fought against Ross' release, but as more evidence began to trickle in, the office reversed course and agreed last week to seek Ross' release and drop charges against him.

Linda Starr, legal director for the Innocence Project, said the case shows the judicial system is imperfect and that defense attorneys and prosecutors need to remain diligent in ensuring all facts of a case are thoroughly investigated.

"The system let him down," Starr said. "It's a demonstration that we should act diligently at all times."

San Mateo County probation chief pleads not guilty to child porn charges

Source

Former San Mateo County probation chief pleads not guilty to child porn charges

By Aaron Kinney

akinney@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted: 02/23/2013 06:54:38 AM PST

REDWOOD CITY -- Stuart Forrest, accused of possessing child pornography while serving as San Mateo County's chief probation officer, was led away in handcuffs Friday morning from a secretive hearing on the eighth floor of the Hall of Justice after pleading not guilty to two felony charges.

Forrest, wearing a dark gray suit with a light gray tie, appeared to be momentarily overcome with emotion as sheriff's deputies pulled his hands behind his back and cuffed him. His attorney, Jaime Leanos, consoled him and helped remove Forrest's keys and phone from his pockets.

Forrest was charged Thursday by state prosecutors with two counts of knowingly possessing material showing people under the age of 18 exposing Stuart Forrest, former chief probation officer for San Mateo County, was booked into county jail on Friday, Feb. 22, 2013, on two felony charges of child pornography possession. ( Courtesy ) themselves or engaging in sexual conduct. He resigned from his $140,000 post in December after law enforcement agents, as part of an investigation led by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, searched his county office.

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, who has served with Forrest on various law enforcement-related commissions, turned the prosecution over to Attorney General Kamala Harris to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest.

"I want the public to feel there's not even any suggestion of impropriety," Wagstaffe said.

The county further removed itself from the process when Robert Foiles, presiding judge for the Superior Court, asked for an outside judge to be brought in to hear the case, since the court appointed Forrest to his position in 2009.

Forrest's arraignment, presided over by retired Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Robert Atack, was marked by secrecy and extra security. The hearing was not listed on Friday's court calendar. The proceedings were monitored by a plainclothes security officer who afterward escorted Deputy Attorney General Johnette Jauron out of the courtroom through an interior door.

Jauron did not respond to an email regarding the case, and a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office declined to comment.

Forrest was booked into San Mateo County jail after the hearing and was released later in the day after posting $100,000 bail. He is scheduled to return to court for a preliminary hearing April 9.

Leanos, Forrest's attorney, said outside court that he hadn't had a chance to review all the discovery in the case and therefore couldn't comment.

A reporter reached Forrest by phone Thursday night. He said "no comment" and hung up.

Deputies responded to a welfare check involving Forrest on the night of Dec. 20 on the property of Crystal Springs United Methodist Church in the San Mateo Highlands neighborhood, according to the Sheriff's Office. The deputies found Forrest with a knife and subdued him with a Taser, a spokeswoman said.

Contact Aaron Kinney at 650-348-4357. Follow him at Twitter.com/kinneytimes.

Michigan loses millions to pop bottle smugglers???

Source

Can smugglers cashing in on Michigan refund

Michigan recycled cans

By Alanna Durkin Associated Press Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:53 AM

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan lawmakers want to crack down on can and bottle smugglers they say are scamming Michigan for undeserved recycling refunds, corrupting a generous 10-cent per container payback policy once infamously portrayed in a “Seinfeld” episode and which beverage officials now claim costs the state millions of dollars annually.

“Seinfeld” characters Kramer and Newman failed miserably in their comedic attempt to cash in on the refund, when they loaded a mail truck full of cans and bottles in New York and attempted to drive them to Michigan. But lawmakers say it’s a serious problem, especially in border counties, and they want to toughen penalties on people who try to return unmarked, out-of-state cans and bottles for refunds.

“If you are intending to defraud … then you should be held accountable for it,” said Republican Rep. Kenneth Kurtz of Coldwater. He recently introduced legislation aimed at cracking down on scammers who drive car and truck loads of cans from Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio — states that do not offer refunds — to stores across the border in Michigan.

His legislation would make an attempt to return between 100 and 10,000 non-returnable containers punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Current law sets penalties only for those who actually return fraudulent containers.

Michigan’s 10 cent-per-container refund — the highest in the country — was enacted more than 30 years ago to encourage recycling. Many say it’s worked. The state’s recycling rate for cans and bottles was nearly 96 percent in 2011. By contrast, New York, one of nine states with nickel deposits on most containers, saw only a 66.8 percent redemption rate in 2007, the most recent figure available.

Despite measures Michigan lawmakers have taken over the years, including tougher penalties for bottle scammers and new machines that kick out fraudulent cans, store owners and distributors along the border say illegal returns persist.

Mike Hautala owns Hautala Distributing, which services Gogebic and Ontonagon counties in the western part of the Upper Peninsula near the Wisconsin border. He said for every case of beer his distributorship delivers to a store along the border, it picks up about seven more cases of empty cans.

The state loses $10 million to $13 million a year to fraudulent redemptions, according to most recent 2007 estimates from the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association. Angela Madden, the association’s director of governmental affairs, said that number has likely gone down slightly because of changes implemented since, but not by much.

Bill Nichols, store director at Harding’s Friendly Market in Niles about three miles from the Indiana border, said the store takes in about $6,000 worth of cans a week. He said every week he kicks out people for trying to return large garbage bags full of cans from Indiana, a state that offers no refund.

“You can go into the parking lot and look at the license plates and see that it says Indiana,” he said.

Distributors pick up the containers people drop off at stores and pay the store a dime for every container. If the distributor picks up more bottles and cans than it left — the likely result of fraudulent redemption — the distributor is left in the hole, Madden said. If the distributor picks up fewer cans than it dropped off, the money that does not go back to the store is sent to the state. Twenty five percent of that money is sent back to retailers and 75 percent is put in a fund that pays for things like environmental cleanup, she said.

Hautala said he lost about $25,000 last year picking up more returned containers than he delivered. He said his company will recover some of that money from distributors who sell more containers than they pick up.

In 2008, Michigan passed laws aimed at cracking down on bottle fraud. One of the primary components required manufacturers to place a special mark on Michigan cans and bottles and said those containers could only be sold in Michigan or other states that have deposit laws.

A report the Department of Treasury delivered to Michigan lawmakers last fall estimated that the technology may have helped reduce redemptions of out-of-state containers by nearly 4 percent. But that reduction could also come from decline in sales, the report said.

As containers were given Michigan-specific marks, vending machines used in stores to count the cans and bottles were formatted with new technology to read the mark and reject cans that come in from across the border.

But Madden told the committee that many retailers have not yet taken advantage of the technology. She said while the state has provided funding for business to pay for the $5,000 machine upgrade, many “just refuse.” If a store has an older model machine, they might have to shell out big bucks for a brand new machine that is compatible with the new technology, she said.

Hautala said only four machines are in the two counties his company serves.

And the machines are not “100 percent fool-proof,” Nichols said. If a person repeatedly puts an out-of-state can into the machine, it will often accept it, he said.

Michigan is not alone in its fight against bottle fraud. Mark Oldfield, spokesman for California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, said the state, which gives a 5-cent refund for most containers and 10 cents for those more than 24 ounces, is losing about $30 million to $50 million a year from redeeming out-of-state cans. The state’s redemption rate for the first six months of 2012 was 87 percent.

Oldfield said a new law in California this year requires people who bring in more than 25 pounds of aluminum or plastic, or more than 100 pounds of glass, to report the source and the destination of the material to the state. Border patrol stations along the major highways near the border also gather license plate numbers and information of vehicles seen bringing in cans and bottles.

Despite their best efforts to clamp down on fraudulent bottles, a federal lawsuit may shake things up even more. In 2012, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati struck down the Michigan law that makes beverage companies put a special mark on cans sold in the state. It said the Michigan law is illegally affecting interstate commerce by dictating where cans can be distributed.

Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, said the office has requested a stay on the ruling and plans to file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in April.

Uncle Sam goes hunting for local government crooks

Robert Robb gives the nitty gritty details!!!

Yes, Ben Arredondo, Sheriff Joe, and Tom Horne are all probably big time crooks that belong in prison. But by both the Federal and Arizona Constitutions I think the job of arresting and jailing these government crooks belongs to the local cops, not Uncle Sam.

Source

Robert Robb | azcentral opinions

Reach Robert Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8472.

Posted on February 22, 2013 2:13 pm by Robert Robb

Feds go hunting for local officials

The federal Department of Justice makes investigating and prosecuting public corruption, including by state and local officials, a major priority.

And the focus is not just on major corruption with national implications or involving federal programs. Acting principally through local branches of the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, DOJ views any corruption by any state or local official, regardless of how small or distant from federal operations, as its business.

The justification is that corruption, regardless of how small, robs the public of the honest administration of their government, and local law enforcement is frequently conflicted, complaisant or complicit.

There is a superficial sensibility to this justification. But there are substantial problems with the role DOJ has arrogated both in theory and in practice, as illustrated by the recent raft of such cases in the Phoenix metro area.

In the first place, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that can be even remotely argued to assign the task of policing the integrity of state and local officials to the executive branch of the federal government. Such a role would have been anathema to the framers. In fact, it’s fair to say that if policing the integrity of state and local officials had been an enumerated executive branch responsibility, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

So, how has DOJ managed to assume this extra-constitutional role? Congress has enacted some highly elastic statutes that permit DOJ to turn practically any malfeasance by state and local officials into federal crimes. The most elastic are the federal crimes of bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud.

Bribery involving a state or local official working for an entity that takes at least $10,000 from the federal government can become a federal crime. Since the federal government doles out over $600 billion a year to state and local governments, basically there are no state or local officials not subject to a federal bribery charge, irrespective of how profoundly local the venality.

If any element of the misdeed involved sending something through the mail, it can be mail fraud. Through the Internet, it’s wire fraud.

When federal judge Fred Martone gave former Tempe City Councilman Ben Arredondo a relatively light sentence, it was generally assumed that he did so in part because he thought that the federal government had wasted resources in pursuing such a small-potatoes case. And, indeed, Martone said words to that effect in open court.

But perhaps Martone was also influenced by how much the federal government had stretched these elastic statutes. Although Arredondo was initially charged with an independent count of bribery, that accusation was folded into one of the two counts of mail fraud to which he actually pled. One involved receiving sports tickets through the mail. The other was for sending a letter to ASU saying none of the recipients of the scholarship fund he sponsored were relatives.

The conclusion of the Arredondo case is highly unsatisfying. Was he on the take, explicitly selling his official services to special interests outside the sting operation conducted by the federal government? If so, he got off much too lightly. Or was he just a political hustler, maneuvering aggressively in the gray areas but stopping short of an illegal quid pro quo, despite his plea agreement? If so, he was wrongly subjected to the heavy hand of the federal government, which ultimately threatened to criminally prosecute his wife.

The pursuit of Attorney General Tom Horne also yields disturbing questions. After an intense investigation by the FBI, Horne has been charged by Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery with the civil state offense of illegally coordinating with an independent campaign conducted on his behalf.

So, why was it the FBI that launched the investigation, if it involved the violation of a civil state statute? Initially, the FBI thought the elastic mail and wire fraud statutes could apply, but apparently that was too much of a stretch for the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.

If Horne did violate state law about coordination with an independent campaign, the offense took place in a very few days toward the end of the 2012 campaign, and involved just a handful of people. Yet the FBI, in a sprawling investigation, developed an extraordinary interest in the interpersonal relationships between people in Horne’s Attorney General’s Office. Although the details are pretty salacious, they have no obvious connection to a campaign finance law violation that is alleged to have occurred before Horne was ever elected to the office.

A staffer to former state House Speaker Jim Weiers, John Mills, has been charged with federal wire fraud for taking money from Weiers’ campaign account for personal uses, and then returning it. His attorney is asking that the case be dismissed because the federal government is stretching the wire fraud statutes too far.

The Mills case best illustrates the practical problem with the role the federal government has arrogated. Arizona has very robust state statutes against bribery, fraud and embezzlement. If the facts against Mills are as alleged, he could be prosecuted under some of them without any question that they were being stretched beyond reason.

So why, if state statutes are so much more apropos, are the feds pursuing an iffy wire fraud case rather than turn it over to state or local prosecutors? Impossible to say for sure. But the feds do seem to like to mount their own trophies.

Now there have been several local public corruption cases in which the federal role was unarguably appropriate. Some of the illegal Fiesta Bowl campaign contributions went to candidates for federal office. Former state legislator Richard Miranda embezzled from a federal non-profit and engaged in federal tax evasion in the process.

And the federal government, or at least the U.S. Attorney’s Office, has shown some restraint. Federal charges weren’t filed against Horne. After investigating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for criminal civil rights violations, which is something the federal government is uniquely empowered to do, the U.S. Attorney’s Office made a rare public announcement that charges wouldn’t be filed.

Arizona is not being picked on, as some allege. The raft of local public corruption investigations isn’t because Arizona passed SB 1070 or because Gov. Jan Brewer wagged her finger at President Obama.

The investigatory targets in Arizona are a bipartisan lot. And similar small-potatoes federal investigations and charges are occurring all over the country. The feds recently busted some traffic court judges in Philadelphia for fixing tickets for friends and relatives.

The Department of Justice just sees policing the integrity of state and local officials as its job. But is justice truly being served by turning what are really state crimes into federal offenses?

Lawmaker touts state Capitol barrier

Source

Lawmaker touts state Capitol barrier

By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:41 PM

The state Capitol has been surrounded by giant tents housing lunch lines and by protesters hoisting placards.

It’s been encircled by folks who wanted to give the Capitol a hug to encourage more civility and bipartisanship.

And now a state lawmaker would like to wrap it all up inside a barrier of pipes embedded in concrete.

State Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, believes the Capitol, the seat of government in Arizona, is a “soft target” ripe for a potentially devastating attack. Relying on a neighbor who does steel work, he made a rough guess that it would take $250,000 to erect a security barrier around the Capitol complex, stretching from 17th Avenue to 18th Avenue, and from Jefferson to Adams streets.

And last week, he presented his plan to a quizzical House Appropriations Committee in an informational hearing.

“The obvious first question for the sponsor is, do you know something we don’t know?” asked Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills and the chairman of the committee that decides where to spend money.

Allen played along with the joke — “I’m going to leave, and if I’m running, follow me” — but then shifted into a serious demeanor.

The Capitol, he said, needs the ability to repel “a device of larger destruction.”

Imagine, Allen told committee members, the worst-case scenario: A House of Representatives packed to the rafters for the annual State of the State address. Everyone from the governor to all 90 lawmakers, from Supreme Court judges to tribal leaders are present.

“And somebody puts a van against the building and blows it up,” he said. “There’s nothing inhibiting this at all.”

Such an action, Allen said, would “decapitate” government.

The Capitol is a far cry from Fort Knox, but it has tightened security over the past decade.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the state sealed off Washington Street where it ran up to the west side of the nine-story Executive Tower, putting decorative planters and large boulders at the point where it used to intersect with 18th Avenue. The avenue was also closed off, becoming a pedestrian-only swath of pavement.

Several years ago, as protests increased outside the usually sedate Legislature, security removed the benches that dotted the courtyard area between the House and Senate buildings. The trash cans, perceived as an easy place to hide explosives, went the same way. The protests have largely disappeared, but the furniture is not returning.

Capitol officials also installed massive concrete planters at the edges of the House and Senate parking lots to deter anyone from driving through and onto the legislative courtyard. Security guards patrol the lots.

Just last month, security officials added bollards to block off a drive that leads from the House of Representatives, hugs the north side of the original Capitol and passes near the Executive Tower.

Mike Braun, executive director of the Legislative Council, which is responsible for the legislative grounds and buildings, said there have been numerous talks over the last dozen years about beefing up security around the Capitol’s perimeter.

The network of one-way streets that define the north and south sides of the Capitol confuse motorists, who then get lost and wander into all kinds of areas that have been put off limits.

“I’m always concerned about it (security) because it’s so confusing for people down here to navigate,” Braun said. Add in the busloads of schoolchildren who visit the Capitol, and worries only heighten about the potential for mass harm, he said.

Allen, who returned as a lawmaker in January after a six-year absence, said those worries could be allayed with a perimeter barrier that would deter vehicles but still let pedestrians in.

He told committee members his plan would follow his father’s mantra of “make it cheap.”

Rep. Rick Gray, R-Sun City, said the thought of pipes four or five inches in diameter sticking out of the ground was almost “painful,” and said any plan would need some aesthetic appeal.

While some lawmakers said their greater concern is security inside the legislative buildings, Allen said he wants to focus on the larger issue of protecting the Capitol as a symbol of democracy, rather than personal security.

He’s using his proposal, House Bill 2121, to get the idea percolating in lawmakers’ minds.

He also wants to involve the governor and hopes the state could tap into the resources of the federal Department of Homeland Security, given the Capitol’s stature as the seat of government and the fact that former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano now heads that federal agency.

“I would like to see this fixed before our next State of the State address,” Allen said.

Drone Pilots Are Found to Get Stress Disorders Much as Those in Combat Do

Source

Drone Pilots Are Found to Get Stress Disorders Much as Those in Combat Do

By JAMES DAO

Published: February 22, 2013

In the first study of its kind, researchers with the Defense Department have found that pilots of drone aircraft experience mental health problems like depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress at the same rate as pilots of manned aircraft who are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The study affirms a growing body of research finding health hazards even for those piloting machines from bases far from actual combat zones.

“Though it might be thousands of miles from the battlefield, this work still involves tough stressors and has tough consequences for those crews,” said Peter W. Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively about drones. He was not involved in the new research.

That study, by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, which analyzes health trends among military personnel, did not try to explain the sources of mental health problems among drone pilots.

But Air Force officials and independent experts have suggested several potential causes, among them witnessing combat violence on live video feeds, working in isolation or under inflexible shift hours, juggling the simultaneous demands of home life with combat operations and dealing with intense stress because of crew shortages.

“Remotely piloted aircraft pilots may stare at the same piece of ground for days,” said Jean Lin Otto, an epidemiologist who was a co-author of the study. “They witness the carnage. Manned aircraft pilots don’t do that. They get out of there as soon as possible.”

Dr. Otto said she had begun the study expecting that drone pilots would actually have a higher rate of mental health problems because of the unique pressures of their job.

Since 2008, the number of pilots of remotely piloted aircraft — the Air Force’s preferred term for drones — has grown fourfold, to nearly 1,300. The Air Force is now training more pilots for its drones than for its fighter jets and bombers combined. And by 2015, it expects to have more drone pilots than bomber pilots, although fighter pilots will remain a larger group.

Those figures do not include drones operated by the C.I.A. in counterterrorism operations over Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.

The Pentagon has begun taking steps to keep pace with the rapid expansion of drone operations. It recently created a new medal to honor troops involved in both drone warfare and cyberwarfare. And the Air Force has expanded access to chaplains and therapists for drone operators, said Col. William M. Tart, who commanded remotely piloted aircraft crews at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

The Air Force has also conducted research into the health issues of drone crew members. In a 2011 survey of nearly 840 drone operators, it found that 46 percent of Reaper and Predator pilots, and 48 percent of Global Hawk sensor operators, reported “high operational stress.” Those crews cited long hours and frequent shift changes as major causes.

That study found the stress among drone operators to be much higher than that reported by Air Force members in logistics or support jobs. But it did not compare the stress levels of the drone operators with those of traditional pilots.

The new study looked at the electronic health records of 709 drone pilots and 5,256 manned aircraft pilots between October 2003 and December 2011. Those records included information about clinical diagnoses by medical professionals and not just self-reported symptoms.

After analyzing diagnosis and treatment records, the researchers initially found that the drone pilots had higher incidence rates for 12 conditions, including anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and suicidal ideation.

But after the data were adjusted for age, number of deployments, time in service and history of previous mental health problems, the rates were similar, said Dr. Otto, who was scheduled to present her findings in Arizona on Saturday at a conference of the American College of Preventive Medicine.

The study also found that the incidence rates of mental heath problems among drone pilots spiked in 2009. Dr. Otto speculated that the increase might have been the result of intense pressure on pilots during the Iraq surge in the preceding years.

The study found that pilots of both manned and unmanned aircraft had lower rates of mental health problems than other Air Force personnel. But Dr. Otto conceded that her study might underestimate problems among both manned and unmanned aircraft pilots, who may feel pressure not to report mental health symptoms to doctors out of fears that they will be grounded.

She said she planned to conduct two follow-up studies: one that tries to compensate for possible underreporting of mental health problems by pilots and another that analyzes mental health issues among sensor operators, who control drone cameras while sitting next to the pilots.

“The increasing use of remotely piloted aircraft for war fighting as well as humanitarian relief should prompt increased surveillance,” she said.

Cops bust foul mouthed 9 year old rap music star

Real criminals that hurt people, like robbers, rapists and murderers!!! Not some foul mouthed 9 year old that makes big bucks for his father as an entertainer.

Source

Police: Mass. boy’s rap videos inappropriate

Associated Press Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:39 AM

BROCKTON, Mass. — Brockton, Mass., police say they have lodged child abuse and neglect complaints against a man whose 9-year-old son appears in sexually suggestive rap videos posted online.

Police said Sunday they are also informing state child welfare officials about the videos that feature fourth-grader Luie Rivera Jr., who goes by the stage name Lil Poopy.

The videos show the boy slapping a woman’s buttocks, engaging in sexually suggestive dances and glorifying drug use and materialism.

Lt. David Dickinson tells The Enterprise (http://bit.ly/ZDTBNo ) that the videos are “a bit much for a 9-year old.”

Police started investigating after a feature story on the boy appeared in the paper.

His father, Luis Rivera, said his son is simply acting and not doing anything wrong. He says he plans to contact his lawyer.

———

Information from: The (Brockton, Mass.) Enterprise, http://www.enterprisenews.com

Source

VIDEOS: Brockton police file complaint against 9-year-old rapper’s father, say videos ‘a bit much’

By Maria Papadopoulos

Enterprise Staff Writer

Posted Feb 25, 2013 @ 06:01 AM

One video shows the 9-year-old rapper repeatedly slapping the buttocks of a woman who is bent over.

In another video, Luie Rivera Jr., a Brockton fourth-grader also known as Lil Poopy, is shown in various other, sexually charged situations having similar physical contact with other women.

Adults in a crowd cheer the 9-year-old on as he is in a simulated sex situation with a female on a dance floor. People throw dollar bills at the child. A man can be seen telling the fourth-grader to slap the female, who is bent over, on the buttocks. She then gyrates against Rivera, and lifts the boy’s shirt.

These images of Rivera, posted to YouTube in recent months and filmed alongside adults partying at nightclubs, including one in Waterbury, Conn., were too much for Brockton police, who are now lodging a complaint alleging child abuse or neglect against his father, Luis Rivera.

“It’s a bit much for a 9-year-old. It warrants the attention of the Department of Children and Families,” police Lt. David Dickinson said Sunday afternoon.

Police viewed the videos on Sunday, the same day that a Page 1 story about the 9-year-old rapper ran in The Sunday Enterprise.

Police filed a report called a “51A” with the state after viewing the videos. The report is the legal mechanism under which the state Department of Children and Families can investigate alleged abuse or neglect of a child under the age of 18. An agency spokeswoman could not be reached for comment Sunday night.

Lil Poopy has hit the stage with P. Diddy, hung out in nightclubs and been featured in music videos in which he sings about Louis Vuitton swag, driving a Lamborghini and making someone else’s girlfriend his groupie.

The boy is called a “Cocaine Cowboy,” and he performs with a group called Coke Boys. He earns about $7,500 a performance, his father said recently.

Reached on Sunday, the boy’s father, Luis Rivera, said that his son “is not doing anything wrong” in the videos posted to YouTube.

“I’ll call my lawyer first thing in the morning,” Rivera, 30, said when informed of the police complaint against him on Sunday afternoon. “He’s not doing anything wrong. He’s acting.”

Rivera said his son and the people filmed in the video were wearing clothes. He also likened the buttocks slapping to how adults praise children who are participating in a baseball game, he said, for example.

“When you hit a home run, when you go to the bleachers, they tap you on the butt,” Rivera said. “He’s not doing anything wrong.”

But police – and some local parents – disagreed.

“It’s disgusting,” said Brockton community activist Ollie Jay Spears, a married father of three who watched YouTube videos of the young Rivera on Sunday.

Spears, 37, said he Googled “Lil Poopy” after reading the newspaper’s story and found several videos showing the boy in various situations.

At one point “I had to turn the video off,” said Spears, founder of the Brockton Peace Crusaders, a group aiming to steer at-risk youths in the city’s roughest neighborhoods away from guns and other violence.

“With the girl bent over and the other girl grinding into him,” Spears said. “A 9-year-old with stacks of money and rapping about glorifying the drug trade, and demeaning women? A kid at the third- or fourth-grade level, talking about coke? It’s not entertaining. That’s borderline child abuse.”

Maria Papadopoulos may be reached at mpapa@enterprisenews.com or on Twitter @MariaEnterprise.

Give this plant its due: legalize hemp

It was re-legalized during World War II because hemp makes damn good canvas and rope which was used in the war effort.

Source

Give this plant its due: legalize hemp

February 25, 2013

As states of a more liberal bent battle the federal government over the legalization of medical and even recreational marijuana, another cannabis battle has reemerged in the farm states. But if pot smoking raises troubling moral and safety questions, industrial hemp does not.

Activists have been struggling to legalize hemp for decades in the U.S., but only recently has the issue seemingly caught fire in Congress. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signed on to legislation that had for years been championed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the former GOP presidential contender, and has now been taken up by his son Rand, the Republican senator from Kentucky. It would remove hemp from the federal government's list of Schedule 1 controlled substances and make it legal to cultivate the plant.

What's so hep about hemp? Supporters tout it as a wonder fiber with dozens of potential uses that would find a lucrative market in the U.S. But while that may be an exaggeration — hemp is unlikely to become anything more than a specialty crop for a few hundred growers supplying goods to high-end food markets and low-end textile producers — there's no denying that it's a highly useful weed. The global market for hemp consists of some 25,000 products, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, including fabric, paper, rope, auto parts and home furnishings. Hemp seed, meanwhile, is an alternative protein source used in a variety of food and beverages, and can be pressed to make body oils, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Despite all this, it is illegal to grow hemp anywhere in the U.S. without permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration. There are currently no active federal licenses, so all hemp products produced here are made from imported material.

Based on its classification under the Controlled Substances Act, one might suspect that hemp provides a cheap high for pot fiends, but one would have to smoke an absurd amount of rope to catch a hemp buzz. The plant seems to have been deemed guilty by association with marijuana because both come from the same species, Cannabis sativa. But just as some mushrooms are magical while others are only good in a salad, not all varieties of cannabis are the same. The intoxicating chemical in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is heavily concentrated in the marijuana plant: anywhere from 10% to 30%. The THC content of hemp, by contrast, is less than 1%, and in the varieties legally cultivated in the European Union and Canada must be less than 0.3%.

Historically, hemp was an important crop in the U.S. before it was caught up in an anti-marijuana crusade in the 1930s. When the Controlled Substances Act was approved in 1970, it took the definition of marijuana from the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which considered all varieties of Cannabis sativa to be dangerous and narcotic. Despite court challenges, the DEA continues to insist that any plant containing THC, no matter how little, must be tightly controlled.

Legalization opponents, including the California Narcotics Officers Assn., argue that legalizing hemp would complicate the enforcement of laws against cultivating marijuana because the plants are almost indistinguishable from each other; marijuana growers, in other words, could easily conceal their plants in hemp fields. The association opposed a 2011 state bill to create pilot programs for hemp cultivation, which was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown because hemp production violates federal law.

Of course, few sensible growers of marijuana would raise their plants in a hemp field. The two varieties would cross-pollinate, severely lowering the pot's THC content and rendering it all but useless medicinally or as a recreational drug.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether marijuana should be legalized. But the dangers of growing industrial hemp are next to nonexistent. To date, nine states have approved its cultivation, but none has any active fields because of a refusal by the DEA to grant growing permits.

Enough. Hemp is a rare issue that Republicans and Democrats, and members of Congress from both rural and urban states, ought to be able to agree on. Legalize it.

Sheriff Joe #1 racist in nation???

Maricopa County jail leads U.S. in ICE holds

Maricopa County jail leads U.S. in ICE holds

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:56 PM

More inmates were tagged with federal immigration detainers in Maricopa County’s main jail than at any other facility in the country, according to a recent Syracuse University analysis.

The report released last week sought to track the number of unique federal immigration detainers, also known as immigration holds, placed over a period of more than four years on inmates suspected of being undocumented immigrants. The report surveyed thousands of detention facilities nationwide.

The report tracked 28,862 immigration holds at “Maricopa County Jail,” a figure that exceeded those of a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detention facility and a county facility in Houston. Maricopa County’s tally topped 30,000 when inmates processed at the Lower Buckeye Jail were included. The Sheriff’s Office books the majority of inmates at Fourth Avenue Jail.

The statistics Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse gathered from the start of fiscal 2008 through the early part of fiscal 2012 likely do not account for all immigration holds placed on inmates in Maricopa County jails.

The data collected by the university analysts through public-records requests with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement covered four years. But records kept by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office show nearly the same number of inmates have been subject to immigration holds in just the past three calendar years.

Sheriff’s Office records show immigration holds were placed on 27,795 inmates from 2010 through 2012.

Susan Long, professor of managerial statistics at Syracuse University, said the clearinghouse, which studies immigration statistics, received a very limited amount of information from federal officials compared with what the group requested, and the missing data could account for some of the discrepancy.

“I’m not at all surprised that it’s an undercount,” Long said.

The report notes that more than 70percent of Maricopa County inmates with immigration holds were not convicted of crimes, slightly lower than the 77percent that the clearinghouse found nationwide.

ICE officials could not verify the contents of the group’s report and noted that the analysts attempted to draw conclusions about federal immigration enforcement based on data that does not reflect whether inmates with immigration holds were actually deported.

The agency also changed some of the paperwork that detained immigrants receive to clarify how long they may be kept in custody after they would have been released following their state charges or convictions. The policy changes led ICE officials to question the validity of the information in the clearinghouse report.

“As the TRAC report itself notes, its conclusions are based on data that dates back four years, prior to many of ICE’s enforcement reforms including the new detainer guidance issued by the agency on Dec.21,” said Amber Cargile, an ICE spokeswoman in Phoenix. “This guidance limits the use of detainers to individuals who meet the agency’s enforcement priorities, and restricts the use of detainers against individuals arrested for minor misdemeanor offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes, helping to ensure that available resources are focused on apprehending convicted felons, repeat offenders and other ICE priorities.”

Federal officials deported more than 409,000 people in fiscal 2012, up from the 396,000 immigrants removed in fiscal 2011, according to ICE.

The changes could diminish the number of inmates who are subject to ICE holds, continuing a trend that has developed for a variety of reasons.

A big change came in Maricopa County in late December 2011, when federal immigration officers began conducting immigration screenings for every inmate booked into a Maricopa County jail — a function that sheriff’s staff used to perform.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the change after the U.S. Justice Department issued findings about the Sheriff’s Office that alleged widespread discrimination in patrol and detention operations. The report also led federal officials to restrict the sheriff’s access to federal immigration databases.

That change led some politicians, including Sheriff Joe Arpaio, to worry that federal officers would place immigration holds on fewer inmates than the sheriff’s staff had.

That prediction came true: There were fewer immigration detainers placed on Maricopa County jail inmates in 2012 than there were in 2011. ICE holds have dropped by about 20percent in each of the last two years — both before and after ICE took control of immigration screening.

Other factors are likely contributing to the decline, however, including what most believe to be a decline in immigrants entering the U.S. illegally. That belief is based in part on the decline in apprehensions of undocumented immigrants crossing the border and in drophouses discovered in the state.

The overall jail population also has continued to decline in Maricopa County, with the total number of bookings falling by about 7percent from 2010 to 2012.

“Initially, I had concerns about ICE agents taking over this important job of screening for immigration status,” Arpaio said. “But after review of the last several months, I am pleased with the quality and level of work the ICE officers are doing in my jails. What I do not know, however, is the final disposition of these immigration holds. My hope is they are doing what they should, which is deporting border violators.”

Sen. Rich Crandall wants to create a jobs program for cops???

Source

Arizona bill to arm teachers returns to Senate for public hearing

By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:17 PM

Efforts to arm teachers in schools and to “sweep” public-campaign finance revenue to hire more school-resource officers were among 15 Senate bills granted special permission on Monday to move forward with public hearings.

Although Friday was the deadline for bills to get hearings, Republican leadership usually gives some bills an extra week, and the Senate Appropriations Committee will today hear the Senate bills granted an extension.

Senate Bill 1325, introduced by Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, would allow school governing boards to authorize a teacher or administrator to carry a concealed gun on campus if the school has fewer than 600 students, is more than 30 minutes and 20 miles away from the closest law-enforcement facility, and does not have its own school-resource officer.

A proposed amendment would allow any school governing board to allow a retired law-enforcement officer who is an employee of the school to carry a gun on school grounds.

Crandall’s bill was thought to be dead. A similar bill pushed by Attorney General Tom Horne that would have allowed school districts to arm any teacher or administrator went nowhere.

But Crandall said late last week that he worked with Senate leadership on the amendment and convinced them to give the bill a hearing.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1017, also introduced by Crandall, would ask voters to allow the state to use excess Clean Elections money to help schools pay for resource officers, counselors and behavioral-health services.

The program’s sources of revenue include a surcharge on civil penalties and criminal fines, $5 donations collected by candidates, and taxpayer donations. Currently, Clean Elections money not used to fund participating candidates goes into the state’s general fund.

Arizona Education Association President Andrew Morrill said his organization opposes SB 1325.

“I think Sen. Crandall is trying to be about as reasonable as anybody down there and I know he’s trying to look at some of the unique rural needs,” he said. “But we have drawn a pretty firm line to say there is no substitute for the school-resource officer program.”

He said he’d rather see lawmakers focus on helping schools make their campuses safer, whether that’s by hiring school-resource officers or better securing a school’s perimeter with fencing.

But Morrill said there may be a compromise in allowing retired law-enforcement officers to help schools with safety, especially if they were required to go through the school-resource officer training.

“That’s one of the few suggestions I’ve heard down at the Legislature that could actually work and would have the effect of increasing school safety,” he said.

He said the AEA supports increasing funding for the school-resource officer program but hasn’t researched SCR 1017 enough to know if it may be a viable solution.

Arizonans for Gun Safety President Hildy Saizow, whose group worked with the Obama administration earlier this year on its gun reform proposals, said she has concerns about both bills.

“We don’t agree at all that teachers or administrators or any civilians in the school should be carrying weapons,” she said, saying she even has concerns if the bill does limit who can carry weapons. “There are just too many variables that can lead to a bad outcome.”

She said the organization supports creating a safe environment in schools and supports school-resource officers, but said it does not believe that boosting funds for the schools addresses the issue of gun violence.

“If you look at the 900 gun deaths that took place (in Arizona) last year, not one of them occurred on school grounds,” she said.

She said it would be more helpful if the Legislature would toughen background-check requirements for gun buyers or take weapons away from individuals with mental illnesses.

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission is not opposed to Crandall’s bill to use excess funds to help schools.

Executive Director Todd Lang said Crandall has introduced an amendment that would remedy an administrative problem the Clean Elections bill would have caused. “So in that case ... we’re fine with it,” he said.

Other bills to be heard today would give more adopted children access to behavioral-health services, give the Legislature more oversight over Arizona Department of Transportation highway construction projects and establish a performance-based funding program for schools.

Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee will hear seven bills granted extensions in that chamber. They include efforts to expand mental-health services funding.

Arpaio allies assail outside role in recall

Arpaio allies assail outside role in recall

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:54 PM

Roles have been reversed in the attempt to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The sheriff’s supporters have taken up themes typically associated with Arpaio’s critics, calling on financial transparency from the group behind the recall, decrying outside influences in the race and raising taxpayer stewardship as reasons why the potential election is bad for Maricopa County.

Those behind the recall, meanwhile, have tempered their familiar complaints about Arpaio’s robust out-of-state financial support and influence, deciding to engage in it themselves because they say the prospect of removing Arpaio from office is so important.

Whether the recall election will happen remains in question. Recall supporters have about 90 days left to collect 335,000 valid signatures to force the election.

When some of the same people successfully sought to recall former state Senate President Russell Pearce in 2011, they needed about 7,700 valid signatures. They turned in nearly 17,000, with county election officials validating about 10,000 of those.

William James Fisher, chairman of Respect Arizona, the group behind the recall effort, said the public is mistaken in its belief that collecting 335,000 signatures is an insurmountable obstacle.

“I believe that we can, otherwise I wouldn’t be wasting my time with this,” Fisher said. “Everyone I talk to is upset with the sheriff. I personally am upset with the way he’s handling his office, and it’s bad for Arizona. Everywhere I go, they all know who he is. They say, ‘He hates Mexicans.’ I think we’re going to be able to show that the Latino community is coming together as one community. We’re not just Democrats, and we’re not just Republicans.”

Fisher and his supporters count on galvanizing Latino voters. They also are relying on dozens of signature gatherers from out of state who have fanned out to libraries, courthouses and busy street corners throughout Maricopa County intent on meeting the May 30 petition deadline.

Fisher is quick to point out that those out-of-state signature gatherers represent just a fraction of those committed to ousting the sheriff.

Still, the issue is reminiscent of the 2012 sheriff’s campaign in which Arpaio’s critics made an issue of his out-of-state support. Analysis by The Arizona Republic during that cycle showed nearly 80percent of the sheriff’s campaign donors lived outside Arizona.

Pearce’s supporters also tried to cast his 2011 recall as a product of outside antagonists, though longtime East Valley political observers say Pearce’s unseating was accomplished at the precinct level.

Fisher is unapologetic about the reliance of Arpaio’s critics on out-of-state support. Help from beyond Arizona’s borders — particularly petition gathers from out of state — is a necessity given the number of signatures required and the relatively short time to collect them, he said.

“I think we could do it without them, but it would take a lot more work,” he said. “The truth is I will be going anywhere to raise money. I prefer to do it in Maricopa County, but if I have to go to Tucson, I’ll do it; if I have to go to (Washington) D.C., I’ll do it. … The issue is that important.”

Arpaio’s supporters also are using tactics from their opponents’ playbook. Calling for financial disclosure — a frequent complaint among Arpaio’s critics in the last election — was among the first volleys the sheriff’s supporters fired after the recall effort was announced in late January.

Chad Willems, Arpaio’s campaign manager, released a statement about 10 days after the recall drive was launched asking for the immediate release of names of donors who contributed an estimated $100,000 to the recall effort.

The role reversals are a reflection of the intensity surrounding the battle. Arpaio faced recall efforts in 2005 and 2007, but this one is different, Willems said, because of the amount of early organization that was evident, including the swarm of signature gatherers.

“That tells me they have money, at least some money to get started,” Willems said. “My sense is that they’re going to be raising money from out of state, the same labor unions that poured in money to last year’s election.”

Two labor groups contributed $500,000 to an anti-Arpaio political-action committee during the 2012 general election, but a representative of the hotel-and-hospitality union said it would not be involved in the recall; its efforts are focused on Phoenix municipal races this year.

“I don’t think they’re sitting on a pot of 1.5 to 2 million bucks, but I think probably by the end of the day, that’s what it’s going to take to get this done,” Willems said.

Arpaio’s supporters have made an issue of the recall election’s potential impact on taxpayers.

Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell estimated it would cost $1.5 million to verify petition signatures and an additional $4 million to put on a special election if enough signatures are validated.

“At a time of severe fiscal crisis, this illegal recall effort wastes the scarce resources of the taxpayers, the county and the state,” said Larry Klayman, an attorney hired by Arpaio supporters intent on blocking the recall effort.

Maricopa County has paid more than $25 million in legal claims, jury verdicts and settlements over abuses in jail operations during Arpaio’s tenure.

And the bill for a string of the sheriff’s failed public-corruption investigations, some of which were allegedly motivated by politics, is still being totaled, though taxpayers were on the hook for at least $28 million at last count.

The roles might have changed, but two constants remain in these battles involving Arpaio’s office: insults and lawsuits.

Soon after the recall effort was announced, the head of the Maricopa County Republican Committee sent a letter to Arpaio’s supporters calling for a “shadow army” to emerge and thwart attempts by “thugs” and “domestic terrorists” to collect recall petition signatures.

Recall supporters were outraged at the “inflammatory rhetoric” in the letter and demanded a retraction.

The Arpaio campaign distanced itself from the letter, despite the fact that it directed Arpaio supporters to one of his campaign workers. But after years of the sheriff being compared to war criminals, racist politicians and despots of all stripes, his campaign met the complaints about the lack of civility with a shrug.

Fisher also distanced himself from the Arpaio critics who’ve relied on making comparisons between the sheriff and Adolf Hitler to drive home their points. Instead, he said, the recall campaign would be about education and not intimidation.

“I’m not going to yell and scream; I’m not going to threaten anybody,” Fisher said. “He’s going to feel the wrath of the educated, disciplined Latino voter.”

But Fisher’s effort has already been met with threats of legal action from Arpaio’s supporters in the “tea party.”

Two men from Surprise formed Citizens to Protect Fair Election Results and hired a Washington, D.C.-based attorney to threaten legal action against Fisher if he does not drop the recall effort by Saturday. The two are affiliated with tea-party groups in the Valley and are listed in documents filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission as principals of the anti-recall group. Calls to them were referred to Klayman, who declined to discuss his clients.

Klayman said the threat of legal action is based on his belief that the Arizona Constitution prohibits recall elections for officials in their first six months of office. Any interpretations that would exclude incumbent candidates from the six-month protection are not codified in a constitutional amendment, he said.

Klayman also said recall supporters could not point to any abuse of Arpaio’s office that has taken place since the November election, when the sheriff’s opponents had ample opportunity to remove him from office.

“There are other ways if you have a problem … than to subvert the electoral system,” Klayman said.

Much as Arpaio has done in the past, Fisher said he would not let the threat of legal action from a group of activists deter him from his cause.

“We’re a hundred times bigger than them,” Fisher said. “If they want to make it a fight between the tea party and Latinos in this state, bring it on.”

Utah liquor bill aims to take down ‘Zion curtains’

Utah liquor bill aims to take down ‘Zion curtains’

Associated Press Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:39 PM

SALT LAKE CITY — Wine spritzers are a favorite at Rovali’s near Salt Lake City. Behind the bar, in full view of patrons, waiters siphon soda and syrup into glasses of ice — then they duck behind a fake olive tree and a barricade to add the chardonnay.

Utah’s famously strict liquor laws forbid the restaurant from pouring alcohol in front of customers. The ban is based on the idea that the state should shield the mixing of cocktails and pouring of drinks from children. “Zion curtains” went up around the state as part of a compromise after lawmakers lifted a mandate in 2010 requiring bars to operate as members-only social clubs.

But this year, the curtains may be coming down.

Utah lawmakers are considering whether to repeal the requirement, a move that would ease restrictions and encourage new business. Right now, the requirement applies to restaurants that are less than 3 years old.

Doing away with the curtain would mark yet another small step by the state to relax its liquor laws.

Lawmakers have introduced a handful of pending bills this year that would ease Utah liquor regulations, including a measure allowing customers to order a drink before they order food and another to make more liquor licenses available to restaurants.

They are scheduled to discuss whether to do away with the curtains Wednesday; the measure has not yet been voted on by either chamber.

The so-called Zion curtains have a long history in the state. The nickname nods to Utah’s legacy as home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The barriers first went up decades ago in the social clubs that existed before bars were legalized in 2009, unmistakable glass walls separating customers from bartenders.

Those who oppose today’s Zion curtains say the law forces restaurant owners to waste money and space on configurations to keep bartenders out of sight of patrons using barriers or strategically positioned service bars. Curtain opponents also say the law hinders tourism by annoying outsiders and reinforcing their perception of Utah as staunchly sober.

Rovali’s, an Italian restaurant in Ogden, opened in 2010. When waiters there explain the state’s befuddling liquor laws to out-of-towners, Montanez said, “You see the eye roll.”

“That kind of stifles guests,” he said. “They’re a little rankled by these weird laws.”

Some lawmakers warn that removing the mandate could encourage underage drinking and influence customers to drink too much.

The majority of Utah legislators and residents belong to the Mormon church, which teaches its members to abstain from alcohol.

“Alcohol is a drug,” said Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who opposes the law. “It has social costs. We have DUIs. We have underage drinkers. We have problems that are caused by drinking.”

Valentine said he would consider supporting the proposal if the state promised trade-offs such as bulking up police presence around restaurants and nearby roads, or a measure keeping children from entering restaurants serving liquor.

For restaurant owners moving into existing spaces, the law presents a nightmare, said Rep. Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden. Restaurants sometimes have to cut into floor space, he said, where more tables should be.

“It really just hampers the new guys, the little guys,” Wilcox said. “A lot of these guys, too, they’re not large operators. They’ve got one shop: ‘This is my restaurant. My lifelong dream. I’ve invested everything into this.’”

At Rovali’s, Montanez plays sommelier for guests who order wine service, setting off a presentation that underscores the patchwork nature of current laws. Montanez opens the wine at the table and invites guests to sniff the cork. If they purchase the bottle, he can pour and serve the bottle. If they order by the glass, however, he must slip away to pour the drink behind a partition.

“Everything we do is show,” Montanez said, likening the visible pouring of drinks to a dessert cart.

The display of pastries and sweets bolsters dessert sales at the restaurant by about 15 percent, he said. And Montanez estimates that taking the curtain down would boost wine sales by a similar margin.

“You can’t get creative, that’s for sure,” he said of the partition. “You have to stick with the rules.”

Melva Sine, president of the Utah Restaurant Association, said the curtain mandate confuses diners and raises eyebrows. Utah should impose one set of rules for all restaurants, regardless of their start date, Sine said.

“It lessens consumer confidence: What’s the reason that you’re doing this in the back room?” she said.

Sine rejects the notion that the visible flow of liquor would tempt youngsters to drink.

“We have got to stop feeling like everyone who drinks alcohol is doing something wrong,” she said. “We all want people to go out and enjoy themselves and be responsible.”

———

Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

5 years in prison for releasing a balloon????

Source

Man arrested after 'romantic' balloon gesture

Buss: 60 Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:56 PM

A man is facing a felony charge after releasing 12 heart-shaped balloons in the parking lot of a Motel 6, according to video from Buzz:60.

Anthony Brasfield released the balloons as part of a romantic gesture for his girlfriend, but when a patrol officer saw them, he charged him under the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, which includes protection for endangered species.

The trooper, according to the video, says he arrested him because there are several endangered species in the area, and noted that balloons can travel up to 1,000 miles.

Brasfield could face a five-year sentence.

Supremes to flush 4th and 5th Amendments for DNA testing???

Source

Supreme Court appears conflicted over DNA sampling

Associated Press Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:04 PM

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled with what one of the justices called its most important criminal procedure case in decades, whether to let police take DNA without a warrant from those arrested in hopes of using it to solve old cases.

Justices seemed conflicted over whether police have a right to take genetic information from people who have only been arrested without getting a judge’s approval first, or if the government’s interest in solving cold cases trumped the immediate privacy rights of those under police suspicion of other crimes. [Notice they didn't say a word about the government claiming to be a "public servant" here. When they say the "government's interest" here, it sounds like they consider the "government's interest" more important then the people the government pretends to serve!!!]

One justice seemed to make clear what he thought. “I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades,” said Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor.

“This is what is at stake: Lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy,” Alito said later. “Why isn’t this the fingerprinting of the 21st century? What is the difference? If it was permissible, and it’s been assumed to be so for decades, that it is permissible to fingerprint anybody who’s booked, why is it not permissible to take a DNA sample from anybody who is arrested?”

But Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned how far the government can go if they decide that the police have an interest in people’s DNA to help solve cases, with Roberts noting that it wouldn’t take much for police to add DNA swabs to traffic stops. “Police officers who give Breathalyzer tests, they can also take a Q-tip or whatever and get a DNA sample, right?” Roberts said.

“It could be any arrestee, no matter how minor the offense,” Kagan said. “It could be just any old person in the street. Why don’t we do this for everybody who comes in for a driver’s license because it’s very effective?”

Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court’s blessing. But now 28 states and the federal government now also take samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.

According to court documents, the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System or CODIS — a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles — contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million profiles of those arrested.

In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault. Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed warrantless DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King’s DNA, which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.

King eventually pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault from his arrest, a crime for which Maryland cannot take warrantless DNA samples. The state courts said it violated King’s rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone.

The state Court of Appeals said King had “a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches.”

The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision. The justices will make a decision later this year.

King’s lawyer, Kannon K. Shanmugam, told the justices there’s “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the contents of an individual’s DNA. “An individual’s DNA contains far more information and far more personal information than an individual’s fingerprints,” Shanmugam said.

But prosecutors argued that those arrested have less expectations of privacy than people not in police custody. An arrested individual “by virtue of being in that class of individuals whose conduct has led the police to arrest him on, based on probable cause, surrenders a substantial amount of liberty and privacy,” said Maryland Chief Deputy Attorney General Katherine Winfree. [People are routinely arrested without the required "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion"! Does the prosecutor think the police have some God given right to illegally take a DNA sample from these people after illegally arresting them???]

In addition to solving cold cases, prosecutors argued that DNA testing is needed to help identify the person in custody, just like fingerprinting — when police make ink impressions of suspects’ fingers and compare them quickly to others kept by authorities and found at crime scenes. [If you ask me the Fifth Amendment allows people to refuse to identify themselves to the police. Of course the case Hiibel v Nevada, partially flushed that right down the toilet, when the Supreme Court said that people who are detained by the police with "reasonable suspicion" are required to verbally tell the police their name, if their state has a law requiring it.]

With arrested individuals, the government has a compelling interest in “knowing who that person is, which includes knowing what the person has done. And DNA does that in a far more powerful way than fingerprints have done,” Justice Department lawyer Michael R. Dreeben said.

If that comparison can be made, “I think that you would have a quite good case,” Kagan said.

But Winfree said it currently takes 11-17 days to get results from a DNA swab, making it useless for instant identification. Winfree argued that technology will soon go into use give the police the ability to get results back from DNA swabs within minutes, instead of the days it takes now. But “can I base a decision today on what you say is going to happen in two years?” Roberts said.

“You can’t demonstrate that the purpose is immediate identification of the people coming into custody. You just can’t demonstrate that now,” Justice Antonin Scalia said to Winfree. “Maybe you can in two years. The purpose now is the purpose you began your presentation with, to catch the bad guys, which is a good thing. But you know, the Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually a swing vote on the court, compared the DNA swab to police patting a person down after an arrest, something they don’t need a warrant to do. “Does the justice system have an interest in knowing whether the person committed other crimes?” he asked Shanmugam several times. [I suspect they are referring to "Terry v Ohio" which allows the cops to search a person for weapons by patting them down. I think "Terry v Ohio" also flushed part of the 4th Amendment down the toilet!!!]

“They have that interest, but if they want to investigate other crimes, they have to do what they would have to do as to an ordinary citizen. They have to have a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion,” Shanmugam said.

Here is a comment from a list server on this article

Also, for all their reliance on fingerprint evidence, they've know almost from it's introduction that it is extremely easy to fake. R. Austin Freeman's book "The Red Thumb Mark" gave a detailed description on how to do it in 1907. How long before someone figures out how to fake DNA evidence?

The fact that Un-Constitutionally obtained evidence is allowed should be of grave concern to us all. It has been sold to the courts, and the public as being highly reliable, and effective, neither of which is true.

Mike B.

Californians' support for legalizing pot at record level

Marijuana poll: Californians' support for legalizing pot at record level

By Steven Harmon

Bay Area News Group

Posted: 02/27/2013 06:00:00 AM PST

SACRAMENTO -- Californians support legalizing pot in greater numbers than ever -- and they want the federal government to cool it with the crackdowns on medical marijuana dispensaries.

In a Field Poll released Wednesday, California voters, by a margin of 54 percent to 43 percent, supported allowing legal sales of marijuana, as long as restrictions are in place on age, driving under the influence of the drug and licensing those who sell it. That represents the highest level of support since the Field Poll began asking the question 44 years ago, when most California believed pot was the gateway drug to more hurtful substances.

Only 13 percent of California adults supported legalizing marijuana in 1969.

"Now, we're getting to the point where baby boomers have lived with this stuff for most of their lives," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

Two-thirds of 834 registered voters said they opposed the Obama administration's raids on medical marijuana outlets, in which nearly 200 dispensaries -- most in California -- were targeted in President Barack Obama's first term. Local governments have taken cues from the administration: Two hundred cities and counties have banned medical marijuana dispensaries.

The state Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling on whether local governments can shut down dispensaries.

Nearly three-fourths -- 72 percent -- of Californians back the state's existing medical marijuana law, approved by voters in 1996. And a strong majority -- 58 percent -- would support allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in their own community.

"Certainly, it's a rebuke of the Obama administration's tactics," said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group. "It should indicate that the Justice Department's tactics are unacceptable and should be reconsidered."

Obama once criticized President George W. Bush for his aggressive approach to shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries. But Obama is on pace to exceed Bush's record of medical marijuana busts.

Though voters support medical marijuana, just over two years ago they rejected a ballot measure to legalize pot, Proposition 19, by a 53 to 47 percent margin. Legalization had only narrow support -- 50 to 46 percent -- in a Field Poll four months before that election, and the measure's chances for success were derailed by what political analysts called a lackluster campaign and a vague regulatory plan.

Well-run campaigns and more detailed regulatory plans led to pot legalization last November in Colorado and Washington state.

A coalition of Proposition 19 supporters met in December to discuss potential future California ballot measures. They've said that they're targeting the 2016 presidential election ballot, though they haven't ruled out putting it on the ballot in 2014.

A younger and more tolerant electorate is changing the political landscape. Among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, legalization has a 58-39 edge; among 30- to 39-year-olds, it has a 61-38 percent advantage. Voters 65 or older are the least likely to support legalization, with only 43 percent in favor and 52 percent against.

Independent voters most strongly support legalization, at 59 percent, closely followed by Democrats, at 58 percent.

Only 42 percent of Republicans favor legalization. And Latinos are just as against it, with only 41 percent in favor. But Latinos between the ages of 18 and 39 support it, 53 to 47 percent. Only 30 percent of Latinos 40 and older support legalization.

Voters living in the Bay Area are most likely to support legalizing pot, with 66 percent in favor. Voters along the coast south of Los Angeles County are the least likely, at 47 percent.

The poll, taken Feb. 5 to 17, has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Contact Steven Harmon at 916-441-2101. Follow him at Twitter.com/ssharmon. Read the Political Blotter at IBAbuzz.com/politics.

Cop accused of padding DUI busts to obtain federal grant pleads not guilty

Source

Cop accused of padding DUI arrests pleads not guilty

By Jonathan Bullington Tribune reporter

3:01 p.m. CST, February 27, 2013

The former Des Plaines police commander accused of padding DUI arrest records to obtain federal grant money pleaded not guilty in federal court today, authorities said.

Timothy Veit, 55, of Mount Prospect, appeared before Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan for an arraignment hearing, and was released on his own recognizance, said U.S. Attorney spokesman Randall Samborn.

Veit is expected to appear in court again on June 4 for a status hearing, Samborn said. Neither Veit nor his attorney were immediately available for comment.

Last week, federal authorities accused Veit of “knowingly and intentionally” inflating the number of DUI arrests made under a federally funded grant designed to curb drunk driving and seat belt violations.

Prosecutors said the grant required submitting the number of DUI arrests made and the blood-alcohol content of the person arrested. Authorities said the department was then reimbursed for officer overtime pay, mileage and equipment.

From 2009 to 2012, Veit allegedly falsely inflated DUI arrest numbers by 122, and provided fake blood-alcohol content levels for those “fictitious” arrests, authorities said.

Authorities claim that Veit’s false reports meant the department “fraudulently obtained” $132,893 in federal grant money from Sustained Traffic Enforcement Program grants funded by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Veit served as the department’s project director for the STEP program, authorities said, and his duties included certifying that the department complied with a grant requirement showing that an average of one DUI arrest is made for every 10 hours of overtime officers worked in STEP enforcement campaigns.

He retired last year after 31 years with Des Plaines police, according to authorities.

Documents previously released to the Tribune show that Veit was paid $25,603 in overtime in 2011, $11,530 in 2010 and $3,042 in 2009. It is not clear how much, if any, of that overtime pay came from STEP grant money. Samborn would not comment on whether more Des Plaines police officers could face charges stemming from the investigation.

Authorities charged Veit with one felony count of making false statements, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Earlier this month, Des Plaines police Chief William Kushner confirmed that 13 police officers face possible suspensions stemming from the city’s internal investigation into mismanagement of the grant program.

jbullington@tribune.com

Do Fingerprints Lie?

Annals of Crime

Do Fingerprints Lie?

The gold standard of forensic evidence is now being challenged.

by Michael Specter May 27, 2002

Late one afternoon in the spring of 1998, a police detective named Shirley McKie stood by the sea on the southern coast of Scotland and thought about ending her life. A promising young officer, the thirty-five-year-old McKie had become an outcast among her colleagues in the tiny hamlet of Strathclyde. A year earlier, she had been assigned to a murder case in which an old woman was stabbed through the right eye with a pair of sewing scissors. Within hours of the killing, a team of forensic specialists had begun working their way through the victim’s house. Along with blood, hair, and fibres, the detectives found some unexpected evidence: one of the prints lifted from the room where the murder took place apparently matched the left thumb of Detective McKie.

Crime scenes are often contaminated by fingerprints belonging to police officers, and investigators quickly learn to eliminate them from the pool of suspects. But McKie said that she had never entered the house. Four experts from the Scottish Criminal Record Office—the agency that stores and identifies fingerprints for Scotland’s police—insisted, however, that the print was hers. Though McKie held to her story, even her father doubted her. “I love my daughter very much,’’ Iain McKie, who served as a police officer in Scotland for more than thirty years, told me earlier this year. “But when they said the print was Shirley’s I have to admit I assumed the worst. My entire career I had heard that fingerprints never lie.”

Nobody actually suspected McKie of murder, and in fact the victim’s handyman, David Asbury, was charged with the crime. The sole physical evidence against him consisted of two fingerprints—one of his, lifted from an unopened Christmas gift inside the house, and one of the victim’s, found on a biscuit tin in Asbury’s home. The last thing prosecutors needed was for their own witness to raise questions in court about the quality of the evidence. Yet McKie did just that—repeating under oath that she had never entered the house. Asbury was convicted anyway, but Scottish prosecutors were enraged by McKie’s testimony. As far as they were concerned, McKie had not only lied; she had challenged one of the evidentiary pillars of the entire legal system. Despite their victory in the murder trial, they charged McKie with perjury.

Desperate, she went to the public library and searched the Internet for somebody who might help her. Among the names she came upon was that of Allan Bayle, a senior forensic official at New Scotland Yard and perhaps the United Kingdom’s foremost fingerprint expert. (It was Bayle’s expertise and supporting evidence that helped convict one of the principal Libyan suspects in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland.) He agreed to review the prints, and what he saw astonished him. “It was obvious the fingerprint was not Shirley’s,’’ Bayle told me recently. “It wasn’t even a close call. She was identified on the left thumb, but that’s not the hand the print was from. It’s the right forefinger. But how can you admit you are wrong about Shirley’s print without opening yourself to doubt about the murder suspect, too?” Bayle posted a comment on Onin.com, a Web site trafficked regularly by the world’s fingerprint community. “I have looked at the McKie case,’’ he wrote. “The mark is not identical. I have shown this mark to many experts in the UK and they have come to the same conclusions.”

Bayle’s assertion caused a furor. He was threatened with disciplinary action, shunned by his colleagues, and, after a quarter century with the Metropolitan Police, driven from his job. But in the end McKie was acquitted, and Bayle’s statement helped challenge a system that had, until then, simply been taken for granted. For more than a century, the fingerprint has been regarded as an unassailable symbol of truth, particularly in the courtroom. When a trained expert tells a judge and jury that prints found at a crime scene match those of the accused, his testimony often decides the case. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s basic text on the subject is entitled “The Science of Fingerprints,’’ and a science is what F.B.I. officials believe fingerprinting to be; their Web site states that “fingerprints offer an infallible means of personal identification.’’ The Bureau maintains a database that includes the fingerprints of more than forty-three million Americans; it can be searched from precinct houses and properly equipped police cruisers across the country. Fingerprints are regularly used to resolve disputes, prevent forgery, and certify the remains of the dead; they have helped send countless people to prison. Until this year, fingerprint evidence had never successfully been challenged in any American courtroom.

Then, on January 7th, U.S. District Court Judge Louis H. Pollak—a former dean of the law schools at Yale and at the University of Pennsylvania—issued a ruling that limited the use of fingerprint evidence in a drug-related murder case now under way in Philadelphia. He decided that there were not enough data showing that methods used by fingerprint analysts would pass the tests of scientific rigor required by the Supreme Court, and noted the “alarmingly high” error rates on periodic proficiency exams. Although Judge Pollak later decided to permit F.B.I. fingerprint experts to testify in this particular case, students of forensic science felt his skepticism was justified. “We have seen forensic disciplines which focus on bite marks, hair analysis, and handwriting increasingly questioned in the courts,” Robert Epstein, who had argued for the exclusion of fingerprint testimony in the case, told me. “But we have accepted fingerprinting uncritically for a hundred years.’’

Epstein, an assistant federal public defender in Philadelphia, was responsible for the first major court challenge to the discipline, in 1999, in U.S. v. Byron Mitchell. In that case, Epstein showed that standards for examiners vary widely, and that errors on proficiency tests—which are given irregularly and in a variety of forms—are far from rare. The critical evidence consisted of two fingerprint marks lifted from a car used in a robbery. To prepare for the trial, F.B.I. officials had sent the prints to agencies in all fifty states; roughly twenty per cent failed to identify them correctly. “After all this time, we still have no idea how well fingerprinting really works,’’ Epstein said. “The F.B.I. calls it a science. By what definition is it a science? Where are the data? Where are the studies? We know that fingerprint examiners are not always right. But are they usually right or are they sometimes right? That, I am afraid, we don’t know. Are there a few people in prison who shouldn’t be? Are there many? Nobody has ever bothered to try and find out. Look closely at the great discipline of fingerprinting. It’s not only not a science—it should not even be admitted as evidence in an American court of law.”

Fingerprints have been a source of fascination for thousands of years. They were used as seals on legal contracts in ancient Babylonia, and have been found embossed on six-thousand-year-old Chinese earthenware and pressed onto walls in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Hundreds of years ago, the outline of a hand with etchings representing the ridge patterns on fingertips was scratched into slate rock beside Kejimkujik Lake, in Nova Scotia.

For most of human history, using fingerprints to establish a person’s identity was unnecessary. Until the nineteenth century, people rarely left the villages in which they were born, and it was possible to live for years without setting eyes on a stranger. With the rise of the Industrial Revolution, cities throughout Europe and America filled with migrants whose names and backgrounds could not be easily verified by employers or landlords. As the sociologist Simon Cole made clear in “Suspect Identities,” a recent history of fingerprinting, felons quickly learned to lie about their names, and the soaring rate of urban crime forced police to search for a more exacting way to determine and keep track of identities. The first such system was devised in 1883 by a Parisian police clerk named Alphonse Bertillon. His method, called anthropometry, relied on an elaborate set of anatomical measurements—such as head size, length of the left middle finger, face height—and features like scars and hair and eye color to distinguish one person from another. Anthropometry proved useful, but fingerprinting, which was then coming into use in Britain, held more promise. By the eighteen-sixties, Sir William J. Herschel, a British civil servant in India, had begun to keep records of fingerprints and use them to resolve common contract disputes and petty frauds.

Fingerprinting did not become indispensable, however, until 1869, when Britain stopped exiling criminals to Australia, and Parliament passed the Habitual Criminals Act. This law required judges to take past offenses into account when determining the severity of a sentence. But in order to include prior offenses in an evaluation one would need to know whether the convict had a previous record, and many criminals simply used a different alias each time they were arrested. The discovery that no two people had exactly the same pattern of ridge characteristics on their fingertips seemed to offer a solution. In 1880, Dr. Henry Faulds published the first comments, in the scientific journal Nature, on the use of fingerprints to solve crimes. Soon afterward, Charles Darwin’s misanthropic cousin, Sir Francis Galton, an anthropologist and the founder of eugenics, designed a system of numbering the ridges on the tips of fingers—now known as Galton points—which is still in use throughout the world. (Ultimately, though, he saw fingerprints as a way to classify people by race.)

Nobody is sure exactly how Mark Twain learned about fingerprints, but his novel “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” published in 1894, planted them in the American imagination. The main character in the book, a lawyer, earned the nickname Pudd’nhead in part because he spent so much time collecting “finger-marks”—which was regarded as proof of his foolishness until he astounded his fellow-citizens by using the marks to solve a murder. If you were to walk into a courtroom today and listen to the testimony of a typical forensic expert, you might hear a recitation much like Pudd’nhead Wilson’s: Every human being carries with him from his cradle to his grave certain physical marks which do not change their character, and by which he can always be identified—and that without shade of doubt or question. These marks are his signature, his physiological autograph, so to speak, and this autograph cannot be counterfeited, nor can he disguise it or hide it away, nor can it become illegible by the wear and the mutations of time. . . . This signature is each man’s very own. There is no duplicate of it among the swarming populations of the globe!

Some things have changed since Pudd’nhead Wilson, of course. A few weeks ago, I visited the headquarters of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems, the F.B.I.’s billion-dollar data center, just outside Clarksburg, West Virginia—a citadel of the American forensic community. After driving past a series of shacks and double-wides and Bob Evans restaurants, you come upon a forest with a vast, futuristic complex looming above the trees. (I.A.F.I.S. moved from more crowded quarters in the Hoover Building in 1995, thanks to the influence of the state’s senior senator, Robert C. Byrd.)

Clarksburg is home to the world’s largest collection of fingerprints; on an average day, forty thousand are fed into the system. The I.A.F.I.S. computers, which can process three thousand searches a second, sort through the database in a variety of ways. For example, they compare complete sets of fingerprints in the files with new arrivals—as when a suspect is held in custody and the police send his “ten-prints” to I.A.F.I.S. The computer hunts for shared characteristics, and then attempts to match the prints to a record on file. “We identify about eight thousand fugitives per month here,’’ Billy P. Martin, the acting chief of the Identification and Investigative Services Section, told me. Martin said that eleven per cent of job applicants whose fingerprints are entered into the system—they could be day-care workers, casino staff, federal employees—turn out to have criminal records; as many as sixty per cent of the matches are repeat offenders.

The center looks like a NASA control room, with dozens of people monitoring the encrypted network of fingerprint machines sending in data from police stations throughout the country. The main computer floor is the size of two football fields and contains sixty-two purple-and-gray “jukeboxes,” each filled with two hundred compact disks containing fingerprints. (There are three thousand sets on each CD.) When someone is arrested, his prints are initially searched against a state’s computer files. If the search finds nothing, the information is forwarded to the federal database in Clarksburg. To make a match, the I.A.F.I.S. computer analyzes the many points on the ridges of every fingerprint it receives, starting with the thumb and working toward the pinkie; only when the data produce prints that match (or several prints that seem similar) is the original print forwarded to an analyst for comparison.

”We used to go to a file cabinet, pull out paper cards. If it was all loops—which is the most common type of print—you could spend an hour,’’ Martin said. “Now a computer algorithm does it in seconds. The system searches the electronic image against the database and pulls up the image onto the screen. The accuracy rate on first run is 99.97 per cent.’’ Still, this would mean that the I.A.F.I.S. computers make three hundred mistakes in every million searches. That is where trained examiners come in. The patterns on fingertips are more like topographical maps or handwriting than, say, bar codes. They can be so similar that even the most sophisticated computer program can’t tell them apart; it takes a trained human eye to detect the subtle differences.

I sat with one of the examiners in a dim, nearly silent room lined with what seemed like an endless series of cubicles. At each station, someone was staring at a monitor with two huge fingerprints on it. No two people—not even identical twins—have ever been shown to share fingerprints. The friction ridges that cover the skin on your hands and feet are formed by the seventeenth week in the womb; at birth they have become so deep that nothing can alter them, not even surgery. Look at your fingertips: the patterns resemble finely detailed maps of the bypasses and exit ramps on modern roads. Experts use the nomenclature of the highway to describe them: there are spurs, bifurcations, and crossovers. Some people have fingertips that are dominated by “loops,” others by “tented arches” or small circles that examiners call “lakes,” or smaller ones still, called “dots.” Collectively, these details are referred to as minutiae—an average human fingerprint may contain as many as a hundred and fifty minutia points. To identify fingerprints, an expert must compare these points individually, until enough of them correspond that he or she feels confident of a match.

When fingerprints are properly recorded (inked, then rolled, finger by finger, onto a flat surface, or scanned into a machine that captures and stores each finger as a digital image), identification works almost flawlessly. The trouble is that investigators in the field rarely see the pristine prints that can be quickly analyzed by a computer; most of the prints introduced at criminal trials are fragments known as “latent prints.” Crime scenes are messy, and the average fingerprint taken from them represents only a fraction of a full fingertip—about twenty per cent. They are frequently distorted and hard to read, having been lifted from a grainy table or a bloodstained floor. “It is one thing to say that fingerprints are unique and quite another to suggest that a partial latent print, often covered in blood or taken from an obscure surface, is unique, identical, or easy to identify,’’ Barry Scheck told me. In the past decade, Scheck, who directs the Innocence Project, has used DNA evidence to exonerate more than a hundred prisoners, some of them on death row. “We have always been told that fingerprint evidence is the gold standard of forensic science. If you have a print, you have your man. But it is not an objective decision. It is inexact, partial, and open to all sorts of critics.’’

Police use several methods to discover latent fingerprints. First, they shine a flashlight or a laser along the clean, solid surfaces on which a print may have been left by the perspiration and oil on a fingertip. When a print is discovered, detectives use a brush and powder to mark it, much as they did in the nineteenth century; the powder clings to the perspiration. (The method works best on smooth surfaces, like glass.) The print is then photographed and lifted with tape.

The technology for retrieving partial and obscure fingerprints keeps improving. On a recent episode of the television program “C.S.I.,” you might have seen detectives using a technique called superglue fuming to reveal the outline of a face on a plastic bag—an unconventional use of a common practice. In order to find difficult prints on an irregular surface, such as the human body, crime-scene investigators blow fumes of superglue over it. As the fumes adhere to the surface, the ridges of any fingerprint left there turn white and come clearly into view. Another common method involves ninhydrin, which works like invisible ink: when you douse paper with it, the chemical brings out any sweat that may have been left by fingertips. Ninhydrin is particularly useful with old prints or those covered in blood.

F.B.I. fingerprint examiners have a variety of computer tools—a sort of specialized version of Photoshop—to help them compare rolled prints with those in their system. In front of me, an I.A.F.I.S. examiner stared at his computer screen as a training instructor, Charles W. Jones, Jr., explained the process. “He is looking for ridges that form dots,’’ Jones said. “Bifurcations. Usually they look for six or seven of those.’’ The examiners work around the clock, in three shifts, and are required to evaluate at least thirty prints an hour. They know nothing about the people attached to the fingers on their screens; the prints could be those of a rapist, a serial killer, Osama bin Laden, a woman applying for a job in the Secret Service, or a bus driver from Queens. (“Yesterday I did fifty-one for a couple hours in a row,’’ an examiner told me proudly.)

At the bottom of the screen there are three buttons—”Ident,” “Unable,” and “Non-Ident”—and the examiner must click on one of them. If he identifies a finger, the print goes to a second analyst. If the two examiners independently reach the same conclusion, the fingerprint is considered to have been identified. If not, it gets forwarded to an analyst with more experience. “We have a pretty good fail-safe system,’’ Jones said. “Computers help immensely. But in the end they can’t pull the trigger. That’s our job.’’

Only a human being can make critical decisions about identity, and yet the talent, training, and experience of examiners vary widely. “The current identification system . . . is only as genuine as the knowledge, experience, and ability of the specialist carrying out the comparison,’’ David R. Ashbaugh, a staff sergeant with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, writes, in “Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis,” which is considered the Bible of the field. And although fingerprint analysis has been in use for decades, there has never been any consensus about professional standards. How many distinct characteristics are necessary to prove that a latent fingerprint comes from a specific person? The answer is different in New York, California, and London. In certain states, and in many countries, fingerprint examiners must show that prints share a set number of Galton points before they can say they have made an identification. Australia and France require at least twelve matching Galton points; in Italy, the number is sixteen. In America, standards vary, even within a state. The F.B.I. doesn’t require a minimum number of points; all such regulations were dropped fifty years ago, because, according to Stephen B. Meagher, the chief of the Bureau’s latent-print unit, the F.B.I. believes that making an identification using Galton points alone can cause errors.

Meagher says that fingerprint analysis is an objective science; Robert Epstein, the Philadelphia attorney who has led the fight against presenting fingerprint evidence in court, says it is not a science at all. Neither is exactly right. Examining the many contours of a human finger is not as objective as measuring someone’s temperature or weight, or developing a new vaccine. But it’s not guesswork, either. It involves, inevitably, human judgment, and most people agree that when it is done well it is highly accurate. The difficulty is in determining whether it has been done well. Scientific methodology is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they make sense; in laboratories throughout the world, researchers spend at least as much time trying to disprove a theory as they do trying to prove it. Eventually, those ideas that don’t prove false are accepted. But fingerprinting was developed by the police, not by scientists, and it has never been subjected to rigorous analysis—you cannot go to Harvard, Berkeley, or Oxford and talk to the scholar working on fingerprint research. Yet by the early twentieth century fingerprinting had become so widely accepted in American courts that further research no longer seemed necessary, and none of any significance has been completed.

David L. Faigman, who teaches at the Hastings College of the Law and is an editor of the annually revised forensic text “Modern Scientific Evidence,’’ has spent most of his career campaigning to increase the scientific literacy of judges and juries. Faigman likens the acceptance of fingerprint evidence to the way leeches were once assumed to be of great medical value. “Leeches were used for centuries,’’ he told me. “It was especially common for the treatment of pneumonia and it was considered an effective therapy. It wasn’t till late in the nineteenth century that they did the clinical tests to show that leeches did not help for pneumonia, and they may have actually hurt. Fingerprinting is like that in at least one crucial way: it is something we assume works but something we have never properly tested. Until we test our beliefs, we can’t say for sure if we have leeches or we have aspirin”—an effective remedy that was used before it was understood. “One of the things that science teaches us is that you can’t know the answers until you ask the questions.’’

The discussion of fingerprinting is only the most visible element in a much larger debate about how forensic science fits into the legal system. For years, any sophisticated attorney was certain to call upon expert witnesses—doctors, psychiatrists, Bruno Magli shoe salesmen—to assert whatever might help his case. And studies have shown that juries are in fact susceptible to the influence of such experts. Until recently, though, there were no guidelines for qualification; nearly anybody could be called an expert, which meant that, unlike other witnesses, the expert could present his “opinion” almost as if it were fact. Experts have been asked to testify about the rate at which a tire would skid, and the distance blood would splatter when a certain calibre bullet smashed into a skull. They have lectured scores of juries on the likelihood that a medicine could cause a particular side effect; they have interpreted polygraphs and handwriting, and have pronounced on whether a bite mark was made by one set of teeth to the exclusion of all others.

Although forensic evidence has proved particularly powerful with juries, it is particularly weak as a science. By the nineteen-eighties, the kind of evidence that was routinely admitted into court without any statistical grounding or rationale had earned a name: “junk science.” And junk science had become ubiquitous. With the problem growing out of control, in 1993 the Supreme Court took up a lawsuit called Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The case involved a child who suffered from serious birth defects. His lawyers claimed that the defects were caused by Bendectin, a drug that was for many years routinely prescribed for morning sickness, which his mother took while she was pregnant. The company argued that no valid evidence existed to support the claim. The Court’s decision set a new standard for scientific evidence in America: for the first time, it held that it was not permissible for expert witnesses to testify to what was “generally accepted” to be true in their field. Judges had to act as “gatekeepers,” the Court said; if an expert lacked reliability he was no longer allowed in the courtroom. The ruling, and others that expanded upon it, laid down clear guidelines for the federal bench, requiring judges to consider a series of questions: Could a technique be tested or proved false? Was there a known or potential error rate? (DNA identification has provided the model, because experts have gathered enough statistical evidence to estimate the odds—which are astronomical—that one person’s DNA could be traced to another.) The Court also instructed judges to consider whether a particular theory had ever been subjected to the academic rigor of peer review or publication.

The Daubert ruling forced federal judges to become more sophisticated about science, which has not been easy for them. “Daubert changed everything,” Michael J. Saks, a law professor at Arizona State University, who has written widely on the subject, told me. “And it is pretty clear when you look at those criteria that fingerprinting simply doesn’t satisfy any of them.’’ Since the Daubert ruling, federal courts have judged handwriting evidence and hair identification to be unscientific. The use of polygraph data has also been curtailed. Questions have been raised about ballistics—say, whether a bullet can be traced back to a particular gun. Somehow, though, until Judge Pollak came along, challenges to fingerprinting continued to be regarded as heresy.

Relying largely on testimony presented by Robert Epstein in U.S. v. Byron Mitchell, the first post-Daubert case involving fingerprint testimony, Judge Pollak ruled in January that an expert could say whether he thought fingerprints belonged to the people accused of the crime, but he could not say that the fingerprints he had examined were, beyond doubt, those of the defendant.

Pollak is one of the federal judiciary’s most respected judges. Federal prosecutors were so concerned that any ruling he issued would carry a significance even greater than its legal weight that they asked the Judge to reconsider his precedent-shattering decision. Pollak agreed.

Late in February, Pollak held a hearing on the reliability of fingerprint evidence. For three days, several of the world’s most prominent experts discussed their field in his courtroom. The F.B.I.’s Stephen B. Meagher testified that no Bureau analyst had ever misidentified a person in court, and that the Bureau’s annual proficiency test was among the reasons that the Judge should be confident about admitting expert testimony. Allan Bayle, the British forensic specialist, flew in from London at the request of the defense. He had a different view. He told Pollak that the F.B.I.’s proficiency test was so easy it could be passed with no more than six weeks of training. “If I gave my experts [at Scotland Yard] these tests, they would fall about laughing,” he told Pollak in court. Later, in conversation with me, he expanded on those comments. “The F.B.I. are conning themselves and they are conning everybody else,’’ he said. “They don’t even use real scene-of-crime marks for the fingerprint tests.” He pointed out that the fingerprints used in the exams were so different from each other that almost anybody could tell them apart. “Let’s say I asked you to look at a zebra, a giraffe, an elephant, and a lion. Then I asked you to find the zebra. How hard would that be? What the Bureau should be doing is comparing five zebras and selecting among them.” Bayle and other critics stopped short of calling fingerprint evidence junk science, but they noted that there are few data showing how often latent prints are properly identified.

By February 27th, the final day of the hearing, the fissures in an old and accepted discipline had become visible, and Judge Pollak promised to issue a final ruling within a couple of weeks. A few days after Pollak’s hearing ended, I flew to Cardiff to attend the annual meeting of the Fingerprint Society. It was raining in Wales, and the members of the society were deeply unsettled because their profession was under assault. Each year, the society gathers for a few days to listen to lectures and to talk about developments in the field. The society has always been a club—the type where you might expect to stumble upon Sherlock Holmes or G. K. Chesterton. The bar at the Thistle Hotel, where the conference was held, was filled with police officers from Sussex, Aberdeen, and most places in between. The conference was well attended by representatives of the United States Secret Service and the F.B.I. There were also a few stray academics interested in the latest obscure technology, such as magnetic nanoflake powders, which are able to capture fingerprints without disturbing whatever traces of DNA may be present. (With conventional methods, an investigator has to choose: either swab a mark to harvest the DNA or lift it to find the print.)

By the time I arrived, the society was preoccupied by two issues: the Pollak hearings and the lingering ill will from the McKie case, in Scotland. One of those in attendance was Meagher, the lead F.B.I. witness in Judge Pollak’s courtroom. I introduced myself, and told him that I understood he couldn’t discuss the Philadelphia case while it was under review, but asked if we could talk about the field in general. “No,’’ he said, without a moment’s hesitation.Iain McKie had also come to Cardiff that weekend, as had Allan Bayle. McKie, a tall, reedy man with a great nimbus of curly white hair, presented a lecture on the ethics of fingerprinting. He remained livid about the fact that a fingerprint had destroyed his daughter’s career; although she had been acquitted of perjury, she felt unwelcome on the police force after having been strip-searched and jailed by her colleagues, and had resigned soon after her trial. She never returned to work. Today, she spends much of her time trying to force Scottish authorities to admit that what they did to her was wrong. “I believe a person made a mistake, and instead of admitting it they were prepared to send me to jail,’’ Shirley McKie said after she was acquitted of perjury. “It ruined my life, and now I am trying to pick up the pieces.”

The Scottish Criminal Record Office has never acknowledged the error, nor has the Fingerprint Society issued any statement about the incident. (David Asbury, the man convicted of the murder, was released in August of 2000, pending an appeal. As expected, the judge in the case questioned the validity of the fingerprint evidence that had led to his conviction.) In Cardiff, McKie told the Fingerprint Society that the system they represented was “incestuous, secretive, and arrogant. It has been opened to unprecedented analysis and it’s sadly lacking. It pains me to say that, because I was a police officer for thirty years. You are indicted on the basis of a fingerprint. You are not innocent till proven guilty; if the police have a print, you are assumed to be guilty. We need to start a new culture. The view that the police and fingerprint evidence are always right, the rest of the world be damned, has to end.’’

Afterward, the corridors and conference rooms were buzzing; it was as if somebody had challenged the fundamentals of grammar at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association. But McKie was far from the only speaker at the conference to raise questions about the field. Christophe Champod, who works for a British organization called the Forensic Science Service, has long attempted to apply rigorous statistical methods to fingerprinting. Champod spoke in an understated and academic manner, but what he had to say was even more forceful than McKie’s presentation. He told the audience that they had only themselves to blame for the state of the field, that for years they had resisted any attempts to carry out large trials, which would then permit examiners to provide some guidance to juries about the value of their analysis, as is the case with DNA. “What we are trying to do in this field is reduce, reduce, reduce the population so that there is only a single individual that can possess a set of fingerprints. . . . But we can never examine the fingerprints of the entire universe. So, based on your experience, you make an inference: the probability that there is another person in the universe that could have a good match for the mark is very small. In the end, it’s like a leap of faith. It’s a very small leap, but it is a leap nonetheless.”

Half an hour had been allotted for questions, but there was only silence. Afterward, one of the organizers explained it to me: “He was using the terms of religion to describe our science. That’s just not fair.” Allan Bayle invited me to visit him in London after the meeting. Bayle is six feet five with sandy hair and flecks of gray in his blue eyes. He had recently married and he lives with his wife, child, and mother-in-law just steps from the M1 motorway entrance in Hendon, on the northern edge of the city. We sat in his conservatory on a cloudy day while his five-month-old boy slept in a stroller beside us.

Bayle was frustrated. For the past five years, he had worked mostly as a lecturer on fingerprints for the Metropolitan Police. “I taught advanced forensic scene examination, and I loved it. Once I said I would give evidence in the McKie case, though, I was no longer allowed to go to meetings. But that is not why I left. They did nothing about this mistake in identity. When you know something is wrong, how can you stay silent?” He told me he was particularly upset that Shirley McKie’s career as a police officer had ended for no reason. Bayle’s life, too, has changed. He now works as an independent consultant. Although he has been portrayed as a critic of fingerprint analysis, he is critical only of the notion that it should never be questioned. “It’s a valuable craft,” he said. “But is it a science like physics or biology? Well, of course not. All I have been saying is, let’s admit we make errors and do what we can to limit them. It is such a subjective job. The F.B.I. want to say they are not subjective. Well, look at what David Ashbaugh—certainly among the most noted of all fingerprint analysts—said when he testified in the Mitchell case.” Ashbaugh had clearly stated that fingerprint identification was “subjective,” adding that the examiner’s talents are his “personal knowledge, ability, and experience.”

Bayle took out a large portfolio containing dozens of fingerprints, as well as gruesome pictures of crime scenes. “Look at the mess,’’ he said. He showed me a series of photographs: jagged fingerprints—black smudges, really—recovered from the scenes of several murders he had investigated. “With all that information, you then come to your conclusions. You have to somehow match that to this clean image’’—he handed me a picture of a perfect print, taken at a police booking—”and say, finally, it’s one man’s print. You have got to look at everything, not just points. The Bureau has not had a missed ident in all their years of working, and I applaud that. But they are not testing their experts’ ability. And that is dangerous.’’

The following week, Stephen Meagher agreed to speak with me at the F.B.I. headquarters, on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Meagher is perhaps the best known and most forceful advocate for the view that fingerprint evidence is scientifically valid and that it ought to be welcome in courts.

”But is it really a science?” I asked as soon as we settled down to talk in his office. Meagher said that he didn’t think of science as a term that could be easily defined or tailored to fit all disciplines in the same way. “There is academic science, legal science, and forensic science,’’ he told me. “They are different. You can be an expert in the field and give testimony without having an academic level of scientific knowledge. . . . It is not achievable to take pure science and move it into a legal arena.’’ This seemed surprising, since Meagher had often argued that, when performed correctly, fingerprint analysis is an “objective’’ science. In 1999, when he was asked in court whether, based on the unique properties of fingerprints, he had an opinion of the error rate associated with his work, he said, “As applied to the scientific methodology, it’s zero.” (Scientists don’t talk this way; it is an axiom among biomedical researchers that nothing in biology is true a hundred per cent of the time.)

Later, when I asked David Faigman, the Hastings law professor, whether it made sense to divide science into legal, academic, and forensic subgroups, he laughed.

”Of course it makes no sense,’’ he said. “Mr. Meagher operates on a sixteenth-century notion—a Francis Bacon idea—of what science is all about. To me, the analogue for law is meteorology. It deals with physics and chemistry—the most basic sciences. Yet it has to make predictions and empirical statements regarding complex reality. That is because so many factors determine the weather that it’s really a probabilistic science. And I think fingerprinting is the same.”

”Most fields of normal science could pull from the shelf dozens or hundreds, if not thousands, of studies testing their various hypotheses and contentions, which had been conducted over the past decades or century, and hand them to the court,’’ Michael Saks wrote in “Modern Scientific Evidence.” For fingerprinting there was nothing. In 1999, the F.B.I. conducted its study in preparation for the Byron Mitchell trial. The study asked examiners to match the two actual latent prints taken from the car in the Mitchell case with the known set of fingerprints of the man on trial. Both sets of prints were sent to the crime laboratories of fifty-three law-enforcement agencies. Of the thirty-five agencies that examined them and responded, most concluded that the latent prints matched the known prints of the accused; eight said that no match could be made for one of the latent prints, and six said that no match could be made for the other print. The F.B.I., realizing it had a problem, sent annotated enlargements of all the prints to those examiners who had said the fingerprints couldn’t be matched. In these photographs, the points of similarity on the fingertips were clearly marked. This time, every lab adopted the F.B.I.’s conclusions.

When I asked Meagher about the study, he told me that the test was supposed to demonstrate the uniqueness of the prints; it was not meant to be a test of competency. He claimed opponents have used the data unfairly. At the same time, he conceded that it would not matter how clean a fingerprint was if the person examining it hadn’t been trained properly. “Our system is a huge statistical-probability model, but it doesn’t make identifications, because it doesn’t have all the information that is needed,” he said. “It’s a job for human beings.” On March 13th, Judge Pollak vacated his earlier order. He issued a new opinion, in which he stated that the defense had succeeded in raising “real questions about the adequacy of the proficiency tests taken annually by certified F.B.I. fingerprint examiners.” Yet he was persuaded by the F.B.I.’s record of accuracy, and wrote that “whatever may be the case for other law-enforcement agencies” the Bureau’s standards seemed good enough to permit F.B.I. experts to testify in his courtroom. “In short,’’ he concluded, “I have changed my mind.’’ It was, naturally, a blow to the opposition—though Pollak was careful to rule only on the case before him and only with regard to the F.B.I.

I met with the Judge shortly after he issued his decision. Having arrived early for our meeting, I watched as he led the jury-selection process in the case in which Meagher will now be permitted to testify. Like most courtrooms, it was decorated with an American flag, but it was filled with art as well: prints by Matisse, Cézanne, and Eakins and drawings by Victor Hugo lined the walls.

During the lunch break, we sat in his ramshackle office. The stuffing was falling out of both of our chairs. Pollak, a lively man in his late seventies, declined to talk specifically about the case, but was happy to consider the broader issues it raised. “The most important question here, of course, is, Am I the right person to be a gatekeeper?’’ he said. “I, who know little of science. . . . As society comes to rely more fully on technology, the question will become acute.’’ Pollak said that he found it worrisome that the Supreme Court ruling in the Daubert case meant that he could rule one way on an issue like fingerprints and another federal judge in a different jurisdiction could do the opposite, and neither ruling would be reversed (the Court will hear appeals only on procedure, not on the law). He was frank about how poorly prepared most judges are for making decisions based on scientific issues.

”I want to tell you that shortly after I got into this line of work there was no more unqualified district judge”—for making such decisions—”in the United States,’’ Judge Pollak said of himself. He told me that in the early nineteen-eighties he had met a former chief executive of DuPont at a reception. “He asked me how it can be that people like me are entrusted to make such major scientific decisions. He wasn’t questioning my good faith. But by virtue of my job I have been asked to make decisions that are out of the range of any competence that I have.” Pollak conceded that the DuPont chairman had a point. I asked if he felt scientifically competent to rule on the current case in Philadelphia. He laughed but didn’t answer. “I knew when I decided the thing there was going to be some surprise,’’ he said, referring to his initial opinion. “Honestly, I don’t think I had anticipated the degree to which people would be startled. . . . Other lawyers in fingerprint situations are now almost duty bound to raise these questions and challenges again. How could they in good faith act in any other way? This decision is certainly not the end. I think we can be certain of that.’’

Arizona Corrections director: Number of staff arrests worrisome

Source

Arizona Corrections director: Number of staff arrests worrisome

By Craig Harris The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:19 PM

Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan is concerned about department employees being arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, fighting, assaults, drug use and drunken driving.

Ryan, in his “Director’s Desk” blog on the DOC website, disclosed that during the past 4 1/2 years there have been 640 staff arrests and that employees “should be keenly aware of the need to conduct both our personal and professional lives in a manner that is above reproach.”

Corrections spokesman Bill Lamoreaux said Ryan publicly disclosed problems affecting a limited number of staff members to encourage other employees needing help to use a confidential, free employee-assistance program.

Lamoreaux said the number arrested averages out to about 142 employees, or 1.5 percent of the 9,278 DOC staff members, on an annual basis. That means that more than 98 percent of the staff are law-abiding, Lamoreaux noted.

The director’s blog on the subject “was a proactive attempt to address some concerns,” he said.

Records released by DOC show there were 140 citations or arrests of staff in fiscal 2012. That was a slight drop from 147 the previous year.

Since fiscal 2009, the biggest problem has been driving under the influence, which accounted for 232 — or just more than one-third — of citations and arrests during the period.

The second-largest issue was domestic violence, with 134 arrests. Drug crimes accounted for just 21 arrests during the same time period.

Any DOC employee arrested on suspicion of DUI is subject to a 40-hour unpaid suspension, while a second arrest could result in termination. Any employee convicted of a felony is terminated.

“The behavior of the few employees who choose to involve themselves in illegal activity significantly impacts the public’s perception of the law-abiding employees of this agency,” Ryan said in his blog post. “When the bad behavior of the few becomes public knowledge, the confidence and trust placed in all of us by the citizens of Arizona is eroded.”

Robert Blackmer, a spokesman with the 2,100-member Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association, said employees appreciate Ryan’s concerns.

“We support Director Ryan in his efforts to put out there resources that are available for anyone in the department that may be suffering from these issues,” Blackmer said.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio trips, breaks left shoulder

Source

Sheriff Joe Arpaio trips, breaks left shoulder

By JJ Hensley The Republic | 12 News Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:45 PM

Sheriff Joe Arpaio fell on his way to lunch Thursday in downtown Phoenix and suffered a broken left shoulder, officials said.

The 80-year-old Maricopa County sheriff spent time in the emergency room of a hospital getting X-rays and meeting with doctors. No surgery is needed and he is said to be in good spirits.

Officials said he's expected back at work in a few days.

Arpaio held a standard staff meeting Thursday morning, conducted an interview with a local TV station and was on his way to lunch when he tripped and fell around the One Renaissance Square plaza area, near Central Avenue and Washington Street.

The sheriff never lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital by staff.

Drugs are dangerous and will kill you???

Source

China airs drug traffickers' moments before execution

By Barbara Demick

March 1, 2013, 3:09 a.m.

BEIJING -- It was reality television in the extreme.

Chinese state television Friday broadcast nearly one hour of live images of the last moments of four foreign drug traffickers about to be executed for the 2011 killing of 13 Chinese fishermen on the Mekong River. Although the cameras pulled away before the final lethal injection, the unprecedented pre-execution coverage unleashed a storm of criticism and debate about the death penalty.

Psychologists decried the live coverage as distressing to children, while lawyers complained that it violated a clause in the criminal code against parading the condemned before execution.

"This carnival on CCTV was a violation not only of ethics, but of the criminal code regulations that the death penalty not be carried out in public," wrote human rights lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan on a microblog. Many on the microblogs, however, applauded the execution of the four drug traffickers.

China executes about 4,000 people each year, more than all other countries in the world combined, although the numbers and the crimes carrying the death penalty are gradually being reduced.

"I don’t know of any other country, not Iran, Afghanistan or North Korea, that has nationally broadcast in this way the last moments of an executed prisoner," said Nicholas Bequelin, Hong Kong-based researcher for Human Rights Watch. "It is a step backward at a time we thought China was making progress with the death penalty."

In the past, public executions were common in China, but nowadays, there is usually no more than a brief news report and video of the condemned before an execution.

Although many Chinese were shocked by the live coverage, they applauded the death sentences as just retribution for a particularly violent crime. The 13 Chinese fishermen were ambushed, then shot to death while tied up with rope, their bodies dumped in the river.

The outraged Chinese government considered a drone attack to kill the drug traffickers, but in the end launched an international manhunt that resulted in their capture and extradition from Laos.

The kingpin executed was Naw Kham, 44, a Burmese national who allegedly commanded a militia of 100 men in the Gold Triangle region. Two others executed Friday were from Laos and one was Thai.

The live coverage showed the men being taken from their prison cells in southwestern Yunnan Province with their hands trussed behind their backs with ropes. A doctor in a white coat prepared the lethal injections.

The television commentator went on at some length about how well the men had been treated in prison.

"From the appearance of these criminals, you can clearly tell our prison has carried out humanitarian spirit, these criminals clearly look healthier, whiter, with better skin complexion than when they were arrested," the commentator said.

At one point, the television broadcast cut away to show a gala-style award ceremony complete with patriotic music and small children carrying bouquets for the investigators who had worked on capturing the drug traffickers.

Chinese television also broadcast a chilling interview with Naw Kham taped earlier this week in which he said, "I am afraid of death. I want to live. I don't want to die. I have children. I am afraid."

The Yunnan Province Public Security Bureau sent out a message at 2:55 p.m. Friday that Naw Kham and his accomplices were dead.

Pocket dialing calls police to Oregon drug deal

Source

Pocket dialing calls police to Oregon drug deal

Associated Press Fri Mar 1, 2013 8:25 AM

MOLALLA, Ore. — Police in the Oregon town of Molalla say a dispatcher received a cellphone call and overheard a drug deal taking place.

A phone in the woman’s pocket inadvertently dialed 911 early Tuesday and dispatchers heard a conversation with a man about drugs.

KGW reports (http://bit.ly/13tEKpX) police tracked the GPS signal to a car in an alley about a block away. An officer who arrived at the scene could be heard over the phone by dispatchers.

The officer found methamphetamine and arrested a 25-year-old man on multiple drug charges. The 25-year-old woman was cited for possessing marijuana — and hung up her phone.

———

Information from: KGW-TV, http://www.kgw.com

Source

Suspect ‘butt dials’ 911 during drug deal near police

Posted on February 28, 2013 at 5:30 PM

PORTLAND -- A man was arrested on felony drug charges after inadvertently dialing 911 just before a drug deal Monday, Molalla police said.

An emergency dispatcher got the call just after midnight and heard what she thought was a drug deal, said officer Aaron Christopherson. The dispatcher tracked the phone’s GPS signal and it led officers to an alley about a block away from the police department.

Two people sitting a car nearby denied having a working cell phone, but the officer spoke loudly and the dispatcher confirmed she could hear him.

“This, I will say, is a first, and got a chuckle around the department,” Christopherson said. “They don't make it that easy for us, usually.”

The officer found the cell phone and some methamphetamine, Christopherson said. The suspect, 25-year old Raleigh Reynolds, was jailed on multiple drug charges. The woman in the car with him was cited.

_____

KGW Reporter Kyle Iboshi contributed to this report.

Arizona law against profiling motorcycle riders on hold

Source

Arizona law against profiling motorcycle riders on hold

Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 5:15 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 0 comments

Arizona motorcyclists have apparently lost out in a bid to get special protection from potential police harassment.

On a tie vote, the Senate on Thursday killed legislation which would have required that police officer training include courses that "emphasize the prohibition against motorcycle profiling.'' The vote came despite the pleadings of Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West.

"It's kind of frustrating when you're pulled over and someone points a gun at you,'' she told colleagues. Burges conceded she hasn't witnessed that herself but has been told by riders that happens.

SB 1086 would have mandated that officers be training that "the sole fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle-related paraphernalia'' is not, by itself, the basis to stop, question or search someone.

Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, said there already are plenty of court rulings that spell out when police officers can use "profiles'' of suspected lawbreakers to stop them. And he said police officers in learn about those standards during their training.

He said there is no reason to single out special mention of certain groups that are entitled to special mention.

"How 'bout persons who wear military uniforms?'' Yarbrough asked. "Certainly they ought to be included as a protected class.''

Ditto for young people.

"Or what about little old ladies with grey hair?'' he continued.

"I are one of those little old ladies with grey hair,'' Burgess quipped in response. And she said a similar anti-profiling training requirement adopted by the state of Washington works "very well.

Marijuana-friendly Colorado debates blood-level limits.

On the other hand I also do know that its no where near as dangerous driving when you are stoned on pot compared to being drunk on liquor.

Last I don't think their should be criminal penalties for drunken or stoned driving. But I think people should be held accountable for any damages they cause when driving drunk or stoned, just like they should be held accountable for any damages they cause when driving straight.

Source

Too high to drive? Marijuana-friendly Colorado debates blood-level limits.

By Brady Dennis and T.W. Farnam, Published: March 1

DENVER — When is someone too stoned to drive?

The answer, it turns out, has been anything but simple in Colorado, which last fall became one of the first states in the country to legalize marijuana.

Prosecutors and some lawmakers have long pushed for laws that would set a strict blood-level limit for THC, the key ingredient in cannabis. A driver over the limit would be deemed guilty of driving under the influence, just as with alcohol.

Such legislation has failed several times in recent years in the face of fierce opposition from marijuana advocates and defense lawyers, who claim a one-size-fits-all standard doesn’t work for marijuana because it affects the body differently than alcohol. [And of course many experts on alcohol abuse will also tell you that the current .08 legal limit for liquor isn't a one-size solution that works for everybody. And freedom fighter will tell you the .08 legal limit is more about raising DUI revenue then protecting public safety!!]

On both sides, passions run high.

“I haven’t had a car accident since I was 18, and I’ve had marijuana in my system for most of that time,” said Paul Saurini, 39, one of numerous weed activists, or “wactivists,” who spoke out against setting a firm blood-level limit during a public hearing in the state capital this week.

“We have to create some standards to protect public safety. Not doing so, in my opinion, is reckless public policy,” said John Jackson, the police chief in nearby Greenwood Village. “Any time you legalize things like this, you’ll have more of it on the roadway. If we had vending machines with Oxycontin, there’d be more people on Oxycontin driving on the roadways. And that’s not safe.” [That's BS. In Japan they have vending machine all over the county where you can shove in 100 yen and get a beer, or shove in a couple hundred yen in and get a bottle of saki or whiskey. And despite there being a legal age of something like 20 to drink the machines are not abused by children or adults]

Since the passage of Amendment 64 in November, Colorado has been wrestling with the many questions of how to regulate the new marijuana reality, from how to tax it and monitor its growth to where people can buy it, sell it, smoke it and advertise it.

But drugged driving looms as one of the most critical and controversial issues. The outcome of Colorado’s struggle to shape marijuana-related DUI laws could have far-reaching implications, as a growing number of states approve marijuana for medical use and others consider legalizing the drug altogether.

State Sen. Steve King, a Republican who supports a THC limit, insists that driving high is no different than driving drunk. “You’re a threat and a hazard,” he said. “The consensus should be to err on the side of safety for the traveling public.” [Well if that is true maybe we should make cars illegal. After all straight people in cars cause thousands of deaths every year when they get into accidents.]

Michael Elliott and other marijuana advocates argue that marijuana affects different people differently, and that setting a THC limit would free prosecutors from having to prove their cases and could lead to wrongful DUI convictions.

“When it comes to criminal law, we err on the side of protecting the freedom of our citizens and holding the criminal justice system to the highest standards of proof,” said Elliott, a lawyer and executive director of the Colorado-based Medical Marijuana Industry Group.

Though research and opinions vary widely, studies have shown that smoking marijuana tends to affect spatial perceptions. Drivers might swerve or follow other cars too closely, as well as lose their concentration and suffer from slowed reaction times. Such findings have led some researchers to conclude that driving high doubles the chances for an accident, and that smoking pot and drinking before driving is a particularly dangerous mix.

Every state bars driving under the influence. But convictions in drugged-driving cases generally rely on police officers’ observations rather than blood tests. The White House in a drug policy paper last year called on states to adopt blood-limit laws in an effort to reduce drugged-driving incidents by 10 percent by 2015. [That is unlikely in Arizona because it conflicts with Prop 203, and the legislator would have to override Prop 203 with a two thirds or three fourths majority vote.]

But different states have taken different approaches.

In Ohio and Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal, the limit for driving is two nanograms per milliliter of blood. In Washington state, that limit is five nanograms. A dozen other states, including Illinois, Iowa and Arizona, have zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of marijuana and various controlled substances. [In Arizona if you don't have a medical marijuana prescription that is true. But in Arizona if you have a medical marijuana prescription there is NO legal limit to the amount of THC in your body, so for the cops to arrested a person for driving stoned they have to prove it with something other then a drug test]

In Colorado, both sides agree that people shouldn’t drive impaired; the fight is over what should be used as proof of impairment.

Marijuana advocates argue that, unlike with alcohol, traces of the drug remain in the bloodstream long after an individual has smoked pot, and that a THC test can mistakenly suggest a person is high, especially in a regular smoker who has built up tolerance to the drug. But officials who favor a blood-level limit say tests exist that can pinpoint “active” THC in the bloodstream in the hours immediately after marijuana usage. [For a person who has smoked marijuana for several times over several days THC can be detected in for body for around a month or so, despite the fact the person is only stoned for a few hours after smoking the drug]

People on both sides cite the work of Dutch researcher Jan Ramaekers, who found that marijuana users generally are impaired at a level of five nanograms, but that many cannabis users do develop higher tolerances.

Ramaekers, in an interview, said he supports the five-nanogram limit, noting that lawmakers have long set a legal limit for alcohol in the name of public safety, even though people have different tolerances and impairment varies by person. [That is 100 percent BS. When DUI or DWI was invented the level was .15 at which most people are very drunk. However over the years the Feds have bribed the state governments with money to reduce the legal limit to .08 which many people will say is not drunk. For a petite woman who weighs 100 pounds, they will blow .08 after having 1 beer. The bottom line is that NOW, the DUI laws are more about raising revenue then protecting public safety!]

“Who should the law serve: the individual or the population?” he asked.

Still, some in Colorado are concerned about drawing a bright line between impaired and unimpaired when it comes to marijuana. The state Senate’s majority leader, Democrat Morgan Carroll, said research suggests that impairment can occur with anywhere from two to 20 nanograms per milliliter of blood. “My number one problem is that you could convict someone at five nanograms who wasn’t actually impaired,” she said.

Lawmakers are working on a compromise to break the long-standing impasse. A bill backed by King and other legislators would set five nanograms as the legal limit, but a test indicating that level would not automatically result in a DUI conviction. Instead, people accused of driving under the influence would be able to argue in court that they weren’t impaired. [So you are assumed to be guilty and have to prove your innocence!!! Welcome to the American police state!!!] The measure is working its way through the statehouse and appears likely to pass.

Carroll is still not fond of the five-nanogram limit but says she and others might be swayed by the provision that would allow defendants to make their case in court. “It gives the accused the opportunity to come in and offer proof,” she said.

At Tuesday’s hearing, a string of law enforcement officials and a state toxicologist testified in favor of the legislation. Ed Wood, whose son was killed in a car accident caused by a drugged driver, said he supported the bill but wants an even tougher standard. “We believe Colorado deserves better,” he said.

But Saurini and other wactivists voiced their opposition, with some arguing that marijuana often induces paranoia and causes people to drive abnormally slowly, as opposed to alcohol, which can provide the “liquid courage” to drive irresponsibly.

King, the lawmaker who has long pushed for a legal limit, grows agitated at the suggestion by some marijuana advocates that they drive as well or even better high. It’s a reason, he said, to put a limit in place as soon as possible.

“I heard that [argument] 25 years ago with alcohol,” he said. “If you want to smoke marijuana, smoke marijuana. But smoke and walk, smoke and get a ride, smoke and take a cab. Don’t smoke and drive — that’s the point we’re trying to make.”

Dennis reported from Washington.

Kyrsten Sinema campaigns for more military spending???

Kyrsten Sinema campaigns for more government pork and higher taxes???

Sinema used her five minutes to criticize the massive budget cuts as bad for Arizona.

Oddly Kyrsten Sinema whom I know from the anti-war movement and whom I suspect pretends to be an anti-war person sided with her pretend enemy John McCain and seems to support more military pork!!

“I stand with the dean of our state’s delegation, Sen. John McCain, when I say this sequester will be devastating, let’s roll up our sleeves together and get the job done.”

Arizona's Congress members return after budget cuts hit

By Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Mar 2, 2013 1:16 AM

WASHINGTON - Arizona’s Congress members were packing their bags and boarding planes out of the capital this week as the deadline to avoid across-the-board federal budget cuts neared with no resolution in sight.

As negotiations continued between President Barack Obama and leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the state’s nine House members were headed home, unlikely to be needed for a vote anytime soon.

Republican Rep. David Schweikert, of Fountain Hills, who supported the sequestration cuts as a way to balance the nation’s budget, was going from one cliff to another. Schweikert planned to spend the weekend with his wife and staffers hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

Others lamented the House’s recess.

“I love to go home, but I’d much rather be here working on this problem with Congress members on both sides of the aisle,” Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat, said hours before flying to Tucson. “I voted against all those adjournments because we should be here dealing with this issue.”

The Arizona Republic spent the week in Washington with members of the state’s delegation. The Arizonans were busy meeting with constituents, speaking on the House floor and voting on a controversial bill to extend funding for programs to address domestic violence.

Northern Arizona’s Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick was sitting down with members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Navajo Nation to talk about education funding, as well as members of the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation, who updated her on efforts to preserve the Arizona treasure.

Barber spent time with an award-winning Girl Scout who started an anti-bullying campaign, while Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican based in Prescott, was meeting with military veterans.

Arizona’s one freshman representative, Kyrsten Sinema, delivered her first floor speech. Though she performed the symbolically powerful act before a nearly empty chamber, her words would be broadcast on C-SPAN and shared with constituents. Sinema used her five minutes to criticize the massive budget cuts as bad for Arizona.

“I stand with the dean of our state’s delegation, Sen. John McCain, when I say this sequester will be devastating,” she said. “Let’s roll up our sleeves together and get the job done.”

Political polar opposites, Rep. Trent Franks and Rep. Raul Grijalva, found themselves on differing sides of the debate, as usual.

Grijalva, a Democrat and co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, was championing an alternative budget-cutting plan that, among other things, would shutter the costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in favor of building F-18s.

Franks, a Republican whose district includes Luke Air Force Base, whose survival depends on the F-35, called the proposal a threat to national security. He said it showed a lack of understanding of the military’s technological needs.

Mesa Republican Rep. Matt Salmon, meanwhile, was calling for entitlement reform and chairing his first Western Hemisphere subcommittee hearing, a position he hopes to turn into generating greater trade between the U.S. and Latin America.

The state’s longest-serving member, Rep. Ed Pastor, was asked to think about his legacy, as he appears to be under consideration to join the Obama administration.

The Phoenix Democrat said he was torn over the possibility of becoming Transportation secretary, a job which he acknowledges the White House is vetting plenty of candidates for.

“Do I really want to leave? It’s one of those things you think about. I’m not unhappy with the job. I’m still enjoying representing Arizona,” Pastor said. “Just to be considered is good.”

He said the prospect of securing federal funding to extend the Valley’s light rail for now is stalled due to the ongoing budget problems.

“We’re dealing with a crisis every 30 days,” Pastor said.

As if on cue, the first effects of the budget cuts were felt even before sequestration hit Friday at midnight.

The Republic’s flight was delayed, though the weather was fine, the United Airways pilot said.

Light rail accidents - A jobs program for cops???

Source

Car, light-rail train collide in Mesa; minor damages reported

By Cecilia Chan The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:31 PM

Crews are cleaning up after a car and light-rail train collided Thursday in Mesa.

No one was injured and there were only minor damage to the involved vehicles from the 4:30 p.m. crash at Dobson Road and Main Street, Mesa police spokesman Tony Landato said.

Landato said a car tried to make a U-turn in front of the train.

“The train was just barely moving, but it pushed this car into another one,” said Landato, adding there was no driver impairment involved.

South African cops tie man to van and drag him thru the streets

South African cops tie man to van and drag him thru the streets killing him.

Usually I report on corrupt and sadistic American cops, but police thugs thru out the world are capable of committing the crimes American police commit.

Source

South African police suspended over death of man 'dragged behind van'

Fresh footage casts doubts on police claims taxi driver assaulted officer and tried to take his gun before incident

WARNING: Viewers may find this footage distressing Link to video: South African police officers suspended as van death investigated

South Africa has suspended eight police officers after the death of a man they tied to the back of a police van and dragged along the road while bystanders looked on.

Video footage showing the treatment of Mido Macia, in Daveyton, east of Johannesburg, has once more focused attention on South Africa's police force, already dogged by allegations of brutality, corruption and incompetence.

In the amateur video footage (warning: contains images that some may find distressing), published by South African newspaper, the Daily Sun, Macia's hands are tied to the rear of a police van behind his head before it moves off. Just over two hours later he was found dead in a local police cell, according to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID). A postmortem gave the cause of death as head injuries with internal bleeding.

The video provoked outrage with President Jacob Zuma labelling it "horrific, disturbing and unacceptable. No human being should be treated in that manner." He has instructed the minister of police to investigate the matter.

Police chief Riah Phiyega said the eight officers involved had been suspended and the station commander would be removed from his duties. "We would like to assure the country and the world that what is in the video is not how the South African police service in a democratic South Africa goes about its work," she said.

The IPID responded by launching an inquiry and giving details of the police version of events. The police account alleged that Macia, 27, a taxi driver from Mozambique, assaulted an officer and took his firearm after officers asked him to move his taxi because it was obstructing traffic. They admitted only that there was a "struggle" to get the taxi driver into the police van.

But a further video (warning: contains images that some may find distressing) published by the Daily Sun and provided to the Guardian casts doubt on the account. The new footage suggests Macia did not grab the gun or use violence against police, only struggling to free himself as police seized him and lifted him off his feet.

Amnesty International's human rights organisation's southern Africa director, Noel Kututwa, said the incident was "the latest in an increasingly disturbing pattern of brutal police conduct in South Africa". It comes after a series of setbacks for the South African police force, struggling to demonstrate that its low paid, reputedly poorly-trained, officers can be trusted to uphold – or even obey – the law. Last week, the case against Oscar Pistorius, accused of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, was undermined when the lead investigating detective was removed from the case after being charged with seven counts of attempted murder himself. Last year's Marikana shootings, in which police opened fire on a crowd of striking miners, killing 34 at a platinum mine northwest of Johannesburg, are being investigated by a judicial commission.

Macia's case also evoked memories of the death of Andries Tatane, a mathematics teacher and community activist in 2011, which was also captured on video. Tatane was attacked at a peaceful protest march by 12 policemen who beat him with batons, kicked him and shot rubber bullets into his chest at close range.

The dispute between Macia and police officers began just before 7pm on Monday. Video shows him gesticulating at an officer but, although there are small gaps in the footage, there is no indication that Macia laid a hand on him. Daily Sun publisher Jeremy Gordin denounced the police account as "a tissue of lies".

Other officers move in and Macia is dragged away, being lifted head-over-heels as police attempt to get him into the police van. He is eventually tied to the van. Onlookers shout that they are going to film the incident and a bystander can be heard shouting in Zulu: "What has this guy done?"

The van moves off while Macia tries in vain to keep step. It then stops, two police officers pick up his legs and drop them to the ground as the vehicle picks up speed and drives off, beyond the view of the camera. The IPID said Macia was found dead in a police cell at 9.15pm.

South African police said the national commissioner, Riah Phiyega "strongly condemned" what had happened and urged people "to remain vigilant and continue to report all acts of crime irrespective of who is involved".

As well as provoking further soul-searching about state violence, Macia's death may also raise fresh concerns about the country's treatment of immigrants. In 2008, Mozambicans were among migrants targeted by rioters, and attacks against foreigners have continued, including allegations of police brutality.

Amnesty's 2012 annual report documented allegations against the South African police of excessive force, torture, rape and "extrajudicial executions". It said the IPID received 720 new cases for investigation of suspicious deaths in custody or in other policing contexts from April 2011 to March 2012.

The Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria has reported that the number of people shot dead by police doubled in the four years to 2010. Deaths in police custody or resulting from police action numbered 860 in 2009-10, against an average of 695 deaths a year from 2003-2008.

Have you been affected by a similar incident in South Africa? Please email us on guy.grandjean@guardian.co.uk

Source

South African police van death: spotlight needed if change is to come

We all know that the culture of police brutality, of guns in the homes of some of us, diminishes all of us. Yet we kept quiet

South Africans are tired of being at the forefront of the global media. We have been there a lot lately – for all the wrong reasons.First it was the Marikana massacre, when the police gunned down 34 striking mineworkers within minutes last August. The Economist put us on its cover for that, saying we are in "sad decline". Then it was Oscar Pistorius shooting his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Time magazine has put us on the cover for that, bemoaning our violent culture.

And much was made of the news that the investigating officer in the case, Hilton Botha, is up on charges of shooting at a taxi with seven passengers on board. Not long before that was the gang rape and murder of 17-year-old Anene Booysen.

Now this: mobile-phone footage of Mozambican taxi driver Mido Macia handcuffed to the back of a police van and dragged behind it – after an alleged parking dispute – surfaced this week. On Friday eight police officers were arrested over Macia's death; but only after a global outcry.

The composite that emerges is disturbing: a country that is globally at the top of the pile for murder and rape (65,000 people were raped last year in a country of 50 million); an incompetent police force that is quick to pull the trigger; a populace awash with guns (Pistorius allegedly slept with one at his bedside and a rifle on the window sill). We are not nice people, are we?

But it is worth remembering that the majority of us do not sleep with guns by our bedside, and we sleep easy. Not many of us are rapists, or murder our wives. There are about 190,000 police officers in South Africa, and not all of them are brutes of the type who dragged Macia through the streets of Daveyton.

We just want the world to look away. We don't want to be in the spotlight. We want people to ask us about Nelson Mandela when we travel abroad, instead of asking about the crime rate.

Yet, whatever our aversion to being scrutinised so closely, the truth is that issues highlighted in the foreign media lately do cut to the deep problems that we have failed to deal with in South Africa. When the police dragged Macia behind a van this week, it was not as if these things do not happen.

They happen all the time. The most interesting part of the mobile-phone footage of Macia's ordeal was the fact that many of the spectators were using their phones to take pictures or videos.

The perpetrators were nonplussed by this. In fact, they turned up at work the next day and the day after as if nothing had happened. As one woman said, they expected applause from residents.

That is because they have been told by politicians since President Jacob Zuma ascended to power in 2009 that they should "act tough" against alleged lawbreakers.

"We cannot say to the police, retreat. We cannot say to South Africans, despair. Our job is to give people hope. Yes. Shoot the bastards. Hard-nut to crack, incorrigible bastards," said Zuma's then-deputy police minister Fikile Mbalula in 2009.

Since then numerous names have graced our front pages in cases of police brutality. Atlegang Aphane, a three-year-old, was shot and killed by a policeman allegedly because he suspected the boy was holding a gun. Olga Kekana was shot and killed by officers who suspected her of driving a stolen car. They gave no warning and they fled the scene. These officers are still in the South African police. They haven't been arrested. Then there was Marikana, a grotesque show in which the state arrested, and in some instances allegedly tortured, the survivors of the massacre – and charged them with the murder of their own comrades.

Police top brass said at the time the perpetrators should not be sorry for what happened.

This culture of acceptance of police brutality is what killed the taxi driver Mido Macia this week.

It will not end. In his state of the nation speech in February, Zuma promised an "iron fist" against protesters, without saying a word about police brutality.

We South Africans have kept quiet while this was being done in our name. In a sense, we are like the white South Africans who kept quiet while apartheid was being perpetrated in their name. We all know that the culture of police brutality, of guns in the homes of some of us, diminishes all of us. Yet we kept quiet, and are now fatigued by all the attention from across the globe.

It should continue. If South Africa is to halt the slide into wanton police brutality and ludicrously low convictions in cases of violence against women and children, then these cases have to come into the light – and the international spotlight, too.

We might not like it, but for this to stop – and for us not to lead the diminished lives we now live – the light has to continue to shine on South Africa.

Source

South Africa's police log of brutality

A taxi driver being dragged behind a police van is not an isolated example of abuse, according to the country's police watchdog

Log on to South Africa's Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) website and read the latest news. On Wednesday, a 38-year-old police constable appeared before Welkom district court charged with raping a 42-year-old woman. She had been arguing with her sister before the police were called. Officers found her at home, proceeded to handcuff her. They took her to a field where the constable allegedly raped her next to the police van. The constable is out on R1,500 (£110) bail.

On 21 February, another constable was in court for another rape, this time in Boshoff, Free State. He gave his former girlfriend and other friends a lift from a tavern in a state vehicle. When the two were left alone, the car pulled over so that the victim could urinate. After a chase, the constable allegedly raped her, assaulted her and threatened to kill her when she refused to get back into the car.

Murder conviction

On 18 February, the case against police constable Hlengiwe Mkhize was wrapped up in the Pietermaritzburg high court. Mkhize was convicted of murder and attempted murder for shooting and killing 15-year-old Mlindeli Ngcobo. Mlindeli was riding in a car that was in an accident with the constable's. Both parties agreed to report the incident at the police station, but Mkhize fired two shots into the car and killed the teenager, who was hit in the head. She claimed it was an attempted hijacking and that she had only intended to fire warning shots, but will be sentenced on 1 March.

"The IPID is satisfied with the conviction as it sends a message to rouge [sic] police officers that they will be held accountable by the criminal justice system of our country," said the oversight body about Mkhize's conviction.

Man dragged behind police van

Only a week later, however, there is this: "IPID is investigating the death of a taxi driver at the hands of the police". According to police, Mido Macia, a 27-year-old Mozambican, was allegedly obstructing traffic in Daveyton with his Toyota taxi when they turned on their siren and asked him to move. They say he then assaulted a constable and took his gun. A warrant officer intervened and got the firearm back before driving to the police station in Macia's taxi for backup.

When he returned, the constable was struggling to put the suspect in the police van, say the officers. "The policemen then put the resisting suspect into the back of the police van and they took him to the police station where he was detained. The taxi driver was found dead at about 21:15 by another police officer. An inquest docket was later registered. An assault GBH docket against the deceased was also opened by the police," reads the police account.

The investigator's initial statement declined to mention that Macia was tied to the police van's bench and dragged through the street. The rear doors were open as he was towed behind. Officers participated in front of dozens of people. When Macia tried to resist the pain of being dragged along the road by using his feet to lift his body off the ground, the officers involved lifted both his legs and then dropped them before the police car took off to the station.

The actions of the police were a brutal attempt publicly to inflict pain and humiliation. There's no other interpretation. Dragging a person behind a car is an expression of power. Macia, while tied and being dragged at speed, was helpless and must have been terrified.

South Africa's Daily Sun broke the story on Thursday (on Wednesday it led with a man who eats frogs, but on Thursday it was the toast of the country's media). Witnesses told the paper that Macia had parked on the wrong side of the road and was assaulted when he argued with police. A source who saw him in the police cells told the newspaper not to be fooled by comments from the police: "These cops must not try to speak nicely to you … They killed him. They beat him up so badly in here." A witness on the street filmed the incident and gave the footage to Daily Sun. It has since been seen around the world after being posted online.

On Thursday, an IPID spokesman, Moses Dlamini, told eNews that the inquest into the action by officers had been upgraded to a criminal murder charge. He said Macia died of head wounds "and you can see then if you look at the footage how that came about", said Dlamini, adding that the incident was extremely disturbing.

South Africa's national police commissioner Riah Phiyega used a statement to say she "strongly condemned" the act – all things considered, a rather soft approach to the visual evidence available.

Marikana inquiry

This incident is not an isolated case, either. Alongside the Daily Sun's article – "Tied up, dragged and beaten to death" – was a report from the inquiry into the deaths of 44 people during a strike at Lonmin platinum's mine in Marikana last year. Mzoxolo Magidiwana, who was shot but lived, said of the police, "I heard them celebrate as I lay on the ground after being shot … I heard the police laugh, saying, 'Even their leader, Mgcineni "Mambush" Noki, is dead.'"

Suspicious deaths in custody

After Macia's death, Amnesty International said that the IPID had received 720 new cases for investigation of suspicious deaths in custody between April 2011 and March 2012. "Amnesty International urges the South African government to make a public commitment to ensure that the police stop the use of excessive force and deliberate targeted killings," said the organisation's southern Africa director, Noel Kututwa.

The police union Popcru said it was "mortified by these actions which demonstrate the opposite of what the men and women in blue represent". It added its support to the IPID investigation. Popcru, no doubt, would rightly be worried about the image of South Africa's police and remind us that there are law-abiding officers out there who are committed to their jobs.

President horrified

The abuse, however, has developed to levels that cannot be tolerated. South Africa's president, Jacob Zuma, released a statement on Thursday sending his "heartfelt condolences" to Macia's family.

"Members of the South African police service are required to operate within the confines of the law in executing their duties," said Zuma. "The visuals of the incident are horrific, disturbing and unacceptable. No human being should be treated in that manner."

He has asked the police minister, Nathi Mthethwa, to investigate.

Police abuse – both on the streets and in the cells – calls for much more than an investigation by Mthethwa into a single incident. Officers are being charged with rape and murder, not to mention a list of other crimes, and Phiyega needs to show South Africans she can institute changes to make police accountable to the country's laws, rather than empowered to enforce their own arbitrary forms of "justice" and punishment.

Unless Mthethwa, Zuma and Phiyega start to make drastic changes to the pattern of abuse in the SAPS, the country will lose hope in an improved system. With the brutal death of Macia and the scores who died at the hands of the police before him, there's certainly little hope in the system we have.

Have you been affected by a similar incident in South Africa? Please email guy.grandjean@guardian.co.uk

In Arizona you can get busted for DUI when you are sober!!!!

Maricopa County Attorney Attorney Bill Montgomery prosecutes sober people for DUI??

Let's face it Arizona's DUI or DWI law on illegal drugs is all about raising revenue and has absolutely nothing to do with safety!!!!

In this article Maricopa County Attorney Attorney Bill Montgomery seems to think it is OK to prosecute and jail stone cold sober people for the crime of DUI or DWI.

Source

Not high but still DUI

What if you could get a DUI in Arizona for having had a few drinks two weeks ago?

Crazy, right?

Except it’s happening. Not with alcohol, but with marijuana.

Arizona drivers are going to jail, paying big fines and losing their licenses after having gotten DUI citations when blood tests prove they were not high.

“It makes no sense,” said attorney Michael Alarid III, who is representing a man charged under current law. “But this is how prosecutors and the courts are interpreting the law. And the legislature doesn’t appear to want to change it. So we’re hoping we can get the issue before the state Supreme Court.”

How could a person who is not high get busted for DUI?

It happens when science meets politics.

Blood tests now can detect two important chemical compounds in marijuana. One of them makes a person high and lasts for hours. The other is inactive but can linger in a person’s system for up to a month.

In Arizona, state law says if you have either of these compounds in your blood you are guilty of a DUI. [i.e. any detectable amount makes you legally guilty of DUI, (except for medical marijuana patients, because Prop 203 excludes them)]

“As things stand a person from Arizona could go on a snowboarding trip to Colorado or Washington State, where marijuana is legal for recreational use,” Alarid said. “And then a month later he could be driving in Arizona, get stopped and be convicted of DUI.”

Not long ago, the state Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s law, which says if any “metabolite” of a drug like marijuana is found in a person’s blood he is guilty of DUI. There are about a dozen states with the same standard.

Alarid got a lower court to dismiss the original charges against his client after it was shown that the marijuana chemicals found in his client’s blood were inactive. The appeals court overturned it.

In it’s ruling on the case (Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan) the Appeals Court said, “We determined that the legislative ban extends to all substances, whether capable of causing impairment or not.”

Apparently, there is no statute in Arizona outlawing impaired logic.

(And yes, I’m aware that my continued employment proves it.)

The case is being prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s office. I asked County Attorney Bill Montgomery if he believed it was appropriate to convict people for DUI when the only marijuana metabolite in their blood did not cause impairment.

He responded, “The Court of Appeals decision is unremarkable in light of consistent case law on the issue of proscribing driving with a prohibited drug or its metabolite in a driver’s system.”

Since that didn’t answer my question I tried again, asking if Montgomery would favor amending state law to differentiate between metabolites that cause impairment and those that do not.

He responded, “No. We do not want to create an incentive to ‘game’ how long it takes for any given metabolite to leave a driver’s system. Nice try, Ed.”

It isn’t a game. It’s chemistry.

Some states at least try to acknowledge the science. In Washington, for example, a person is considered impaired if a blood test shows 5.0 nanograms of marijuana’s active ingredient. That level has been compared to a .08 limit for alcohol.

“An alcohol DUI in Arizona gets your license suspended for 90 days,” Alarid said. “After 30 days you can drive to work and school. On the other hand, a drug-related DUI, like marijuana, gets you the same fines and jail time but revokes your license for a year. That means a person who wasn’t impaired could be punished more harshly than someone who was.”

Alarid is hoping the Arizona Supreme Court will take his case.

“In addition to the fairness issue, this doesn’t seem right in a state where citizens passed a medical marijuana law,” Alarid said. “It really puts an unfair burden on those patients.”

The risk of getting busted for a DUI charge when they are not impaired might cause some medical marijuana patients not to use the drug, no matter how much it helps them.

Or course, it’s probably just a coincidence that the politicians who could revise the DUI statute hate the medical marijuana law. As does the county attorney.

Coincidence. Yeah, that must be it.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu apologizes for audit-tampering accusation

Babeu apologizes for audit-tampering accusation

By Lindsey Collom The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Mar 2, 2013 8:54 PM

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has sent a written apology to county supervisors, saying he wanted to “correct the record” on misstatements he made about the audit of a money-losing contract to hold immigration detainees at the jail.

Babeu told a meeting of Republican precinct captains on Feb. 16 that County Manager Fritz Behring tampered with the audit and ordered staff to omit nearly $2million in annual jail revenue from the draft report. In a letter to supervisors Tuesday, Babeu acknowledged that the final version was identical to the draft and that he was misinformed by a subordinate, whom he has since punished.

Supervisor Steve Miller appreciated the gesture but said Babeu’s apology should have gone to Behring. Behring, however, said what’s more troubling is that the nearly $2million comes from a contract that has nothing to do with the jail.

— Lindsey Collom

More police tracking license plates

Source

More police tracking license plates

Associated Press Sun Mar 3, 2013 1:07 AM

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Little Rock may not be a likely terrorism target or a gang crime hotspot, but the Arkansas capital has decided to follow the example of high-security cities by expanding electronic surveillance of its streets.

A police car with a device that photographs license plates moves through the city and scans the traffic on the streets, relaying the data it collects to a computer for sifting. Police say the surveillance helps identify stolen cars and drivers with outstanding arrest warrants.

It also allows authorities to monitor where average citizens might be at any particular time. That bothers some residents, as well as groups that oppose public intrusions into individual privacy. The groups are becoming more alarmed about license plate tracking as a growing number of police departments acquire the technology.

Though authorities in Washington, D.C., London and Chicago conduct extensive electronic surveillance of public areas to detect security threats or deter gang crime, “Today, increasingly, even towns without stoplights have license plate readers,” said Catherine Crump, a New York-based staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. Collecting data

In Little Rock, even some city officials wonder about keeping data on drivers’ movements.

“It bothered me particularly if someone wasn’t guilty of a crime or didn’t have any active warrants or hadn’t committed a crime,” city director Ken Richardson said.

However, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said the law enforcement benefits outweigh any concerns about possible abuse of the information, which, as a public record, is legally available for anyone to see. He said the department may get more of the devices.

“Should that potential of misuse therefore eliminate the capacity of law enforcement to collect data which has a legitimate purpose for the safety of our officers or the appropriateness of enforcement actions? I don’t think so,” he said.

Privacy issues?

Many Little Rock residents still haven’t heard about the surveillance. Angel Weston, 45, said she’s glad to hear that police are looking for stolen cars and people with warrants but wondered about keeping logs of citizens’ movements.

“I don’t feel like they should keep the data for six or 12 months,” Weston said.

Lawmakers in several states, including Minnesota and Utah, have suggested setting a time limit for their departments, but Little Rock has no policy yet. The department now has a growing archive of license plate photos, along with time stamps and the locations, showing where motorists were at certain times.

Privacy advocates worry about the potential uses for such outside law enforcement, from snooping by stalkers and private investigators to businesses that sell personal data. How it works

Little Rock’s license plate reader is mounted in Officer Grant Humphries’ patrol car. He said it’s led to dozens of arrests and the recovery of a number of stolen vehicles and vehicles and license plates, although the exact number isn’t known.

As Humphries drives around town, a laptop processes the license plate numbers being photographed and emits a sound and flashes red when it finds a match.

Recall leader refuses to drop bid to oust Arpaio

Recall leader refuses to drop bid to oust Arpaio

Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:06 am

Associated Press | 2 comments

The leader of an effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says his group won’t abandon its bid to oust the sheriff even though Arpaio supporters are threatening legal action.

Recall leader William James Fisher says Arpaio supporters haven’t sent him the cease-and-desist letter that they said they were going to send when they threatened legal action if the effort wasn’t folded by this coming Saturday. Click here to find out more!

Arpaio supporters contend the effort is unconstitutional, while recall organizers say the sheriff has put immigration enforcement above other law enforcement priorities.

Recall organizers face a May 30 deadline for handing in valid petition signatures from more than 335,000 voters.

Larry Klayman, a lawyer representing the Arpaio supporters, didn’t return a call seeking comment on the refusal to abandon the recall effort.

Congress - It's secret, you can't sue us!!!!

Congress uses secrecy to flush the Constitution down the toilet???

First the government used the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution to justify them doing anything under the sun.

Now the government is using the "it's secret" card to claim citizens can't sue the government for unconstitutional acts.

Sadly the Supreme Court is buying that line of BS, just like the Supreme Court bought the BS line of using the "Interstate Commerce" clause to justify the government doing anything under the sun.

Source

Supreme Court rules out secret surveillance lawsuits

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

February 26, 2013, 6:50 p.m.

WASHINGTON — No one can sue the government over secret surveillance because, since it's secret, no one can prove his or her calls were intercepted, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, throwing out a constitutional challenge to the government's monitoring of international calls and emails.

The 5-4 decision is the latest of many that have shielded the government's anti-terrorism programs from court challenge, and a striking example of what civil libertarians call the Catch-22 rule that blocks challengers from collecting the evidence they need to proceed.

Over the last decade, the justices or lower court judges have repeatedly killed or quietly ended lawsuits that sought to expose or contest anti-terrorism programs, including secret wiretapping, roundups or arrests of immigrants from the Mideast and drone strikes that kill American citizens abroad.

The court's conservative majority believes that matters of national security and the fight against terrorism are properly decided by the president and Congress, not through lawsuits. They have erected procedural barriers to block such suits. The only exception has been lawsuits brought on behalf of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, which have won new appeal rights for inmates.

The intense wiretapping of international electronic traffic began shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. President George W. Bush was determined to detect secret terrorist plots, if possible, and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept calls and messages coming into and out of the country. Bush chose to bypass a special court created to oversee "foreign intelligence surveillance."

When Bush's order was revealed, civil libertarians called the mass surveillance unconstitutional. But Congress, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, approved even broader electronic surveillance in 2008. By law, the targets of that surveillance must be outside the United States, but lawmakers acknowledged that calls and messages of some Americans would be inadvertently intercepted.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other groups began a new challenge, suing on behalf of lawyers, journalists and human rights advocates. They argued the expanded surveillance was unconstitutional because it would chill free speech and permit illegal searches of "purely domestic communications."

They won a preliminary victory when the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said they had standing to sue. Because the plaintiffs had clients and contacts abroad, they had a "reasonable fear" their calls would be intercepted, the appeals court said.

The Obama administration appealed last year, and the Supreme Court tossed out the suit Tuesday in the case of Clapper vs. Amnesty International.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the lawsuit was based on speculation, not evidence of how the program worked. The plaintiffs "have no actual knowledge of the government's targeted practices. Instead, [they] merely speculate and make assumptions," he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined his opinion.

Alito cited the Supreme Court's strict rules on standing, which hold that a case cannot go forward unless a complaining party can show he or she has suffered an "actual or imminent" injury. Alito said that this approach prevented judges from "usurping the powers of the political branches" of government.

In dissent, the court's four liberal justices said the lawsuit should have gone forward because the plaintiffs had to alter their work practices to avoid having their confidential calls overheard. "In my view, this harm is not 'speculative,'" Justice Stephen G. Breyer said.

The PEN American Center, which represents writers, called it a "Kafkaesque holding.... The U.S. government is running a secret program that monitors people. In order to challenge the legality of the program, the court's majority says you have to show that you're being monitored. You can't show this, of course, because the program is secret," said Peter Godwin, the group's president.

Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision disturbing. It "insulates the statute from meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans' privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches."

But a lawyer for six former U.S. attorneys general applauded the decision. It "sends a clear message that politically motivated litigation over national security is untenable," said Megan L. Brown, a Washington attorney who represented them. The courts should not "second-guess" the president and Congress on "sensitive national issues," she said.

david.savage@latimes.com

Redflex uses bribes to get photo radar contracts???

Let's face it photo radar is about raising money for government bureaucrats and has absolutely nothing to do with public safety.

Source

Red light camera firm admits it likely bribed Chicago official

By David Kidwell, Chicago Tribune reporter

11:03 p.m. CST, March 2, 2013

Chicago's embattled red light camera firm went to City Hall on Friday in its latest effort to come clean, acknowledging for the first time that its entire program here was likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme.

By its sheer size, the alleged plot would rank among the largest in the annals of Chicago corruption.

An internal probe of Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. and a parallel investigation by the city's inspector general — prompted by reports in the Chicago Tribune — have cost the company its largest North American contract and all of its top executives.

On Friday the company announced the resignations of its president, its chief financial officer and its top lawyer. The head of Redflex's Australian parent company conducted town hall meetings at the headquarters of its Phoenix-based subsidiary to tell employees there was wrongdoing in the Chicago contract and that sweeping reforms were being instituted to win back the company's reputation.

In separate, private briefings with the city inspector general and with Mayor Rahm Emanuel's top lawyer, Redflex attorneys acknowledged it's likely true that company officials intended to bribe a Chicago city official and that they also plied him with expenses-paid vacations.

The company's outside investigator, former city Inspector General David Hoffman, found that Redflex paid $2.03 million to a Chicago consultant in a highly suspicious arrangement likely intended to funnel some of the money to the former city transportation official who oversaw the company contract, according to sources familiar with the investigation and the Friday briefings to city officials.

The arrangement among the city official, the consultant and Redflex — first disclosed by a company whistle-blower — will likely be considered bribery by law enforcement authorities, Hoffman found.

Without subpoena power, it was not possible to check personal financial records of the city official or the consultant, who refused to cooperate, according to the sources familiar with Hoffman's findings. But Hoffman, a former federal prosecutor, said that under applicable law, authorities could consider the arrangement to be bribery even if the payments were not made, the sources said.

The bulk of the consultant's fees — $1.57 million — were paid during a four-year period beginning in 2007, the years the program really expanded in Chicago, Hoffman found.

In addition, the city transportation official was treated to 17 trips, including airfare, hotels, rental cars, golf outings and meals, the sources said. Most of those expenses were paid by the company's former executive vice president, Hoffman found. That official was fired late last month and blamed by the company for much of the Chicago problem.

But Hoffman found that Redflex's president also had knowledge of the arrangement that would have made any reasonable person highly suspicious that it was a bribery scheme, the sources said.

Hoffman also found that Redflex did not disclose its knowledge about the improper arrangement to City Hall until confronted by the Tribune in October. Even then, Hoffman found, company officials lied to Emanuel's administration about the extent of the wrongdoing.

Redflex's Australian parent company was expected to post a summation of Hoffman's findings in a Monday filing with the Australian Securities Exchange that will include the resignations announced to employees Friday.

"Today's announcement of executive changes follows the conclusion of our investigation in Chicago and marks the dividing line between the past and where this company is headed," Robert DeVincenzi, president and CEO of Redflex Holdings Ltd., said in a statement to the newspaper. "This day, and each day going forward, we intend to be a constructive force in our industry, promoting high ethical standards and serving the public interest."

The company will also announce reforms including installing new requirements to put all company employees through anti-bribery and anti-corruption training, hiring a new director of compliance to ensure employees adhere to company policies, and establishing a 24-hour whistle-blower hotline.

The actions mark the latest changes in the company's evolving accounts of the scandal.

Officials at the firm had repeatedly dismissed allegations of bribery in the Chicago contract since they were made in a 2010 internal complaint obtained last year by the Tribune. In October the Tribune disclosed the whistle-blower letter by a company executive and first brought to light the questionable relationship between former city official John Bills and the Redflex consultant, Marty O'Malley, who are longtime friends from the South Side.

Bills and O'Malley have acknowledged their friendship but denied anything improper about their handling of the Redflex contract.

"Totally false, but I appreciate you calling me," Bills told the Tribune on Friday when informed of the Hoffman findings. O'Malley did not return calls.

In the four-month investigation, Hoffman and his team conducted 58 interviews and reviewed more than 37,000 company documents including email traffic among company officials, sources said. Hoffman concluded that company officials used poor judgment and a serious lack of diligence in investigating the allegations contained in the whistle-blower memo.

Now the company is struggling to get in front of a scandal that threatens to consume it.

The company has lost nearly half its value since the scandal broke in October and its stock was at $1.13 a share on the Australian Securities Exchange when the company suspended trading last week for the second time in a month.

The chairman of the board of Redflex Holdings and another Australian board member resigned in February. On Friday, Redflex announced the resignations of three top executives in Phoenix: Karen Finley, the company's longtime president and chief executive officer; Andrejs Bunkse, the general counsel; and Sean Nolen, the chief financial officer.

Finley did not return a telephone message; Bunkse and Nolen could not be reached.

Emanuel has already fired Redflex from its city contract, which ends in June, and barred it from competing for an even more lucrative speed camera contract. The Chicago red light program has been the company's largest in North America and is worth about 13 percent of worldwide revenue for Redflex Holdings. Since 2003 it has generated about $100 million for Redflex and more than $300 million in ticket revenue for the city.

The company's fate was foretold more than two years ago in the whistle-blower letter sent to the Australian board of directors. The executive who wrote it said many in the company were aware of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from O'Malley that were intended for Bills, the city official, along with lavish, company-paid vacations for Bills.

"The level of this insider fraud would take down the contract and most likely the company," the former Redflex Traffic Systems vice president said in the five-page letter on company stationery dated Aug. 24, 2010.

The letter was written by Robert Feiler, then executive in charge of the Chicago contract at the U.S. company's Phoenix headquarters. At the time, Feiler faced internal allegations of expense report abuse that led him to quit just weeks later.

He didn't mention his own troubles in the wide-ranging critique of his U.S. superiors, but cited whistle-blower laws and declared in his opening paragraphs that Redflex executives knew "our most successful program" came "via illegal transfer of 'commission' and RTSI expensed favors to Chicago municipal leadership."

At the center of those allegations are two old friends, Bills and O'Malley.

Bills, 51, retired from the city in 2011 after a 32-year career in which he rose through the ranks of City Hall to become the managing deputy commissioner in the city's Department of Transportation. There, he played a key role in the Redflex contract since its inception.

O'Malley, 72, told the Tribune last year his familiarity with Chicago and its politics enabled him to negotiate a consulting contract with Redflex worth $50,000 a year, plus a $1,500 commission for each Redflex camera installed in Chicago.

The success of Redflex in Chicago — more than 380 cameras since 2003 — translated to more than $570,000 in commissions for O'Malley, the company told the Tribune last year. But the letter alleged that money was really intended for Bills.

"Our historical ledgers will show a commission for every new build in Chicago going to a Mr. Marty O'Malley," Feiler wrote. "This employee of Redflex serves no useful function. Does not report to our Office in Chicago and has been the joke of that program from inception.

"Marty came to us 'with the program,' our leadership would say. He is tied to Mr. John Bills who runs the program for the city of Chicago."

Feiler named other executives he thought were aware of the special treatment.

"Mr. John Bills enjoys non reported lavish vacations in Arizona and California directly on the expense report of (executive vice president) Aaron Rosenberg," Feiler continued. "This alone would nullify our contract arrangement with Chicago. All the discussion around these arrangements and Marty's 'commissions' are not directly discussed with the Executive Team. They are neatly swept under the rug … and any point of discussion is met with fearful dismissal."

Feiler, contacted by telephone, acknowledged he was interviewed by inspector general investigators about the allegations in the letter but declined to elaborate.

Confronted with the allegations by the Tribune in October, Redflex sent Bunkse to answer the newspaper's questions. Bunkse said that despite Feiler's own problems, his allegations shook the company. It immediately hired the Chicago law firm Quarles & Brady to conduct what he described as a "deep dive" investigation.

Bunkse said the probe found only one instance of impropriety, a single $910.71 reimbursement submitted by the company's head of sales, Rosenberg, for a two-day stay at the Arizona Biltmore hotel by Bills. Bunkse said Rosenberg was sent to "anti-bribery training" and that his company's failure to report to City Hall that one of its top transportation officials had accepted an improper gift was "a regrettable lapse and an oversight."

Bunkse acknowledged that the probe was completed without conducting interviews with Feiler, Bills or O'Malley.

Rosenberg did not return a phone message Friday.

Following the Tribune report in October, Emanuel quickly moved to disqualify Redflex from bidding on his new speed camera initiative, citing the hotel stay and the company's failure to report it. The matter — along with Feiler's letter — was referred to city Inspector General Joseph Ferguson for further investigation.

That's when Redflex hired another Chicago law firm — Sidley Austin — to re-examine the allegations. The Sidley partner assigned was Hoffman, a former city inspector general. Last month, Hoffman presented company board members with an interim report that provided a starkly different version of events than presented by the company just months earlier, including that Bills was treated to expensive trips.

Hoffman's briefing last month preceded the resignation of the board members and the first trading halt.

On Feb. 8 the Emanuel administration announced that Redflex would not get to keep its current contract in Chicago, citing Tribune reports and the company's initial attempts to inaccurately "minimize" its relationship to Bills.

Bills, who also was a longtime top precinct captain for House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, resigned from his job in 2011 and took a consulting job with a Redflex-funded traffic safety group run by Resolute Consulting LLC, a firm owned by longtime Emanuel political ally Greg Goldner. Bills said he left that job last year.

In an October interview, Bills said he was unaware O'Malley was working for Redflex until he showed up one day at City Hall when Bills was still managing the contract.

"I can tell you he worked his butt off for them, so this notion that he didn't do anything just isn't true," Bills said.

"Please be fair to me, don't ruin a 33-year career," Bills said. "I am telling you I didn't do this. This is not me."

O'Malley told the Tribune last year that he had never heard of the allegations until a phone call from the paper, but that he is not surprised Redflex never investigated or asked him. "They knew better," he said in an October interview. "If anybody should know they should know."

Asked if any of his commissions went to Bills, or whether he has any financial arrangement with Bills at all, O'Malley said, "No way, that is absurd. John (Bills) would never allow it."

Bunkse said in October that O'Malley was hired because the company needed someone familiar with Chicago to serve as an operations liaison with City Hall but said he was unaware of any connection with Bills.

Bunkse credited O'Malley with being a key component of the company's success in Chicago. Bunkse described O'Malley's role as "primary interface" with City Hall on all operations issues, whenever conduit had to be replaced or camera evidence delivered, "making sure the program is run in a manner that is not embarrassing for the city and would cause issue for us as a vendor," Bunkse said.

"Our relationship with Marty O'Malley from our perspective is entirely appropriate," the lawyer said in October. "The contract we have with him is entirely appropriate and our CFO will confirm that the payment we have made to him is entirely appropriate."

dkidwell@tribune.com

Inmate sues Will County Jail over non-kosher food

Source

Inmate sues Will County Jail over non-kosher food

By Dennis Sullivan Special to the Tribune

12:06 p.m. CST, March 2, 2013

A 24-year-old man linked to a series of Chicago-area burglaries that targeted elderly residents has filed a federal lawsuit against the Will County Adult Detention Facility alleging his civil rights were violated in 2012 while he was being held on a charge of burglarizing a New Lenox home.

Sal V. Auditore, whose recent residences include Carol Stream, Joliet and Mesa, Ariz., alleges the food he was served from Sept. 15 to Oct. 15 either used pork for the main dish or featured side dishes that hadn't been prepared according to kosher rules.

Auditore claims in the suit filed on Jan. 23 that he previously had informed staff he was Jewish and required the special diet. The suit claims jail officials typically ignored his objections to the non-kosher food he was served, however, one corrections officer allegedly responded: "I don't care about your religion. If you don't like it, don't eat it."

Auditore is seeking actual, compensatory and punitive damages and has requested a jury trial.

Ken Kaupas, spokesman for the Will County sheriff's office, declined to comment, citing department policy on lawsuits.

Will County Circuit Court records show Auditore was sentenced to four years in prison on Feb. 8 after pleading guilty to burglarizing a New Lenox home in June 2010.

In August 2010, Auditore and an accomplice were charged in Cook County in connection with a series of ruse entries and thefts involving seniors.

The charge alleges he and the other man targeted three senior residents of an assisted living center in Palos Park, gaining entry to their homes by saying they were working on a high school project and needed help.

Sheriff's police said they "would talk about the project, then one would ask to use the restroom, and proceed to steal money, checks, credit cards and other items."

Legislative critters tell you how to label medical marijuana

Source

Arizona law would squeeze regulations on food, drinks with medical marijuana

Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:44 pm

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

State lawmakers voted Thursday to put new limits on the packaging of food and drinks containing medical marijuana.

SB 1440 would make it illegal to sell or advertise products that are packaged in any way that suggests that it is anything other than for medicinal use.

Rep. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, said she saw evidence that sodas with medical marijuana were being put into bottles that looked suspiciously like other over-the-counter brands. And she said some items were being sold that looked a lot like brand-name chocolate bars.

The legislation, given preliminary Senate approval on a voice vote, spells out that any labeling can be only black text on a white background.

Thursday's action came over the objections of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorney Anjali Abraham said her organization has no problem with strict labeling requirements. But she said the language making it illegal to "state, suggest or imply'' that the product is for anything other than medical use is too vague, leaving dispensary owners unclear of what will cause them to lose their licenses.

A final vote will send the measure to the House.

More on Redflex Chicago Photo Radar Bribes???

Redflex outlines bribe probe in Chicago contract

By David Kidwell, Chicago Tribune reporter

10:18 p.m. CST, March 3, 2013

In a release Sunday to Australian authorities and shareholders, the parent company for Chicago's red-light camera vendor outlined a series of its own failures and misdeeds involving an alleged bribery scheme the company said was "apparently proposed" by the former city official who oversaw its contract.

The internal probe was commissioned after disclosures by the Chicago Tribune in October. The findings, many of which first were disclosed in Sunday's newspaper, concluded that Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. paid $2.03 million to the consultant on its Chicago contract with some of the money intended for the city official.

The then-president and then-executive vice president of the Phoenix-based subsidiary "had knowledge that would have made any reasonable person highly suspicious that this was a bribery scheme, and they acted improperly in allowing this arrangement to occur," the Australian parent company, Redflex Holdings Ltd., said in the summary filed with the Australian Securities Exchange.

The probe also found that the subsidiary falsely told the Tribune and city officials last year that it had thoroughly investigated allegations of wrongdoing after the Tribune obtained a two-year-old whistle-blower letter by a company employee. The subsidiary said it hired Chicago-based law firm Sidley Austin LLP to do this latest probe after "the Chicago Tribune published an article casting doubt on the prior investigation's conclusion."

The disclosures were contained in a five-page summary of an internal investigation dated March 4 and filed publicly with the Australian Securities Exchange to coincide with the opening of trading Monday in that country. Redflex stock had been on a trading halt since last week pending the announcement.

The filing follows Friday's announcement that the president, chief financial officer and the top lawyer for the U.S. subsidiary had resigned amid the escalating scandal. Also on Friday, company lawyers privately briefed City Hall on the company's findings.

"We recently announced new leadership and a comprehensive series of system and process improvements in our business to support the highest ethical standards," Redflex Holdings President and CEO Robert DeVincenzi said in a statement to the newspaper. "Those steps marked the dividing line between the past and where our company is headed.

"Our investigation into our Chicago contract revealed unacceptable conduct and we are working, every day, to recapture the trust of our clients, the public and our own employees," said DeVincenzi, who took over as president of the U.S. subsidiary as the company tries to get back on track.

The company's internal investigation, headed by former city inspector general and federal prosecutor David Hoffman, also took the departing company executives to task for their "clearly inadequate" oversight and "inaccurate and misleading" statements to City Hall and the Tribune as the story broke in October.

Hoffman and his team at Sidley Austin were hired by Redflex last year in the wake of Tribune reports on a 2010 internal company memo written by a former vice president who alleged the company hired a Chicago consultant as a way to transfer bribe money to John Bills, a top city transportation manager who oversaw the red-light program since it began in 2003.

Bills, who retired in 2011, has denied any wrongdoing.

The whistle-blower also alleged that the company plied Bills with lavish vacations to Arizona and California. Company officials in October told the Tribune that the whistle-blower's allegations were investigated and discounted as fiction from a disgruntled employee.

The company acknowledged paying for only one inadvertent $910 hotel tab for Bills, a miscue for which the company was reimbursed and an employee punished with "anti-bribery" training, the former general counsel told the Tribune in October.

The summary of Hoffman's findings provides a starkly contrasting version of events, outlining $2.03 million in "highly suspicious" payments to the Chicago consultant, whom the company has previously acknowledged was Marty O'Malley, a longtime Bills friend from the South Side.

"The arrangement was likely intended to be one in which some of the payments to the consultant would be paid to the city program manager, an arrangement apparently proposed by the city program manager," the report says.

"In summary, the investigation concluded that the whistle-blower allegations did, in fact, have merit," the filing states. "The arrangement between the city program manager, the consultant, and Redflex will likely be considered bribery by the authorities."

"Redflex did provide vacation-related expenses and other items of value to the city program manager in violation" of Chicago's ethics ordinance, the document continues.

Hoffman's findings also criticized Redflex's now ex-president and the company's former executive vice president, who was fired last month, for their roles in the scandal.

Neither former President Karen Finley nor former Executive Vice President Aaron Rosenberg returned telephone messages Sunday.

Hoffman's findings outline 17 company-paid trips for Bills between 2003 and 2010, including airfare, hotels, golf outings, rental cars and meals. The report also says the executive vice president or the consultant — previously identified as Rosenberg and O'Malley, respectively — "purchased a computer, Chicago-area golf games and meals for the city program manager and was reimbursed by Redflex. These improper expenses totaled approximately $20,000."

O'Malley couldn't be reached for comment.

Also criticized in the filing was the company's handling of the 2010 whistle-blower allegations. Redflex ex-General Counsel Andrejs Bunkse told the Tribune and City Hall in October that Redflex took the allegations seriously and hired the Chicago law firm Quarles & Brady to conduct an "exhaustive" three-week investigation.

Bunkse, one of the Redflex executives whose resignation was announced Friday, told the Tribune that the whistle-blower allegations were unfounded except for the one reimbursed hotel stay, which he described as a billing error.

Hoffman's summary said: "The investigation was concluded in a manner that was clearly inadequate to determine whether the allegations were true, and there was inadequate oversight. It was improper for them to describe the 2010 investigation and the associated expense review as 'thorough,' 'complete,' or 'exhaustive.'"

Bunkse couldn't be reached.

The scandal has cost Redflex its Chicago contract, which provided about 13 percent of the Australian company's annual revenue and has been worth nearly $100 million over its lifetime.

In addition, Mayor Rahm Emanuel banned Redflex from competing for the city's upcoming speed camera program. Redflex had been considered a top contender, and the scandal delayed the progress of the program, which Emanuel is counting on for revenue in this year's budget.

The escalating scandal, which now threatens to consume the multinational company, had already prompted the resignations of the parent company's chairman of the board and another board member this year. Before last week's halt in trading, company stock was trading at $1.13 per share, just more than half its value from last year before the scandal broke.

dkidwell@tribune.com

Maricopa County’s insurance cost will increase

Source

Maricopa County’s insurance cost will increase

By Michelle Ye Hee Lee The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:36 PM

Maricopa County will pay more in insurance premiums for the upcoming year, as it becomes more difficult for the county to find insurance carriers based on its exposure to legal claims.

The county will pay $2.3 million to renew its insurance policies, the highest amount in at least three years. That pays for up to $55 million in insurance coverage for the county through six different companies.

Part of the increase is because the county must pay for coverage from two companies for its excess-liability plan. The liability plan was renewed March 1, and it covers claims that exceed the $5 million limit that can be paid out by the county’s self-insured risk trust fund.

For the first time, the county will use two new, separate insurance companies to cover sheriff-related claims and non-sheriff related claims. The company that previously covered the county’s excess liability was financially unstable and could not afford to insure the county anymore, said Pauline Hecker, risk-management director.

Other reasons for the premium increase relate to changes in the market. It has become more difficult to find insurance carriers because there is a lack of supply, Hecker said. Insurance companies are increasing premiums, and underwriters are becoming less risky when weighing potential exposure.

The Risk Management Department had expected insurance costs to rise, based on recent claims that increased the county’s legal exposure.

Those claims include several auto-liability claims, awrongful-death case and a wrongful-prosecution case.

They also include the high-profile jail-death lawsuit filed by the family of Ernest “Marty” Atencio and 495 property and auto claims stemming from the October 2010 hailstorm.

Public safety is generally considered the area that exposes the county to the most legal and financial risks compared with other government functions.

But the large land area and population of Maricopa County expose it to greater legal risks. Open and closed claims are an important factor in the price of the county’s insurance premium. So are the number of the county’s employees, which is roughly 13,000, and the population of Maricopa County, at 3.8 million.

The number and type of county vehicles, and how much they travel in the 132-mile-wide county, also influence premiums.

“With Maricopa County being the fourth-largest county in the United States, it’s not unusual to have this type of a ($55 million insurance) program,” Hecker said.

Some of the most-recent large payouts by the county have been $4 million to settle a medical-malpractice case involving the Maricopa Medical Center and a $3.25 million payment to settle a lawsuit over the 2005 death of a diabetic inmate. But those payments individually did not exceed the $5 million the county can pay out of its self-insured risk trust fund.

Still, Hecker said, the Risk Management Department is paying for a robust insurance program to protect taxpayers, in case of a payout exceeding $5 million.

Courts shoot down Arizona's racist SB 1070 again.

Brewer loses appeal of Arizona day-laborer rules

By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:30 PM

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday upheld an injunction against another section of SB 1070, the controversial Arizona immigration law.

The injunction was first imposed in February 2012 when a U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix ruled that statutes prohibiting people from stopping their cars to hire and pick up day laborers soliciting work are unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit panel agreed that the statute infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed right to commercial speech.

“It’s another in a series of defeats for 1070, and it recognizes that the law unconstitutionally targets the rights of day laborers,” said Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that brought suit against Arizona.

Whether the state asks for an en banc hearing from a larger group of 9th Circuit judges or petitions the U.S. Supreme Court remains to be seen.

“Governor (Jan) Brewer is still reviewing today’s disappointing decision, and has not yet made a determination whether to appeal,” said her spokesman, Matt Benson.

Brewer signed SB 1070 into law in spring 2010. It was immediately challenged in lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous civil-rights and advocacy groups.

Before the law took effect, a U.S. District Court judge enjoined four sections of the law: one that required immigrants to carry "alien-registration papers"; one that allows for warrantless arrest if an officer thinks there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work; and one that requires law-enforcement officers to check the legal status of people stopped during the investigation of possible crimes.

Those injunctions went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld all but the injunction against the requirement for police to check identification. That provision is still being challenged in pending lawsuits.

Two other provisions of SB 1070 were subsequently enjoined as well, including the soliticion of day labor, and a statute making it unlawful to transport or harbor individuals suspected of being in the country illegally.

Jadwat said he would be surprised if the state appeals Monday’s ruling, though he described Arizona as “still stuck in anti-mmigrant madness. The rest of the country has moved on.”

Arpaio loses appeal on pink-underwear case

Source

Arpaio loses appeal on pink-underwear case

By Jacques Billeaud Associated Press Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:21 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s appeal of a ruling that criticized a decision by his jail officers to force pink underwear onto a mentally ill inmate who erroneously believed jailers were trying to rape him.

The refusal by the court means the lawsuit by the estate of Eric Vogel appears headed to trial for a second time.

Arpaio’s office won the case at trial, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the verdict and called for a new trial in a ruling a year ago.

The 9th Circuit said dressing inmates in pink underwear — a hallmark of Arpaio — appeared to be punishment without legal justification and noted that it’s fair to infer that the selection of pink as the underwear color was meant to symbolize the loss of prisoners’ masculinity.

The Sheriff’s Office and Vogel’s attorney didn’t immediately return a request for comment on Monday.

Early in his 20-year tenure as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arpaio won points with voters for making inmates wear pink underwear, housing them in canvas tents during triple-digit summer heat, and dressing them in old-time striped jail uniforms.

Arpaio’s attorneys wanted the nation’s highest court to examine whether having pink boxers as part of the standard jail uniform can constitute punishment before a trial is held.

Vogel had refused to get out of his street clothes after he was arrested in 2001 for investigation of assaulting an officer who was responding to a burglary call. A group of officers in the jail stripped Vogel and put him in pink underwear and other prison clothing as he shouted that he was being raped.

A lawyer for Vogel’s estate has said the officers didn’t sexually assault Vogel and that his client didn’t suffer injuries at the jail.

Vogel, who was determined by a counselor to be paranoid and psychotic, died less than a month later, after he and his mother got in a minor car accident. When an officer handling the accident told Vogel that he might be jailed on a warrant stemming from his previous struggle involving jail clothes, Vogel ran several miles from the scene back to his home.

He died the next day, and medical examiners concluded the cause was cardiac arrhythmia.

Santa Muerte patron saint of dope dealers???

Of course I am an atheist and to me this is nothing but superstitious rubbish.

Source

Underworld saint becoming more popular in U.S.

Associated Press Mon Mar 4, 2013 2:51 PM

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A follower in New Orleans built a public shrine in her honor. An actor in Albuquerque credits her with helping him land a role on the TV show “Breaking Bad.” She turns up routinely along the U.S.-Mexico border at safe houses, and is sighted on dashboards of cars used to smuggle methamphetamine through the southwest desert.

Popular in Mexico, and sometimes linked to the illicit drug trade, the skeleton saint known as La Santa Muerte in recent years has found a robust and diverse following north of the border: immigrant small business owners, artists, gay activists and the poor, among others — many of them non-Latinos and not all involved with organized religion.

Clad in a black nun’s robe and holding a scythe in one hand, Santa Muerte appeals to people seeking all manner of otherworldly help: from fending off wrongdoing and carrying out vengeance to stopping lovers from cheating and landing better jobs. And others seek her protection for their drug shipments and to ward off law enforcement.

“Her growth in the United States has been extraordinary,” said Andrew Chesnut, author of “Devoted to Death: Santa Muerte, the Skeleton Saint” and the Bishop Walter F. Sullivan Chair in Catholic Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. “Because you can ask her for anything, she has mass appeal and is now gaining a diverse group of followers throughout the country. She’s the ultimate multi-tasker.”

Exact numbers of her followers are impossible to determine, but they are clearly growing, Chesnut said.

The saint is especially popular among Mexican-American Catholics, rivaling that of St. Jude and La Virgen de Guadalupe as a favorite for miracle requests, even as the Catholic Church in Mexico denounces Santa Muerte as satanic, experts say.

Her image has been used on prayers cards citing vengeance and protection, which are sometimes found at scenes of massacred bodies and on shipments of drugs.

U.S. Marshal Robert Almonte in West Texas said he has testified about La Santa Muerte in at least five drug trafficking cases where her image aided prosecutors with convictions. Last year, Almonte testified that a Santa Muerte statue prayer card, found with a kilogram of methamphetamine in a couple’s car in New Mexico, were “tools of the trade” for drug traffickers to protect them from law enforcement. The testimony was used to help convict the couple of drug trafficking.

Almonte has visited shrines throughout Mexico, and given workshops to law enforcement agencies on the cult of the saint.

“Criminals pray to La Santa Muerte to protect them from law enforcement,” Almonte said. “But there are good people who pray to her who aren’t involved in any criminal activity so we have to be careful.”

Devotees say La Santa Muerte has helped them find love, find better jobs and launch careers.

Gregory Beasley Jr., 35, believes he landed acting roles on “Breaking Bad” and the 2008 movie “Linewatch” after a traditional Mexican-American healer introduced him to La Santa Muerte.

“All my success … I owe to her,” he said. “She cleansed me and showed me the way.”

Some devotees pray to the saint by building altars and offering votive candles, fruits, tequila, cigarettes — even lines of cocaine in some cases — in exchange for wishes, Chesnut said. A red La Santa Muerte, her best-selling image, helps in matters of love. Gold ones aid with employment and white ones give protection. Meanwhile, a black Santa Muerte can provide vengeance.

“She’s my queen,” said Arely Vazquez Gonzalez, a Mexican immigrant and transgender woman who oversees a large altar inside her Queens, New York apartment. Against one wall of her bedroom altar is a tall, sitting Santa Muerte statue in a black dress surrounded by offerings of tequila.

Gonzalez, who sports a tattoo of La Santa Muerte on her back, holds an annual event in August in the saint’s honor, with mariachis and a feast.

“All I have to do I ask for her guidance and she provides me with what I need,” she said.

The origins of La Santa Muerte are unclear. Some followers say she is an incarnation of an Aztec goddess of death who ruled the underworld. Some scholars say she originated in medieval Spain through the image of La Parca, a female Grim Reaper, who was used by friars for the later evangelization of indigenous populations in the Americas.

For decades, though, La Santa Muerte remained an underground figure in isolated regions of Mexico and served largely as an unofficial Catholic saint that women called upon to help with cheating spouses, Chesnut said.

It wasn’t until 2001 when a devotee unveiled a public La Santa Muerte shrine in Mexico City that followers in greater numbers began to display their devotion for helping them with relationships and loved ones in prison. Economic uncertainty and a violent drug war against cartels that has claimed an estimated 40,000 lives also are credited for La Santa Muerte’s growth.

Oscar Hagelsieb, assistant special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in El Paso, said agents have found that most members of the Gulf and Zeta Cartels mainly pray to Santa Muerte while those from the Sinaloa and Sonora Cartels honor folk saint Jesus Malverde.

“Altars are very intricate. We have found some with food and others with blood from animals,” Hagelsieb said.

The association with cartels and denunciations by some priests has resulted in some non-devotees destroying makeshift roadside altars. Recently, assailants smashed a life-size statue of La Santa Muerte in a South Texas cemetery. Police in Pasadena, California, recently found human bones at a home with a Santa Muerte altar outside. The owners say they bought the bones online.

But the vast majority of devotees aren’t crooks.

Kiko Torres, owner of the Masks y Mas art store in Albuquerque, said sales of La Santa Muerte statues, incense, and oils have skyrocketed in recent months.

“Most people who buy the stuff are regular people who just recently found out about her,” he said. “Some probably have no idea about her connection to that other world.”

One such devotee is Steven Bragg, 36, who said he was introduced to La Santa Muerte in 2009 and began praying to her for a variety of different reasons, including a plea for a life companion. Recently, the New Orleans man built a public chapel to her and holds rosary services that attract around a dozen people.

He also just formed a nonprofit to support the “New Orleans Chapel of the Santisima Muerte,” the official name of his public altar.

“It’s something I decided to do after all that La Santa Muerte has provided,” Bragg said. “She has never failed me.”

Pinal county creates new bail program to rip off inmates???

Source

Review sought for new Pinal County bail program

By Robert Anglen The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:28 PM

A new bail-payment system at the Pinal County jail forces people to pay up to 12 percent or more in fees for immediate release or to remain locked up for as many as seven additional days while bail payments are processed.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office said it installed the electronic pay system in July to reduce fraud and eliminate liabilities that come with allowing jail staff to handle cash. The Sheriff’s Office also said its system is similar to one used throughout Arizona and in 29 other states.

But a Call 12 for Action investigation found that the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office is using the electronic system in a way that the biggest county detention centers in Arizona do not: It closed its payment window and stopped taking direct payments from the public.

Jails in Maricopa and Pima counties, among others, have employees who accept payments for the exact amount directly from those who arrive to bail out friends and family.

At the Pinal County Adult Detention Center in February, no signs informed visitors that they could make bail payments with no fees at the courthouse just across the parking lot or that they could use a bail- bond service.

The lack of information could leave many with the impression that the only way to post bond is through the kiosk in the jail lobby.

“All parties, including the county treasurer, were all for us taking the cash out of the hands of the jail staff. That’s why 200 jails in 30 states across the county do it,” Pinal County sheriff’s spokesman Tim Gaffney said via e-mail. “It creates a risk for any organization to allow employees to accept money, not to mention the potential for human error in posting it.”

Gaffney declined in-person and phone interviews, responding to questions only via e-mail. He contended that TouchPay’s fees are far less than those charged by private bail-bond companies for the same service. Fees for using the system can range from 5.4percent to more than 12percent.

The Sheriff’s Office established the electronic bail system under a county contract that also called for installing a new inmate phone service at the jail. The bail-payment system was an option offered by the company hired to manage the phone service.

Pinal County Supervisor Pete Rios said he had no idea the Sheriff’s Office used the phone contract to introduce a new bail-payment system. Rios said he will call for a review to ensure the public is not being made to pay unnecessary fees on top of the bail amount set by the court.

“This (bail) was never addressed. ... We were approving an inmate phone system,” Rios said. “I wasn’t aware that (the Sheriff’s Office) was denying inmates and their families the information that they could post bail the old-fashioned way.”

The Arizona Bail Bondsmen Association also criticized the electronic bail system and is backing legislation to block other sheriff’s offices in the state from adopting Pinal County’s model.

Association President John Burns said the fees are onerous.

“It is one of the biggest rip-offs for consumers,” Burns said. “This was snuck in through the phone system. ... It was in the back pages of the contract.”

Frustrated father

Randy Embry of Las Cruces, N.M., said he was shocked when Pinal County detention officers refused to accept a cash payment for his son’s bail last year and directed him to an electronic fee-for-service terminal.

Although the charges against Embry’s son were dropped days after his December arrest, Embry said the experience of bailing out his son left him feeling victimized.

“If they are going to rob you, the least they could do is put on a mask first,” Embry, 64, said in a phone interview from Las Cruces. “They’ve got you over a barrel. ... They are going to make you pay.”

Embry said his son, Lee, was driving from Flagstaff to Las Cruces when he was arrested in Pinal County on suspicion of aggravated DUI.

Embry said his son, who was filling up his car at a gas station when confronted by an officer, denied drinking. The officer arrested Lee, impounded his car and put his dog in a shelter. He then asked Lee to submit himself to a blood test, which later came back negative.

Lee was booked into the Pinal County jail, and a judge set bail at $7,500. Embry said that as soon as he got the call from Lee, he went to his bank and withdrew cash. En route to Florence, Embry said, he called the jail about what he should do to get his son out.

“The officer said the jail could not take cash,” Embry said. “I said, ‘I’ll bring you cash right now.’ They said even if I bring 75 $100 bills, we can’t accept it.”

Instead, the detention officer advised Embry that he could use a terminal at the jail to put the money into his son’s account. That would enable his son to access the money and use it for what is called “self-bail.”

Embry said the officer told him that the machine has a $2,300 cash limit but that he could use a credit card to deposit the $7,500. There is a 7.5percent fee for bail deposits made via credit card. In addition, his credit-card company would have added its own fee, likely 5percent, Embry said.

Faced with at least a 12percent charge at the jail, Embry turned to a bail- bond company.

Embry said at no time did the Pinal County detention office or the bail-bond representative tell him he could pay bail without any fee at Superior Court or one of the county’s Justice Courts.

“Of course, they didn’t tell me that,” he said. “I could have saved $750.”

Embry said neither he nor his son had run afoul of the justice system before. He said the bail situation added injury to the insult of the arrest.

“This is not about public safety,” Embry said. “It’s about generating revenue.”

Supervisors unaware

Pinal County’s self-bail payments are part of an electronic kiosk system similar to an ATM for inmate accounts. Through the kiosks, relatives and friends can deposit funds for inmate debit cards, commissary accounts and phone payments.

Nothing in the contract with Texas-based TouchPay required Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, who oversees county jail operations, to stop taking payments directly from the public.

The contract states that Pinal County “shall not be obligated to use TouchPay as the exclusive means for placement of funds into (inmate) accounts.” And it describes the self-bail component only as an optional part of the kiosk system, not a requirement.

Gaffney said the sheriff has sought to eliminate the collection of cash by jail staff since 2010, when a county audit detailed a “lack of control” of cash handled by employees. In addition to cash, he said, the jail had problems with forged money orders and cashier’s checks canceled after inmates were released.

“It was strongly suggested that the Adult Detention Center take cash out of the facility,” Gaffney said in e-mails. “The kiosk not only fraud-checks (cash) bills, but it also ensures payments are posted to the correct account more timely and accurately by avoiding human error.”

He said the kiosk system was installed under a contract for a new inmate phone system when the winning bidder, Securus Technologies Inc., offered additional services at no cost to the county.

“TouchPay provides the transfer of funds from friends and family into the inmate trust account via the kiosk, Web and ... telephone,” Securus Technologies Account Manager Darrin Hays wrote in an e-mail to the county last week. “The inmate can then use the trust-fund account to purchase goods or use for cash bail.”

Gaffney maintained that the county Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff’s Office, was responsible for the contract. He said no objections were raised over the contract when supervisors voted to approve it in April.

Rios said no concerns were raised because the Board of Supervisors believed it was voting only on a new phone system. There was no information presented to the board to suggest the Sheriff’s Office intended using the contract to change other jail operations, he said.

Rios, who is the only supervisor still in office who was on the board when the Securus contract was approved, said he was unaware of the new jail policies until being contacted by Call 12 for Action.

Minutes from the April11 board meeting show that there was no discussion of the 232-page contract or the telephone system, which was listed on agendas only as “Inmate Telephone Services.”

Rios said neither Babeu nor his staff notified the board that the Sheriff’s Office would use the contract to cease accepting payments from the public.

“This is a concern. It should be a concern for every citizen in Pinal County,” Rios said, adding that people are innocent until proven guilty. “Citizens should be able to bail out their family and friends without having to pay all these additional fees.”

Counties’ policies differ

Other counties in Arizona have adopted electronic systems for funding inmate accounts. But none refuses to take bail payments at the jails.

Maricopa, Coconino, Pima and Yuma counties maintain service windows where friends and relatives of inmates can make bail payments with no fees.

In Maricopa County, officials operate a “bonds and fines window” at the Fourth Avenue Jail that accepts money orders and cashier’s checks for bail until 1a.m. The county does not accept cash.

Gaffney said no one is forced to use Pinal County’s kiosk. He said the Sheriff’s Office still accepts cashier’s checks and money orders for bail payments by mail with no additional fees.

But release is not immediate and could be delayed up to a week while checks are processed.

“They can mail in their payment and we will post it with no fee after it’s been on hold for up to seven days to ensure it clears the bank,” Gaffney said in an e-mail. “Otherwise they can turn to a bail bond company and pay their fee.”

Gaffney said TouchPay’s fees are far less than what private bail- bond companies charge for the same service.

“If we didn’t have this option in place, they’d (relatives and friends of inmates) be going back to the bail-bond companies who will force them to pay their fees to get their inmate out of jail,” Gaffney said. “Fees for bail-bond companies can be in the neighborhood of 15percent or more.”

Not so, according to the Arizona Bail Bondsmen Association: It says the fee for bail in Arizona has been 10percent for more than 40years.

Bail in many ways resembles an insurance premium. People who are arrested often can’t afford to pay the entire bail set by the court. They turn to bail agents, who charge a percentage of the bail in return for posting a surety bond with the court. If the accused fails to appear for trial, the entire amount of the bail is due and the bond is forfeited.

Aboutbail.com lists Arizona as one of 18 states with a mandated bond- premium limit of 10percent or less.

TouchPay is not a bail agent and requires anyone wanting to use its self-bail system to pay the full amount of the bail. TouchPay charges a flat $10 fee for cash bail payments and an additional $5 for every $100 deposited. For example, a $1,000 payment would cost $60 in fees, or 6percent.

For credit-card bail payments, it charges 7.5percent fees in addition to the charges imposed by the user’s credit-card company.

TouchPay officials last week confirmed that the company imposes a cash limit of $2,300 on bail payments in Pinal County.

The TouchPay system might be cheaper than using a bail bond for a cash bail payment that is less than the machine’s limit.

Bondsmen association President Burns said the fees aren’t the only concern with the kiosks.

He said that when a family member deposits bail money into an inmate’s account, the family member has lost control of the money. Once the case goes to court or charges are dropped, the money is returned to the inmate, not the person who deposited it.

“You lose ownership,” Burns said. “You’re posting money on a defendant’s books. You’re giving that defendant a check.”

Burns said the association is sponsoring legislation this year that would prevent sheriff’s offices from using electronic machines for bail. A bill is currently in front of a legislative committee.

Burns said the machines generate revenue streams for departments.

However, the contract shows that Pinal County derives no revenue from TouchPay’s kiosk system, including the bail system.

However, the Sheriff’s Office receives substantial commission from the phone contract with Securus, which subcontracts with TouchPay.

According to the contract, the Sheriff’s Office receives 72percent commission on all phone calls made through the Securus call-management system, an estimated $400,000 annually. The money goes to the Inmate Welfare Fund and is used only for the benefit of inmates.

About 100yards from the kiosk inside the Adult Detention Center is the Pinal County Superior Court House. There, anyone charged in a Superior Court case can post bail payments with no additional fees. County Justice Courts also accept bail payments for cases in their courts.

The problem, according to relatives and friends of inmates, is that the Sheriff’s Office does not provide information about the alternatives.

The only information available at the kiosk is fliers advertising the TouchPay system.

“In the past, all you had to do is come up with the money order or cash and pay the jail. Now, it’s all done by the machine,” said Bobby Davis of Casa Grande, whose husband is in jail on assault charges. “It was a lot easier.”

Davis, who was using the kiosk to put money into her husband’s commissary last month, said she had no idea that the courthouse would accept bond payments.

Neither did Heather Houston, 27, of Tempe, who regularly goes to the jail to visit her boyfriend, awaiting trial on pornography charges.

She said detention officers provide little information about payments and typically just direct people to the kiosk.

“I’ve seen people try to post bail, to try and get their loved ones out. And then, after they put all of their cash and everything in there, they end up being short because of all of the fees they charge,” Houston said.

“If you can’t post bail, then you’re stuck. You can’t get out.”

Reach the reporter at robert.anglen@arizonarepublic.com.

Cops don't ticket Congressmen that give them Federal pork???

Source

Ex-police chief may have violated law over ticket, officials say

By Jack Leonard and Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times

March 4, 2013, 7:32 p.m.

San Fernando's former police chief may have violated the law when he successfully sought to dismiss a congressional aide's traffic ticket last year, prosecutors concluded.

The Los Angeles County district attorney ultimately decided not to charge the police official, Jeff Eley. But revelations in a district attorney's memo obtained by The Times add another chapter to the political soap opera in the small San Fernando Valley town that has been buffeted by scandal.

County prosecutors said Eley, then the department's acting police chief, received a call on his cellphone from the aide within minutes of an officer issuing the ticket in November 2011. Eley approached the officer to examine the citation.

"Oh my God, do you know who this is?" Eley said to the officer, according to the memo.

The ticket, given for running a stop sign, had been issued to Fred Flores, who worked for then-Rep. Howard Berman (D-Valley Village). Berman had helped the department obtain federal funding over the years, the memo said.

Flores acted belligerently during the incident and threatened to contact Eley to take care of the citation, the memo said.

Eley took the police copies of the citation from the officer who issued it, according to the memo. Seven weeks later, after Flores had been scheduled to appear in court, Eley asked a court to dismiss the ticket, saying there "were conflicting statements made between the officer and the violator."

State law prohibits police from concealing or nullifying a ticket before it goes to court. Police can recommend that a citation be dismissed but not because of a "personal relationship with any officer, public official or law enforcement agency." Violation of the law is a misdemeanor.

The district attorney's memo said that though Eley's actions may have violated the law, his department's rules gave him the "ultimate discretion to cancel citations." Deputy Dist. Atty. Renee Chang wrote in the memo that the ticket was dismissed by a neutral judge and that there was no evidence Eley received any personal favors or promises in return.

District attorney's spokeswoman Jane Robison said her office also took into consideration that Eley lost his job as acting chief and that he would probably not face jail time for a first-time misdemeanor. She said Flores served as a liaison between the congressman and the Police Department and would be expected to have the cellphone number for the acting police chief.

"We had no evidence of a personal relationship," she said.

Eley's lawyer, Robert Wexler, said his client did nothing wrong and welcomed the decision not to file charges. Eley, he said, remains on administrative leave and was unavailable for an interview by Los Angeles County sheriff's detectives investigating the ticket-fixing allegation.

Flores could not be reached for comment. He previously denied asking Eley to do anything with the ticket.

The controversy over the ticket's fate was one of several spectacles that in recent years have tarnished the reputation of the city, including a public announcement by the mayor that he was having an affair with a colleague and claims of a relationship between another former police chief and a teenage cadet.

Eley was removed from his post and placed on administrative leave last year after a video surfaced on YouTube showing Officer Saul Esquivel giving Flores the citation. The video, with opening titles such as "Deception" and "Corruption," was taken from the dashboard camera in Esquivel's patrol car that captured the Nov. 23, 2011, traffic stop.

According to the district attorney's memo, Flores swore at Esquivel as the officer wrote the ticket. As Esquivel returned to his patrol car, he realized he still had Flores' driver's license. Flores stepped out of his vehicle and walked toward Esquivel, the memo said, berating him with several offensive names. The officer handed Flores his license and returned to the patrol car.

The ticket was issued at 8:25 a.m., according to a copy of the citation obtained by The Times. Phone records show that Flores called Eley 12 minutes later, just as the watch commander was notifying the acting chief about the incident, according to the memo.

At the station, Esquivel told Eley that Flores' behavior had been unacceptable. Eley took the citation, walked toward his office and called Flores on his cellphone, the memo said. The call lasted 11 minutes.

On Jan. 12, 2012, Eley filled out paperwork seeking the dismissal of the ticket in the "interest of justice." A department employee took the request to court the next day. Without any additional inquiry, court Commissioner Martin Gladstein dismissed the ticket.

Berman told authorities that Flores explained the incident to him, saying he had become upset because the officer refused to write Flores' new address on the ticket because his change-of-address card was not stapled to his license, the district attorney's memo said. Flores told Berman he never intended for Eley to dismiss the citation and that he fully intended to go to court but never received anything in the mail to say when and where to go.

The memo noted that the citation included a Jan. 4 date and the address of the Chatsworth courthouse. At the time, a stop-sign citation carried a fine of $230, excluding fees for enrolling in traffic school, a court spokeswoman said.

On Feb. 29, 2012, more than a month after the YouTube video was posted, Flores wrote to the San Fernando city treasurer, the memo said. Flores wrote that he had not received any mail explaining how much he owed and had tried to pay his fine at court but was told the court could not accept money for a dismissed ticket. Flores enclosed a check to the city for $250.

jack.leonard@latimes.com

richard.winton@latimes.com

Firefighter charged in fatal crash was on prescription medicine

Source

Prosecutors: Firefighter charged in fatal crash was on prescription medicine

By Jason Meisner Tribune reporter

3:29 p.m. CST, March 4, 2013

An Orland Fire Protection District firefighter was speeding and swerving in and out of traffic when he rear-ended a vehicle near southwest suburban Tinley Park Friday, causing a chain-reaction crash that killed a 25-year-old woman, prosecutors said today in court.

Patrick Bruce, 45, who is on leave from his job because of a back injury, told police he had taken prescription medication before the crash, prosecutors said. He was charged with reckless homicide and ticketed with numerous traffic offenses, including failure to reduce speed, improper lane usage and failure to signal a turn.

Bruce, of the 5500 block of Christopher Drive in Oak Forest, appeared in court in a white hospital gown with bruises and scratches visible on his face. Judge Israel Desierto set bond at $250,000.

Prosecutors said Bruce was driving a Lincoln Navigator east on 167th Street on Friday afternoon when he accelerated to 60 mph in a 35-mph zone and began weaving between lanes. As he approached the intersection with Lockwood Avenue, Bruce suddenly swerved to the right and rear-ended a Hummer SUV, then crossed into oncoming traffic and struck another vehicle head-on, prosecutors said.

The driver of that vehicle, Anasis Knox, 25, of Downers Grove, died a short time after the crash. The driver of the Hummer suffered a concussion and fractured vertebrae, while Bruce suffered minor injuries, according to police and prosecutors.

Prosecutors said Bruce admitted to taking prescription pain medication before the crash. The results of alcohol tests were still pending this afternoon.

In a statement Sunday, Orland Fire Protection Chief Ken Brucki said Bruce has been on leave due to an injury for the last eight months and was in his personal vehicle at the time of the crash.

"Our condolences go out to the family of the victim," Brucki said in the statement.

Bruce's attorney, Stephen Eberhardt, said in court that Bruce had suffered a shoulder injury while on duty. He said Bruce has two children, ages 4 and 2, and no criminal background.

jmeisner@tribune.com

U. of C. puts 2 on leave, says cop posed as protester

Source

U. of C. puts 2 on leave, says cop posed as protester

By Kim Geiger Tribune reporter

6:15 a.m. CST, March 5, 2013

The University of Chicago Police Department said Monday it had placed two employees on administrative leave and launched an investigation after university officials acknowledged that an officer posed as a protester during a demonstration over U. of C. hospital trauma care last month.

The U. of C. officer's undercover activity was reported by the student newspaper, The Chicago Maroon, which published photos Friday that appear to show the officer holding a protest sign and sending texts.

In a statement over the weekend, university President Robert Zimmer and Provost Thomas Rosenbaum said the officer's actions were "totally antithetical" to the university's values. In addition to the internal police investigation, Zimmer and Rosenbaum will appoint an "external independent reviewer" to look into the matter.

In recent years, activists have demanded wider access to trauma care on the South Side. The University of Chicago Medical Center is a trauma center for patients up to age 16, and the Feb. 23 protest sought to pressure U. of C. to accept trauma victims up to age 21.

Those who attended the protest, which included a news conference outside the medical center and a march, said the undercover officer looked out of place.

"She kind of looked like a police officer to me," said protester Alex Goldenberg.

An unidentified person gave Maroon reporter Madhu Srikantha photos of the officer participating in the protest and others showing her typing text messages.

"In crowd w(ith) sign," one message said. "All is well."

Srikantha said she showed the woman's photo to campus police officers, and they identified her as a colleague. The reporter said the woman later "admitted to being there and to being working." The Tribune could not reach the officer for comment.

University officials had no knowledge of an undercover operation, said spokesman Jeremy Manier. University police Chief Marlon Lynch said his agency had not approved it.

Olivia Woollam, a protester who was a liaison with police, said she was alarmed by the undercover action. Organizers met with police beforehand and had received approval of the route for their march, Woollam said.

"Especially given the level of communication that was undertaken the day before the protest, it seems extremely peculiar to me and a definite setback," Woollam said.

The groups protesting were Southside Together Organizing for Power, an affiliated youth group Fearless Leading by the Youth and the student group Students for Health Equity.

kgeiger@tribune.com

Twitter @kimgeiger

Researchers report sharp rise in ‘patriot’ groups

Researchers report sharp rise in ‘patriot’ groups

Associated Press Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:51 PM

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — President Barack Obama’s administration and the gun control debate after the Connecticut school shooting have led to surging numbers of anti-government “patriot” groups, according to a civil rights group that tracks extremist groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reported the rising numbers on Tuesday in its annual report on extremist groups.

The number of anti-government patriot groups, one category tracked by the center, rose dramatically over the past four years, from 149 groups in 2008 to 1,360 today, researchers reported. That was up about 7 percent from the 1,274 active in 2011.

The election and re-election of the nation’s first black president and the rugged economy have fueled their growth, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the SPLC.

“The anger, angst, frustration, fear surrounding the economy have very much poured fuel on this fire,” Potok said.

On gun control, the debate following the Newtown, Conn., mass murder of schoolchildren has led to “a kind of white-hot rage unleashed on both the radical right and also within more mainstream political circles,” he said.

In the week following the Dec. 14 school shooting, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said it conducted more background checks for firearms sales and permits to carry than it has in any other one-week period since 1998.

In a letter today to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the SPLC warned of the potential for domestic terrorism and urged the creation of a task force to assess whether there are enough federal resources devoted to the threat.

“As in the period before the Oklahoma City bombing, we now are seeing ominous threats from those who believe that the government is poised to take their guns,” wrote SPLC President Richard Cohen, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.

The SPLC found there were 1,360 Patriot groups in 2012 - an 813 percent rise since 2008, the year before Obama took office. The groups include 321 militias. These numbers far exceed the movement’s peak in the 1990s, when militias were inflamed by the 1993 Brady Bill and the 1994 assault rifle ban.

Some critics believe the SPLC is too broad in labeling hate and extremist groups, to the point of including legitimate political organizations that oppose illegal immigration, gun control, gay rights and other issues.

The center’s researchers say they use a variety of methods to track anti-government groups and compile their list from field reports, patriot publications, law enforcement sources and news reports. Potok said only active groups are included.

“We are not just looking at one man and a computer,” he said.

The report states: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the ‘New World Order,’ engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines.”

The FBI defines military extremists as anti-government groups often organized into paramilitary groups that follow a military-style rank hierarchy and typically engage in wilderness, survival, or other paramilitary training, according to a September 2011 FBI report on domestic terrorism.

More on Redflex photo radar bribes in Chicago

Source

Redflex expanding investigation into its conduct

By David Kidwell, Chicago Tribune reporter

6:50 a.m. CST, March 6, 2013

The internal probe into whether Chicago's red light camera company bribed a City Hall official has raised concerns that caused the firm to examine its conduct in two other locations, the chairman of Redflex Holdings Ltd. told shareholders.

Michael McConnell, interim board chairman of the Australian company, made the remark late Monday while answering pointed questions from stockholders about the company's future and what he described as "extremely troubling and disappointing" revelations that have cost the company its Chicago business.

One stockholder on the international conference call asked when the company-funded investigation — prompted by Chicago Tribune reports last year — might finally end.

"That's a fair question. This was going on in Chicago. Might it have been going on somewhere else?" responded McConnell, who took over as interim chair this year. "We found two other geographies that raised concern, and those investigations are considerably smaller than the one that just ended."

Company executives contacted Tuesday refused to elaborate.

The stockholder briefing followed company filings Monday at the Australian Securities Exchange acknowledging that the Chicago contract with its subsidiary, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., was likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme involving the former Chicago official who oversaw the red light program for a decade.

That was the conclusion of a company-funded internal investigation by the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin LLP, which was hired by Redflex to investigate allegations reported by the Tribune in October about the close ties between the company, its Chicago consultant, and the now-retired city official.

The parent company's chairman and another director resigned last month amid the investigation led by former city inspector general and federal prosecutor David Hoffman. The president, chief financial officer and top lawyer at Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems resigned last week and the company fired its former top salesman.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration is dropping Redflex's contract when it expires in June. The program, with 384 cameras, has raised about $100 million for the company and $300 million for the city. Emanuel also barred the company from competing for a new speed camera program.

"I have to tell you I think that we are being rightly punished, given the findings that we uncovered here," McConnell told shareholders.

He said the objective of the Sidley Austin investigation was "to understand what happened in the past and then, based on that full understanding, to consider and take the necessary actions that give this company the best possibility to move forward. What we learned was extremely troubling and disappointing.

"I anticipate the next six months to be challenging as the organization confronts its past and begins to rebuild its future," McConnell continued. "Your board and management will lead us through these challenging circumstances with a clear focus on the restoration of our ethical compass and the firm's integrity. … Our objective is to first stabilize the business."

McConnell told stockholders he expects a final report from Sidley Austin on all the outstanding issues under investigation by the end of March.

Redflex will pay Sidley as much as $2.5 million in legal fees, McConnell said.

Company stock was trading Wednesday in Australia at 98 cents per share, down from $2.10 in October, before the scandal broke. Some on the call raised concerns about whether banks holding the company's $24 million in loans might move to recall the cash.

"If we are charged with anything, under the legal authorities etc., then that might trigger some sort of review, but at this stage we haven't been charged with anything," said Ron Johnson, the company's chief financial officer.

A company spokesman would not identify the "two geographies" McConnell referenced, but the Tribune earlier reported that federal corruption investigators in Louisiana had subpoenaed Redflex in 2010 for thousands of records involving its procurement of a contract in the suburbs of New Orleans.

The same Chicago consultant allegedly involved in the Chicago bribery scheme also introduced Redflex to a Louisiana lobbyist involved in the probe there.

Hoffman's findings marked a stark contrast from the company's assertions last year to the Tribune and City Hall in response to a Tribune inquiry about a 2010 whistle-blower memo that outlined the alleged bribery scheme and "lavish vacations" for the city's former managing deputy commissioner of transportation, John Bills.

Bills has denied wrongdoing.

In October, company lawyers described the whistle-blower allegations as the fiction of a disgruntled employee. They said the allegations were thoroughly investigated by another law firm and found to be without merit, except for one inappropriate hotel bill.

dkidwell@tribune.com

Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

Pot dispensary robbed, suspects barricade themselves in SF building

The only reason you have the robberies of medical marijuana dispensaries is because pot is illegal and sells at black market prices.

If pot was legalized, you could buy a pound of marijuana for the same price of a head of lettuce at you local Fry's or Safeway grocery store. And for all practical purposes that would stop these drug related robberies.

Source

Police: Suspects rob marijuana dispensary then barricade themselves in San Francisco building

Bay City News Service

Posted: 03/06/2013 06:34:03 AM PST

A group of suspects that police said robbed a medical marijuana dispensary have barricaded themselves inside a building in San Francisco's Bayview District early this morning, according to San Francisco police.

Police have two suspects in custody in connection with the robbery. The additional suspects barricaded themselves into a building near Jennings Street and Wallace Avenue at around 3:50 a.m.

The additional suspects were still inside the building at 5 a.m., police said.

White, male police officers discriminated against???

Source

Letter of concern placed in 2 police supervisors’ files

By Cecilia Chan The Arizona Republic-12 News

Breaking News Team Wed Mar 6, 2013 9:11 AM

Phoenix administrators have determined that two high-ranking police supervisors discriminated against White officers when they chose women and minorities to work the presidential inauguration.

City leaders placed a “letter of concern” in the supervisors’ personnel files, but the union that represents 2,500 rank-and-file officers say the discipline measure falls short.

Five White officers logged a complaint in October with the city Equal Opportunity Department, saying the selection process using race and gender unfairly excluded them.

The department investigation concluded that Assistant Chief Tracy Montgomery and Cmdr. Geary Brase violated the city’s administrative regulation that prohibits discrimination based on factors including race, color, religion, gender and age.

“Using race, national origin and gender for the selection process was not appropriate,” the investigative report states.

Police spokesman Sgt. Trent Crump said neither Montgomery nor Brase will comment.

EOD director Lionel Lyons and Assistant City Manager Ed Zuercher, point out that because the Police Department re-selected the team based on seniority prior to the inauguration, no harm was done to the White officers.

Four women and five minority men made up the original group from the patrol division's Neighborhood Enforcement Team. Three White men were picked as alternates. The new team included one woman, six White men and a Hispanic man.

Four of the five officers who filed the grievance made the trip to the nation’s capital in January for a four-day security detail, which included traffic control. One officer lacked the seniority to qualify for the assignment.

“I’m very disappointed in the outcome,” Joe Clure, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said of the discipline. “It’s a complete failure, not holding folks accountable to policy.”

Clure had asked the city for an independent investigation, which was not done.

Clure said although four of the complaining officers served on the inaugural detail, it doesn’t excuse the fact that they “were discriminated against and suffered indignation by having to file a grievance.”

Clure said the city also should have investigated Chief Daniel Garcia because he requested the inaugural detail reflect diversity.

In a memo, Lyons said Garcia’s directive was not discriminatory because diversity is one of the city’s core values. He also said Montgomery and Brase could have used “legitimate non-discriminatory methods” to accomplish Garcia’s goal.

Zuercher, who oversees the Police Department, credited Garcia with scrapping “the flawed selection method” and directing staff to re-select the team.

“As a result, the selection was in conformance with city policy and no officers' rights were harmed in the assignment to the inaugural detail,” Zuercher said Thursday. “Additionally, the chief consulted with the assistant chief and the commander and removed them from the detail assignment.”

Taking all that into account, Zuercher said he issued the letter of concern. He said he also consulted with the city’s human-resources director on the appropriate level of discipline.

“A letter of concern is within city policy,” Zuercher said. “It is a record of supervisory counseling. It puts in writing the discussion with an employee that an action has happened that should be corrected.”

Zuercher said the letter stays in an employee's file for one year. Garcia, who acknowledged that he could have better monitored the selection process, also received a letter of concern.

The five officers who filed the complaint can pursue the issue with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Clure said he was unsure of the officers’ intentions. Attempts to reach the officers for comment were not successful.

Clure said the supervisors should have gone before the Police Department’s Disciplinary Review Board, composed of citizens, peer employees and police commanders who review cases of serious misconduct.

Clure points to the Police Department’s disciplinary policy that stipulates that supervisors found in violation of equal-employment opportunity regulations face suspension without pay.

However, Crump said the process was handled by the EOD and city management, not the Police Department.

Crump also said the investigative report was sent to the Professional Standards Bureau, the department’s internal affairs unit that reviews and investigates officers’ conduct.

“It was sent to them for review,” Crump said. “There is no action being taken on their part.”

Clure said the city “wants to play it off as nothing happened and that no harm had occurred.”

“I disagree,” Clure said. “There was reputational harm to the department and the city” and the officers felt humiliated.

Clure said he plans to press the issue with the mayor and City Council.

He said if city leaders fail to do anything, it will send a wrong message to rank-and-file officers, that there are two standards, one for them and one for upper management.

A total of 40 Phoenix police officers went to Washington, including those from the chief's office, the Gang Enforcement Unit, the Major Offender Unit and the Downtown Operations Unit.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio recall off to impressive start

I won't even think about that in the case of Sheriff Joe because he probably would throw me in prison for just thinking the idea.

Source

Arpaio recall off to impressive start

Leaders of a group seeking to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio today announced that they have 120,000 valid signatures, which would put them well over a third of the way to the promised land.

If that’s true, Arpaio might want to start sending away for brochures from Carnival and Royal Carribean. I’ve heard a cruise is a nice way to ease into retirement.

Of course, the question is, does Respect Arizona have the money needed to finish the job? Signatures don’t come cheap and any campaign of this magnitude will certainly need paid circulators.

Respect Arizona must turn in 335,317 valid signatures by May 7 to force a November recall, according to Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne. The group will likely need 450,000 or 500,000 signatures to ensure a cushion. (They actually have until the end of May to turn in signatures, but that would put them into a March election.)

Other than the campaign to recall then-Gov. Evan Mecham in 1988, I can’t think of any grassroots campaign on this scale. In the end, the Mecham recall wasn’t needed. He was impeached and tossed out of office.

As for Arpaio, if Respect Arizona gets this to a ballot, the sheriff might want to start packing up his pink undies.

A recall election isn’t like a regular election, where a Republican nominee faces a Democrat or an independent (or both). Recall organizers will surely look for a fellow Republican to run against Arpaio, who won in November with a skimpy 50.7 percent of the vote despite a multi-multi-million-dollar campaign.

Split the Republican vote and Arpaio is gone.

Then again, never underestimate the sneakiness of certain Republican operatives. I imagine they’re out there, even now, scouring the county in search of a spoiler or two.

Hey, I wonder if Olivia Cortez has any law enforcement experience?

Congress gave the President the power to murder anybody he wants???

Source

Administration debates stretching 9/11 law to go after new al-Qaeda offshoots

By Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, Published: March 6

A new generation of al-Qaeda offshoots is forcing the Obama administration to examine whether the legal basis for its targeted killing program can be extended to militant groups with little or no connection to the organization responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials said.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force, a joint resolution passed by Congress three days after the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has served as the legal foundation for U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda over the past decade, including ongoing drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen that have killed thousands of people.

Optimism gives way to realism as diplomats ponder long odds of reaching agreement with country.

But U.S. officials said administration lawyers are increasingly concerned that the law is being stretched to its legal breaking point, just as new threats are emerging in countries including Syria, Libya and Mali.

“The farther we get away from 9/11 and what this legislation was initially focused upon,” a senior Obama administration official said, “we can see from both a theoretical but also a practical standpoint that groups that have arisen or morphed become more difficult to fit in.”

The waning relevance of the 2001 law, the official said, is “requiring a whole policy and legal look.” The official, like most others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

The authorization law has already been expanded by federal courts beyond its original scope to apply to “associated forces” of al-Qaeda. But officials said legal advisers at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are now weighing whether the law can be stretched to cover what one former official called “associates of associates.”

The debate has been driven by the emergence of groups in North Africa and the Middle East that may embrace aspects of al-Qaeda’s agenda but have no meaningful ties to its crumbling leadership base in Pakistan. Among them are the al-Nusra Front in Syria and Ansar al-Sharia, which was linked to the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. They could be exposed to drone strikes and kill-or-capture missions involving U.S. troops.

Officials said they have not ruled out seeking an updated authorization from Congress or relying on the president’s constitutional powers to protect the country. But they said those are unappealing alternatives.

AUMF and the war on terror

The debate comes as the administration seeks to turn counterterrorism policies adopted as emergency measures after the 2001 attacks into more permanent procedures that can sustain the campaign against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as other current and future threats.

The AUMF, as the 2001 measure is known, has been so central to U.S. efforts that counterterrorism officials said deliberations over whom to put on the list for drone strikes routinely start with the question of whether a proposed target is “AUMF-able.”

The outcome of the debate could determine when and how the war on terrorism — at least as defined by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks — comes to a close.

“You can’t end the war if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy,” said a person who participated in the administration’s deliberations on the issue.

Administration officials acknowledged that they could be forced to seek new legal cover if the president decides that strikes are necessary against nascent groups that don’t have direct al-Qaeda links. Some outside legal experts said that step is all but inevitable because the authorization has already been stretched to the limit of its intended scope.

Optimism gives way to realism as diplomats ponder long odds of reaching agreement with country.

“The AUMF is becoming increasingly obsolete because the groups that are threatening us are harder and harder to tie to the original A.Q. organization,” said Jack Goldsmith, an expert on national security law at Harvard University and a former senior Justice Department official.

He said extending the AUMF to groups more loosely tied to al-Qaeda would be “a major interpretive leap” that could eliminate the need for a link between the targeted organization and core al-Qaeda.

The United States has not launched strikes against any of the new groups, and U.S. officials have not indicated that there is any immediate plan to do so. In Libya, for example, the United States has sought to work with the new government to apprehend suspects in the Benghazi attack.

Still, the administration has taken recent steps — including building a drone base in the African country of Niger — that have moved the United States closer to being able to launch lethal strikes if regional allies are unable to contain emerging threats.

The administration official cited Ansar al-Sharia as an example of the “conundrum” that counterterrorism officials face.

The group has little if any established connection to al-Qaeda’s leadership core in Pakistan. But intercepted communications during and after the attack in Benghazi indicated that some members have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the terrorist network’s main associate in North Africa.

“Certainly there are individuals who have an affiliation from a policy, if not legal, perspective,” the official said. “But does that mean the whole group?”

Other groups of concern include the al-Nusra Front, which is backed by al-Qaeda in Iraq and has used suicide bombings to emerge as a potent force in the Syrian civil war, and a splinter group in North Africa that carried out a deadly assault in January on a natural-gas complex in Algeria.

A focus on Sept. 11

The debate centers on a piece of legislation that spans a single page and was drafted in a few days to give President George W. Bush authority to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against al-Qaeda.

The law placed no geographic limits on that power but did not envision a drawn-out conflict that would eventually encompass groups with no ties to the Sept. 11 strikes. Instead, it authorized the president to take action “against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.”

The authorization makes no mention of “associated forces,” a term that emerged only in subsequent interpretations of the text. But even that elastic phrase has become increasingly difficult to employ.

In a speech last year at Yale University, Jeh Johnson, who served as general counsel at the Defense Department during Obama’s first term, outlined the limits of the AUMF.

“An ‘associated force’ is not any terrorist group in the world that merely embraces the al-Qaeda ideology,” Johnson said. Instead, it has to be both “an organized, armed group that has entered the fight alongside al-Qaeda” and a “co-belligerent with al-Qaeda in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Optimism gives way to realism as diplomats ponder long odds of reaching agreement with country.

U.S. officials said evaluating whether a proposed target is eligible under the AUMF is only one step. Names aren’t added to kill or capture lists, officials said, unless they also meet more elaborate policy criteria set by Obama.

If a proposed a target doesn’t clear the legal hurdle, the senior administration official said, one option is to collect additional intelligence to try to meet the threshhold.

Officials stressed that the stakes of the debate go beyond the drone program. The same authorities are required for capture operations, which have been far less frequent. The AUMF is also the legal basis for the CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan, although the agency compiles its own kill list in that operation with little involvement from other agencies.

The uncertainty surrounding the AUMF has already shaped the U.S. response to problems in North Africa and the Middle East. Counterterrorism officials concluded last year that Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a militant leader in Algeria and Mali, could not be targeted under the AUMF, in part because he had had a falling out with al-Qaeda’s leadership and was no longer regarded as part of an associated group.

Belmokhtar was later identified as the orchestrator of the gas-plant attack in Algeria in which dozens of workers, including three Americans, were killed.

Obama’s decision to provide limited assistance to French air attacks against Islamist militants in Mali this year was delayed for weeks, officials said, amid questions over whether doing so would require compliance with the AUMF rules.

Some options beyond the 2001 authorization are problematic for Obama. For instance, he has been reluctant to rely on his constitutional authority to use military force to protect the country, which bypasses Congress and might expose him to criticism for abuse of executive power.

Working with Congress to update the AUMF is another option. The Senate Intelligence Committee has already begun considering ways to accomplish that. But Obama, who has claimed credit for winding down two wars, is seen as reluctant to have the legislative expansion of another be added to his legacy.

“This is an ongoing discussion, which we’ll probably continue to engage on the Hill,” the senior administration official said. “But I don’t know that there’s a giant desire to have ‘Son of AUMF’ now.”

Search warrant served at Northern Illinois University police station

Search warrant served at NIU police station

By Jodi S. Cohen and Stacy St. Clair Tribune reporters

6:27 p.m. CST, March 6, 2013

Recent troubles at Northern Illinois University intensified Wednesday as the FBI executed a search warrant at the campus police station.

The warrant — which stunned officials at the state's third-largest public university — stems from an ongoing criminal investigation by three federal agencies and the Illinois State Police, FBI spokeswoman Joan Hyde said.

In addition to the FBI and state police, the inspector general offices of the federal departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development participated in Wednesday's raid. None of those agencies would comment on their roles or the target of the investigation.

Federal inspector general offices typically investigate fraud or misuse of money allocated by their agencies.

At least some NIU police officers were asked to leave the station while others were being interviewed by the authorities, the Tribune has learned. Members of the FBI's Computer Analysis and Response Team were seen at the station.

"Today's activity is not in response to any public safety concerns," the FBI said in a statement. "During the execution of the warrant, the public safety functions of the NIU police department will continue uninterrupted."

The warrant comes at the request of a grand jury looking into an undisclosed matter involving the university, according to authorities. Hyde said the FBI took the rare step of issuing a news release about the search to ease any concerns students might have about an influx of law enforcement on the campus, which still bears scars from a 2008 shooting spree that left six people dead and 21 injured.

University spokesman Bradley Hoey said administrators were caught off guard when the authorities arrived at the police station at 8 a.m. The FBI agents asked to see files, Hoey said.

"Any time you have these agencies come to your campus, there is obviously concern," Hoey said. "What we want to do is be able to cooperate as much as possible."

Acting police Chief Darren Mitchell hung up when contacted by the Tribune.

NIU, based in DeKalb, has faced its share of scandals this academic year, though it's unclear whether the FBI activity is related to any of them.

Longtime campus police Chief Donald Grady was fired last month. The dismissal came after he was put on paid leave last year over his department's alleged misconduct in a high-profile rape case, and five months after he asked the FBI for help investigating university finances.

The officer accused in the rape case, Andrew Rifkin, was re-indicted last month on charges he assaulted an NIU freshman in 2011. The charges had been dropped in November after prosecutors said the police department mishandled the investigation. The DeKalb County judge at the time called the police department's actions "egregious" and a "purposeful hiding of information."

After that court hearing, NIU President John Peters — who plans to retire in June — requested that state police review the campus police department's handling of the case and its law enforcement procedures in general.

"I don't know if this is a result of that request," Hoey said Wednesday.

Separately, Grady asked for FBI help in August as his department was investigating the conduct of two high-ranking university administrators who had resigned for misconduct.

The NIU police department also had been investigating an alleged scheme in which employees were selling university scrap materials and depositing the money in a private, unauthorized account known as the "coffee fund." Eight employees and a former employee face criminal charges in the matter.

The slush fund was used to pay for holiday parties, retirement celebrations and other social occasions, officials have said.

That investigation was closed when Grady was suspended last year.

Built among the cornfields about 65 miles west of Chicago, NIU attracts students looking for an affordable college education while either living on the large public campus or commuting to DeKalb. About 94 percent of its 22,000 students are from Illinois, two-thirds from Chicago and surrounding suburbs.

In addition to the Rifkin and "coffee fund" scandals, the university has been grappling with the fallout from the death of a freshman in November after excessive drinking at a fraternity party. Nearly two dozen fraternity members were charged with hazing crimes, while the student's family has suggested that administrators turned a blind eye to hazing among its Greek organizations.

Tribune reporter Annie Sweeney contributed. jscohen@tribune.com sstclair@tribune.com

Man falsely accused of murder sues Aurora

Man falsely accused of murder sues Aurora

By Clifford Ward, Special to the Tribune

March 7, 2013

A man freed after spending more than a decade wrongly imprisoned for murder has sued Aurora, alleging police manipulated evidence that resulted in his conviction.

The federal civil suit was filed Tuesday in Chicago on behalf of Jonathan Grayson of Aurora, who was formerly known as Jonathan Moore. It names Aurora, along with eight police detectives involved in the investigation of the gang slaying for which Grayson was imprisoned.

Grayson was released from prison last March after police and Kane County prosecutors learned of new evidence that suggested Grayson was wrongly convicted. Kane County State's Attorney Joe McMahon had the murder charge vacated, freeing Grayson.

The suit alleges serious flaws in the initial investigation.

"Mr. Grayson's wrongful conviction rested solely on fabricated evidence and false testimony that the defendants secured through manipulation and coercion," according to the suit.

Aurora officials declined to comment Wednesday.

Grayson was convicted in 2002 of killing Shawn Miller of Montgomery, who was shot to death outside an Aurora laundromat on Aug. 24, 2000.

Police arrested Grayson, then known as Moore, within 48 hours, based partly on eyewitness reports. Grayson admitted being at the scene, though he denied the shooting, according to police.

In April 2011, an informant told Aurora police he was at the scene and that Grayson was not the gunman. That led police to reopen the case.

Grayson, 31, is currently facing criminal charges in Kane County, where he was charged last month with two counts of felony aggravated battery.

According to court records, he is free on $500 cash bond.

There has not been an arrest in Miller's slaying.

triblocaltips@tribune.com

Secret Police in Phoenix????

Source

Phoenix to shield police radio traffic

Officials: Rise in listeners jeopardizing crime scenes

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Mar 7, 2013 11:25 PM

When Mike Ormandy was growing up in Indiana in the 1970s, it was not uncommon for the adults to gather at a home on a weekend evening to play cards and have a few drinks with an odd soundtrack in the background: police-scanner traffic.

The sounds of static and police-radio transmissions infected Ormandy with the scanner bug, and he brought it with him to Arizona, where he invested in high-powered antennas and radios to capture the sounds of emergency responders communicating in the field.

The proliferation of websites and smartphone applications that stream police-radio traffic to hundreds of thousands of users, and a handful of recent instances in which scanner listeners have beaten police to crime scenes, are threatening what Ormandy and others view as a hobby — one that is as much about public safety as it is about infotainment.

“It’s kind of nice for safety reasons to know when there’s something major going on. ... I think it keeps officers honest, and I really think the public listening allows them to have a respect for the kind of danger these guys face every day,” Ormandy said.

“Police want you to share what you see and not get involved. That’s where the smartphone users get it wrong. From what I’ve found, the biggest culprit is people listening on smartphones and hearing something big going on and running out to the scene.”

Phoenix police last month decided to encrypt emergency police-radio traffic related to crimes in progress, a move that will reduce by about 18 percent the agency’s scanner traffic audible to the public, said Sgt. Trent Crump, a department spokesman.

The decision for Phoenix to encrypt more dispatch calls and conversations between officers comes after recent incidents:

About an hour after a Jan. 30 office shooting in central Phoenix, police broadcast over their radios the address of a possible suspect’s home.

The information was picked up by media outlets and others monitoring scanners, and some posted the address on social-media sites. Media crews and others arrived at the home before police tactical teams could get there, Crump said, setting up to wait for the shooter, Arthur Harmon.

Police believe media coverage of his home may have caused Harmon to flee as he was on his way there, spurring a manhunt that ended the following morning when he was discovered dead in a Mesa parking lot. However, evidence found in Harmon’s rental car, including cash, hygiene products and clothes, could indicate that he had intended to go on the run after his carefully planned murders.

On Feb. 8, police responded to a home-invasion call in west Phoenix where the suspects turned out to be juveniles, including a 16-year-old boy who was fatally shot by the homeowner. Police broadcast information about the suspects, including the school they attended, over their radios, prompting some media members to go to the school and attempt to interview students and staff even before investigators had arrived, Crump said.

On Feb. 11, police broadcast information about tactical positions and response plans as they closed in on a man suspected of robbing more than a dozen pharmacies and grocery stores, potentially jeopardizing their ability to capture the “Calligraphy Bandit,” Crump said. Tomas Garcia-Mancinas was arrested without incident. That day, police administrators made the decision to move more calls to encrypted channels, Crump said.

The California manhunt for fugitive ex-police officer Christopher Dorner brought the issue into sharp focus nationally on Feb. 12, after police were reportedly heard on radios discussing plans to burn the cabin Dorner was hiding in. A California sheriff later denied that the fire was intentionally set and said police used pyrotechnic tear gas called “burners” in an attempt to flush Dorner from the cabin.

“I think a lot of police agencies looked at that in horror realizing that this website Radio Reference had their agency on a worldwide Internet feed,” Ormandy said. “The natural response is to go ahead and encrypt it and keep it all secret.”

Crump said the Phoenix police decision was simply about safety for officers and the public.

“There are several large agencies across the nation that have gone completely encrypted, and more agencies are going in this direction because of the low cost and the ease for suspects to (otherwise) have this access,” he said.

The digital system that opened up a host of new radio channels for Phoenix police and fire agencies and allowed for easy encryption was part of a $120 million upgrade in 2004.

Other Valley cities acquired similar systems at the same time, and many took advantage of the new technology to begin securing calls on crimes in progress, conversations between detectives and tactical calls on private frequencies.

It was a sign of things to come.

“Back when they had the old system and you could put an antenna up and hear basically everything that happened — detectives doing surveillance, car-to-car stuff — I’m sure they longed for the day when they had more security,” Ormandy said.

Phoenix initially followed the lead of other agencies and encrypted those same calls at the time, Crump said, but it opened up some calls shortly after. Still, a lot has changed in the past nine years, he said.

“A scanner used to sit on a desktop and have an antenna on the roof. Now, everyone is on the move with us with their smartphone,” Crump said. “Those that we’re fighting against have the same access.”

Lindsay Blanton, founder and president of a company that broadcasts police-radio traffic over the Internet, wrote on his website that police arguments about emerging technology interfering with their work have been around for decades.

“In the ’90s, when an agency did go encrypted and members of the media and public complained, the standard response from the agencies was, ‘Hey, any criminal can go down to Radio Shack and purchase a scanner to listen to all our comms,’” Blanton wrote. “Now, that argument has just shifted to ‘Anyone with a smartphone can.’”

But as emerging technology threatens to close one door that allowed public access to what police are doing on a day-to-day basis, it will likely open others, though the access won’t be as instant as scanners.

Police departments in Phoenix, Mesa, Surprise and Peoria are among the agencies testing or implementing digital cameras that officers wear to record virtually everything an officer does during a shift.

And police-scanner traffic will still be available several weeks or months after most incidents through Arizona’s Public Records Law.

“Everything techwise has gotten more and more efficient for the user. But by the same token, we can’t have it jeopardizing our work,” Crump said. “This doesn’t eliminate transparency. You can still ask for any radio tape you want.”

Louis Taylor framed by the Tucson PD for murder and arson??? Probably!!!!

Source

New trial sought by man convicted in 1972 for deadly Tucson hotel fire

Associated Press Thu Mar 7, 2013 9:57 PM

TUCSON A fire investigator who reviewed evidence available from a 1970 hotel fire in Tucson that killed 29 people says he can’t tell what caused the fire.

Attorneys for the man convicted of setting the fire say the investigator’s report supports their request for a new trial for Louis Taylor. The 59-year-old is serving 28 concurrent life sentences for the Pioneer Hotel fire.

A Pima County prosecutor said the original fire investigator still believes the fire was arson, however. The prosecutor also said the Fire Department investigator didn’t have access to evidence that has been destroyed.

Numerous people were trapped in the 11-story hotel by a fire that broke out on the fourth floor. Fire-truck ladders couldn’t reach the upper floors.

Some of the victims died leaping from windows; others burned to death or died of carbon-monoxide poisoning. One victim died nine months later of injuries suffered in the fire.

Taylor, then 16, was arrested immediately and convicted in 1972 after a seven-week trial.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, Taylor’s lawyers want either Taylor’s convictions overturned or an evidence hearing held. They say defense experts would testify that modern science does not support concluding that the fire was arson.

“No reasonable jury would have convicted” Taylor if jurors had been privy to fire investigator Wayne Cummings’ recent findings, Taylor’s attorneys from the Arizona Justice Project said in court documents.

Because it’s unknown exactly where the fire started and because of the “lack of elimination of all accidental fire causes, a fire cause determination is not possible reviewing the material provided to me,” Cummings said.

Cummings said he reviewed electronic and paper records from the case.

The defense team also alleged prosecutors engaged in misconduct by not giving defense attorneys a laboratory report that said no accelerants were found and by talking to the judge without defense attorneys present.

Prosecutors have until March 25 to file a response in writing, but Deputy County Attorney Rick Unklesbay said the original fire investigator still believes the fire was purposely set.

Also, Cummings didn’t have access to a great deal of evidence because it’s been destroyed, Unklesbay said.

Much of the evidence in the case was destroyed in the 1990s or disappeared after civil attorneys took possession of it when they sued the hotel, Unklesbay said.

Politicians making it harder for us to recall them?

Politicians passing a retroactive law making it harder to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

But when you look at how our government masters actually operate, it looks more like they consider themselves royal rulers who have a God given right to micromanage our lives and steal our money.

In this article it sounds like these royal rulers are attempt to change the recall process making it more difficult for us serfs to recall them.

This law also seems to be an attempt by our royal rulers to prevent us from recalling Sheriff Joe, or to help Sheriff Joe get reelected if he is recalled.

Source

Arizona recall bill could aid targeted politicians

By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Mar 8, 2013 12:44 AM

Arizona’s recall elections would take on a partisan cast that could help the targeted politician survive under a bill approved by the state House of Representatives on Thursday.

According to its critics, House Bill 2282 also could cut a break to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is the target of an ongoing recall drive. A last-minute amendment would make the changes retroactive to Jan.1, which would cover the period within which the Arpaio recall was launched.

The bill would carve out a primary and general election from the recall process, which currently consists of a single election in which all candidates compete and all voters cast ballots.

Most political observers believe the two-step process would help the recalled official, since a primary election could clear out the challenger most likely to appeal to voters from all parties. For example, former Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, lost in a 2011 recall election to a more moderate Republican who had Republican and Democratic support. It was widely believed a Democrat could not defeat him, given the political makeup of his legislative district.

Republican lawmakers argued the bill simply makes recall elections mirror the same process by which other candidate elections are conducted.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who added the retroactive clause, said the failure last fall of the single-primary ballot measure only reinforces the argument for the bill. Proposition 121 would have scrapped partisan primaries and made all candidates compete in the same election, regardless of party. Voters rejected it by a ratio of 2 to 1.

“This is just an extension of that mandate,” Kavanagh said.

But Democrats argued the framers of Arizona’s Constitution carefully considered the issue and decided a single recall election was needed.

That’s because in a recall election, voters are deliberating whether to retain a given politician, and not doing a rerun of a candidate vs. candidate competition, said Rep. Andrew Sherwood, D-Tempe.

“It is sufficiently difficult to recall an official,” he said, noting only one lawmaker — former Senate President Pearce — has been recalled in the state’s 101 years. There’s no need to change the process, he said.

Besides, the bill doesn’t address what would happen if the recalled official loses in a primary, Sherwood said. Would that person’s name advance to the general election ballot, so all voters could decide? If so, isn’t that what the recall system does already? he asked.

Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, introduced the bill this year after seeing it fail to become law last year. In 2012, the bill passed both the House and Senate, but foundered in a conference committee, where lawmakers tried to reconcile differences in their respective versions of the bill.

This year’s version passed the House on a 36-23 party-line vote, with Republicans in support and Democrats opposed. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.

Reach the reporter at 602-444-8963.

Police defend handcuffing of 8 year old student

Source

Police defend handcuffing of special-needs student

Associated Press Fri Mar 8, 2013 9:23 AM

ALTON, Ill. — Police administrators in the Mississippi River city of Alton say officers acted properly when they arrested and handcuffed an 8-year-old special needs student they say was having a tantrum in school.

KMOX reports that police say they had no choice in restraining the child Tuesday because the girl had taken a swing at a Loy Joy Elementary School resource officer and damaged two classrooms.

The school district’s assistant superintendent also is siding with police. Kristie Baumgartner says that when a student potentially becomes a harm to themselves or others and contacting specialists or the parents don’t help, on rare occasions police are contacted.

The girl’s family isn’t satisfied, saying the child didn’t get the adequate care and treatment she deserves and that she was treated like a criminal.

After 2 years behind bars without trial, N.M. man to get $15.5 million

Source

After 2 years behind bars without trial, N.M. man to get $15.5 million

By Marisa Gerber

March 8, 2013, 6:30 a.m.

A New Mexico man who spent nearly two years behind bars without trial will receive a $15.5-million settlement because a federal jury decided that his rights to adequate medical attention and due process had been violated.

During the time Stephen Slevin, 58, spent in solitary confinement at Doña Ana County Detention Center, his mental and physical health deteriorated so severely that he spent hours on end rocking back and forth beneath a blanket, his attorney told the Los Angeles Times. Slevin even wiggled a tooth loose so he could yank it out, Matt Coyte said.

“They treated him in a manner that was inhumane,” he said. “They treated him worse than an animal.”

Slevin's legal troubles began in August 2005, when he was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and driving a stolen car -- a vehicle he says he borrowed from a friend. Slevin also suffered from depression and alcoholism, Coyte said.

Authorities soon put Slevin in solitary confinement. He scrawled his symptoms -- panic attacks, shakes, trouble sleeping -- and his pleas for help on little pieces of paper and gave them to jail employees, Coyte said.

No help came, and by the beginning of 2006, Slevin had stopped asking. By then, he had spiraled into delirium, Coyte said.

“Solitary confinement does drive you nuts,” the attorney said. “He was no longer able to advocate for himself.”

Slevin's sister, who lives out of state, called the jail several times to try to get her brother help, to no avail, Coyte said.

After about a year and a half, officials sent Slevin to a psychiatric hospital in Las Vegas, N.M., court documents show. He weighed 133 pounds and his nearly 6-foot frame was covered in bedsores and fungus, according to his court complaint. Stringy, long hair flowed over his unkempt white beard.

After two weeks of medical attention and human interaction, Slevin was “almost back to being a normal human being,” Coyte said.

In May 2007, about a month before his release from custody, Slevin was returned to solitary confinement at the Doña Ana County jail, court documents show. The reason is unclear.

Prosecutors eventually decided Slevin was incompetent to stand trial and dropped the charges, Coyte said.

“He was a pretrial detainee the entire time,” the attorney said. “He was never convicted.”

County spokesman Jess Williams told The Times that the offices of then-Dist. Atty. Susana Martinez, who is now governor, and the public defender were responsible for the extended timetable. The Third Judicial District attorney’s office didn’t return a call for comment, but in an interview after the jury verdict last year, then-Dist. Atty. Amy Orlando told ABC-7 that the duration of detention in Levin’s case was not unique.

"Twenty-two months [in a detention center] for someone who has possible mental health issues is not unreasonable at all,” she said. “Because we can't just say, 'Go back out on the streets.' They need treatment, they need help.’”

And if they are incompetent to assist in their own defense, they cannot be brought to trial.

For Coyte, that reasoning doesn't suffice.

“Does that excuse them for treating him the way they did, just because the legal system takes a long time?” he said. “No, it does not.”

After Slevin's release in 2007, he reached out to several local attorneys, including Coyte, who took the case to federal court.

A federal jury in Santa Fe decided last year that jail warden Christopher Barela had violated Slevin’s rights to humane conditions and adequate medical attention and had deprived him of due process, according to a verdict form the panel filled out.

Slevin was awarded $22 million, but the county appealed. The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered mediation, the Associated Press reported.

The $15.5-million settlement was announced this week. In a statement posted on its website Thursday, the county said Barela had been “released from personal liability in the verdict.”

The settlement will consume a hefty portion of the city’s $160-million annual budget. The New Mexico Assn. of Counties will pay $6 million and the rest will come from Doña Ana’s cash reserves.

“In the wake of this large settlement, we can say definitively that we have learned from the past,” Williams said in a statement. “We can also say with confidence that we are leading the way for the future.”

Coyte said he hoped Slevin’s story -- and the sizable settlement -- would make officials across the country think twice before mistreating an inmate.

“Hopefully it’s a large enough number that people who run jails around America start to take notice,” he said. “You’re going to find a lot of people suffering like Stephen was. Perhaps there’s some incentive to let them out.”

Slevin's life will never be the same, Coyte said: His client has had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder since his release.

“He’ll suffer that for the rest of his life,” Coyte said. “Much like anyone who’s been tortured.”

Undercover agent with mock bomb breaches airport security

Source

Undercover agent with mock bomb breaches airport security: report

7:51 a.m. CST, March 8, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An undercover agent with a fake explosive device in his pants was able to pass through two security checkpoints at the Newark, New Jersey airport, according to a media report on Friday.

The incident, reported by the New York Post, occurred February 25 at the Newark Liberty International Airport as part of a training drill for the Transportation Security Administration.

The TSA would not confirm the report or the specific incident but said it regularly conducts covert testing.

"Due to the security-sensitive nature of the tests, TSA does not publicly share details about how they are conducted, what specifically is tested or the outcomes," it said.

"Regardless of the test's outcome, TSA officers are provided with immediate on-the-spot feedback so that they gain the maximum training value that the drills offer," the agency added.

The TSA is charged with screening passengers at major U.S. airports as part of sweeping security changes enacted after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

The agency was criticized this week over its decision to allow some previously banned items, such as small pocket knives and hockey sticks, back on board airplane cabins.

According to the New York Post, the undercover agent was part of a four-person team drill last month at Newark, a major airport near New York City, the main target of the 2011 attack.

The "bomber" had a mock improvised explosive device in his pants and was able to pass through a detector and even a patdown by a TSA agent, allowing him to get to the airport gate and, in theory, board a plane, the newspaper said.

In 2009, an al Qaeda-linked man tried to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit with a bomb hidden in a his underwear, but the plan was botched when the device failed.

Afterward, the TSA increased its use of full-body scanners to better detect explosives underneath clothing. It has since replaced the scanners with ones that allow more privacy with less life-like images.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Deborah Charles; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Deadly Drugs: What You Need to Know About Bath Salts and Spice

Source

Mesa workshop offers parents information on ‘deadly drugs’

Posted: Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:49 am

Tribune

Mesa Unified School District’s Parent University will offer a workshop on current drug patterns later this month.

“Deadly Drugs: What You Need to Know About Bath Salts and Spice” is free, but advance registration is required. Parents can bring their teens and preteens to the event.

Register at mpsaz.org/parentu using class code 11302. It will be held 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. March 26 at Fremont Junior High auditorium, 1001 N. Power Road, Mesa. Community Bridges will present the event.

For more information, call Jan Umhay, Parent University specialist, (480) 308-7309.

Tennessee police chief’s polygraph screens racist applicants

Source

Tennessee police chief’s polygraph screens racist applicants

By Sheila Burke Associated Press Fri Mar 8, 2013 8:56 PM

COOPERTOWN, Tenn. -- A police chief hired to rebuild a tiny Tennessee department dismantled by scandal is using a lie-detector test to keep racists off his force.

Coopertown Police Chief Shane Sullivan took over the department in November, becoming the 11th chief in as many years. He was hired on the heels of a series of police scandals that for a few months left Coopertown with no police at all. Years before that, a mayor was voted out of office after the local prosecutor accused him of racism and running a notorious speed trap.

Law enforcement experts say Sullivan’s polygraph approach is unusual, though some departments use the devices for other purposes during the application process. Others try to root out bias in other ways. One polygraph expert warned that lie detectors can’t accurately predict racism for reasons that include people’s inability to recognize their own racism.

Sullivan said he doubts racists will even apply for the force if they know about the tests.

“I think the polygraph will definitely keep these people from applying,” the 39-year-old chief said.

And he believes the policy is working, because he says it’s already discouraged some applicants. “I’ve told a couple of ones about the polygraph who have not called me back.”

Before Sullivan’s hiring, the sheriff’s department had overseen law enforcement in the town 30 miles northwest of Nashville while the department was temporarily disbanded.

Officer caught on camera

First, the only full-time patrolman was fired over a road rage incident. Then the reserve officer was dismissed after a dashboard camera captured him using a racial slur to describe a black motorist. The dash cam video was later aired in the media. Soon after that, the police chief quit.

Coopertown Mayor Sam Childs said the chief resigned because of the “predatory media.”

The rural community of about 4,000 people that is 95 percent white earned a reputation as a notorious speed trap, with about a third of its revenue coming from speeding tickets handed out by city police during the former mayor’s tenure. In 2006, the National Motorists Association said Coopertown had one of the most “blatant examples of speed traps in the country.” It stopped after a prosecutor filed a petition against the mayor in 2006. Its 25 squares miles encompass significant stretches of Interstate 24 and another highway that drivers use to cut through to Interstate 65.

In 2006, the county prosecutor asked a court to oust then-Mayor Danny Crosby on allegations he was running a speed trap and ordering police to target Hispanics, out-of-towners and soldiers from nearby Fort Campbell, Ky., for traffic tickets.

Mayor voted out

Although an appellate court agreed with a lower court’s finding that Crosby’s conduct and statements were strongly suggestive of “bigotry, sexism or utter foolishness,” it refused to remove him. Crosby was later voted out of office and the speed trap is gone.

One lifelong resident said he’s fed up with the city government and the police department making the town look bad.

“It’s put a black eye on the city,” Wayne Brown said of Coopertown’s controversies. Brown, a mechanic and football coach, said he thinks there should be no city government or police department because they aren’t providing any services.

“Other than writing speeding tickets, they don’t do anything for us.” Brown said of the department.

Az Legislature tries to keep Sheriff Joe Arpaio from being recalled???

Legislature acts to boost Arpaio’s chances in recall

On Wednesday, anti-Joe Arpaio forces announced that they are on track in their drive to recall the sheriff this fall. On Thursday, Arpaio got an early 81st birthday present from his friends the state Capitol.

The Arizona House passed a bill making it harder for the citizens of this state to exercise their constitutional right to recall elected officials.

Then they made the bill retroactive to Jan. 1.

Which would affect, oh I don’t know…..

One person. One.

Two things seem certain. Arpaio is really sweating this recall threat. The idea of going one-on-one against a challenger must terrify the guy who was once Arizona’s most popular politician.

And two, this bill, should it become law, will head to court faster than Joe can crank out a frantic fundraising plea about the “radical extremists” out to get him.

Attorney Tom Ryan — who fended off legal challenges and other dirty tricks in the Russell Pearce recall — on Friday pledged to sue the state should House Bill 2282 pass. The bill, he says, is “clearly unconstitutional.”

“This is not their job to protect Sheriff Joe,” he told me. “Their job is to protect the process and now they’re violating the process to protect the very man that many of them owe their political careers to. That’s shameful.”

Shameful, and transparently blatant.

The bill is brought to you by Rep. Steve Smith, the Maricopa Republican who last year spearheaded a sweet piece of work that would have reimbursed Russell Pearce $260,000 for his non-existent recall expenses. Even his fellow legislators lacked the chutzpah to go along with that scheme.

Now Smith is trying to add a primary election to the recall process, never mind that the Arizona Constitution calls for one special election and sets out how it’s supposed to work.

Had there been a primary in the Pearce recall, Pearce likely would have won. By forcing him to stand in a special election against another member of his own party, the Republican vote was split and his opponent, Jerry Lewis, prevailed.

Smith told the House Judiciary Committee last month that the Legislature has a constitutional duty to add a primary election to the recall process. He offered some tortured logic for why, ignoring the part of the Constitution that says “a special election shall be ordered” in the event of a recall.

“We’re starting to see a usurpation of our elections system through what I would call a loophole in our recall election law,” he said.

A usurpation? In 101 years, we’ve had one successful recall of a state officer.

Regardless, Smith’s bill passed on a party line 5-2 vote, and on Thursday Republicans sent it sailing over the Senate, 36-23.

But first Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, amended the bill to be retroactive to Jan. 1. If that sounds like special-interest legislation – which would, of course, be illegal – think again.

Kavanagh tells me he made the bill retroactive not because he wants to throw a lifeline to Arpaio but because he wants to abide by the wishes of voters, who in November rejected the top-two primary initiative.

“We have a mandate from the voters based upon the 2-to-1 defeat of Prop 121,” he said. “The voters said partisan elections need to stay partisan and that’s what this bill does and I wanted to make sure that what the voters said from then forward is what they get.”

The fact that he decided to make sure of that just 24 hours after Respect Arizona announced it has collected 120,000 valid signatures toward Arpaio’s recall is just coincidental, I suppose.

I wasn’t a fan of this recall, figuring that voters ought to have a reason to want to reconsider their vote before we spend $5.5 million on another election. But here’s the thing: the law allows it. If those 120,000 signatures are good and the group can raise the money to collect another 215,000 by May — no small feat – then a recall we should have.

Our founding fathers risked statehood to make sure of it. But don’t take my word for it.

When Pearce threw out a multitude of reasons for why his 2011 recall election should be cancelled – arguing that a tougher standard should apply to make it harder to recall elected officials — the Arizona Supreme Court sent him packing.

“The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1910 were willing to risk statehood over a robust recall system that subjected every official to removal,” Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch wrote, in a unanimous opinion. “Adopting a standard that makes it more difficult for the public to remove its own officers would frustrate that historical intent.”

Translation: if our leaders want to change Arizona Constitution – even for a pal — they should do it the old-fashioned way.

By asking our permission.

Federal court limits border searches of computers, other devices

Federal court limits border searches of computers, other devices

Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013 7:01 pm

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Setting bold new standards for digital searches, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that customs agents need "reasonable suspicion'' a crime has occurred before delving into the hidden files on someone's computer.

"A person's digital life ought not be hijacked simply by crossing a border, wrote Judge Margaret McKeown for the majority of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And she said it's appropriate to have a different standard for computer files than other items.

"When packing traditional luggage, one is accustomed to deciding what papers to take and what to leave behind,'' she wrote.

"When carrying a laptop, tablet or other device, however, removing files unnecessary to an impending trip is an impractical solution given the volume and often intermingled nature of the files,'' McKeown continued. And McKeown pointed out that, given the nature of digital files, simply "deleting'' them from the computer does not make them disappear, as they can remain on the hard drive -- and, as is the case here, be found with a forensic examination of that drive.

Friday's ruling also offers new protection in the era of "cloud computing,'' where files are not held within a computer but on a remote server, presents different issues. That makes the computer the access point to that data, with McKeown comparing it to a key to a safe deposit box.

"Notably, although the virtual 'safe deposit box' does not itself cross the border, it may appear as a seamless part of the digital device when presented at the border,'' she wrote. "With access to the cloud through forensic examination, a traveler's cache is just a click away from the government.''

McKeown acknowledged that travelers have a "diminished expectation of privacy'' at the border. And she said international travelers expect their property will be searched.

"What they do not expect is that, absent some particularized suspicion, agents will mine every last piece of data on their devices or deprive them of their most personal property for days (or perhaps weeks or even months, depending on how long the search takes),'' she wrote. "Such a thorough and detailed search of the most intimate details of one's life is a substantial intrusion upon personal privacy and dignity.''

But the ruling, which establishes the legal standards that now apply in Arizona and eight other the Western states within the 9th Circuit, provides no help to Howard Cotterman, whose case the judges were reviewing.

They concluded that Border Patrol agents did in this case have reasonable suspicion to examine his hard drive. And that allows Cotterman, who has been locked up since 2009 -- he had initially fled the country -- to be prosecuted in federal court on charges of child pornography.

His attorney, William Kirchner, said he was studying the ruling on Friday but said he likely will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friday's ruling drew fire from Judge Consuelo Callahan who filed a dissent.

"The majority's new limits on the government's border search authority will make it much harder for border agents to do their jobs,'' she wrote. duh!!! That's the whole purpose of the 4th Amendment!!!!!]

Callahan said it is "common knowledge'' that agents at security checkpoints do more thorough searches not only of those who arouse suspicion but also on a random basis.

"Otherwise, a person who appears entirely innocent will have nothing to fear and will not be deterred from carrying something that should not be brought into the country,'' the judge wrote. "A checkpoint limited to searches that can be justified by articulable grounds for 'reasonable suspicion' is bound to be less effective.''

And Callahan said the ruling means "criminals now know they can hide their child pornography or terrorist connections in the recesses of their electronic devices'' knowing that border agents, faced with this new standard, will avoid conducting searches.

The case involves Howard and Maureen Cotterman who entered the country at Lukeville in 2007.

Following protocol, customs officials checked their names in a national database. There, they found that Cotterman had been convicted in California in 1992 of seven counts related to child molestation. Based on that, they sent the couple to a secondary inspection area.

A search of the vehicle revealed two laptops and three digital cameras. While the inspecting officer found no child pornography, he noted that several files were password protected.

The officers said they refused Cotterman's help fearing he could destroy any files. Instead, they took the laptops to Tucson.

Eventually, a specialist found what he said were 75 images of child pornography on the computer. Cotterman eventually fled to Australia but was indicted, after which he was extradited back to the United States.

U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins ruled that the images could not be used at trial. He said agents did not have a "reasonably particularized suspicion" of anything improper to conduct an extended search.

McKeown, however, said there was enough in this case to give agents cause to do the forensic search. That included not only his criminal background but also his frequent travels, coming from a country known for sex tourism as well as the password-protected files.

But she cautioned that last factor, by itself, is not enough, calling it "commonplace for business travelers, casual computer users, students and others to password protect their files.'' And she specifically said that protecting the entire computer with a password, versus individual files, cannot be a factor in determining whether there is reasonable suspicion to search.

"Using a password on a device is a basic means of ensuring that the device cannot be accessed by another in the event it is lost or stolen,'' McKeown wrote.

Chicago pays $4.5 million for police murder???

Payouts for alleged police misconduct up for council review

By Jeremy Gorner Tribune reporter

9:19 a.m. CST, March 9, 2013

Chicago taxpayers likely will pay $4.5 million to the family of a woman fatally shot by an off-duty police detective who opened fire on a man he said had pointed a gun at him.

The proposed lawsuit settlement on Monday's City Council Finance Committee agenda comes nearly a year after Rekia Boyd, 22, was shot in the back of the head by Detective Dante Servin in an alley behind his West Side house.

The committee also will consider a proposed $1.8 million settlement for yet another victim of disgraced ex-Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge and $515,000 for a woman injured in a traffic crash with an on-duty Chicago officer.

The settlements would bring to almost $44 million the amount the city has agreed to pay in just the first three months of 2013 to resolve lawsuits alleging misconduct by Chicago police.

Melvin Brooks, the lawyer for Boyd's estate, said Friday that her family was happy to avoid the court case.

"The family and the city were interested in getting this case resolved without years of litigation," he said. "The city recognized they had significant issues with this case. Ultimately, justice would have been delayed."

According to the lawsuit filed by Boyd's family, Servin was driving from the alley behind his home near West 15th Place and South Albany Avenue when he argued with a group of people that included Boyd. The group was walking in unseasonably warm weather at about 1 a.m. on March 21.

At the time, police alleged that Antonio Cross pointed a handgun at Servin before the detective announced he was a police officer and opened fire. The gunfire struck Cross in the hand and Boyd in the head. She died the following day.

Police have acknowledged that no weapon was found at the scene but contended that Cross left the scene for a short time after the shooting. Cross, who was charged with a misdemeanor count of aggravated assault, is awaiting trial.

Brooks said that Cross ran from the scene to flag down a passing squad car a block away and returned to within minutes. Brooks said Servin, the only person to discharge a weapon during the incident, fired about five shots.

"Antonio didn't know he was a cop," Brooks said of Servin. "All witnesses denied hearing Servin (say) ... he was working within the scope of his employment."

The Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates allegations of misconduct by Chicago police officers, referred the case to the Cook County state's attorney's office for possible criminal prosecution. The office declined comment Friday on the matter.

In one of the other proposed settlements, the city would pay $1.8 million to James Andrews, who spent nearly a quarter of a century in prison after he was beaten into confessing to two murders by detectives under Burge's command. Burge is serving 4½ years in prison for lying about the use of abuse and torture on criminal suspects.

Tribune reporter Hal Dardick contributed.

jgorner@tribune.com

Dope smugglers are targets on Obamas drone murder list???

The Drone Question Obama Hasn’t Answered

By RYAN GOODMAN

Published: March 8, 2013

THE Senate confirmed John O. Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Thursday after a nearly 13-hour filibuster by the libertarian senator Rand Paul, who before the vote received a somewhat odd letter from the attorney general.

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ ” the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., wrote to Mr. Paul. “The answer to that question is no.”

The senator, whose filibuster had become a social-media sensation, elating Tea Party members, human-rights groups and pacifists alike, said he was “quite happy with the answer.” But Mr. Holder’s letter raises more questions than it answers — and, indeed, more important and more serious questions than the senator posed.

What, exactly, does the Obama administration mean by “engaged in combat”? The extraordinary secrecy of this White House makes the answer difficult to know. We have some clues, and they are troubling.

If you put together the pieces of publicly available information, it seems that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat. Back in 2004, the Pentagon released a list of the types of people it was holding at Guantánamo Bay as “enemy combatants” — a list that included people who were “involved in terrorist financing.”

One could argue that that definition applied solely to prolonged detention, not to targeting for a drone strike. But who’s to say if the administration believes in such a distinction?

American generals in Afghanistan said the laws of war “have been interpreted to allow” American forces to include “drug traffickers with proven links to the insurgency on a kill list,” according to a report released in 2009 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then led by John Kerry, now the secretary of state.

The report went on to say that there were about 50 major traffickers “who contribute funds to the insurgency on the target list.” The Pentagon later said that it was “important to clarify that we are targeting terrorists with links to the drug trade, rather than targeting drug traffickers with links to terrorism.”

That statement, however, was not very clarifying, and did not seem to appease NATO allies who raised serious legal concerns about the American targeting program. The explanation soon gave way to more clues, and this time it was not simply a question of who had been placed on a list.

In a 2010 Fox News interview, under pressure to explain whether the Obama administration was any closer to capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, Mr. Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said that “we have gotten closer because we have been able to kill a number of their trainers, their operational people, their financiers.” That revelation — killing financiers — appears not to have been noticed very widely.

As I have written, sweeping financiers into the group of people who can be killed in armed conflict stretches the laws of war beyond recognition. But this is not the only stretch the Obama administration seems to have made. The administration still hasn’t disavowed its stance, disclosed last May in a New York Times article, that military-age males killed in a strike zone are counted as combatants absent explicit posthumous evidence proving otherwise.

Mr. Holder’s one-word answer — “no” — is not a step toward the greater transparency that President Obama pledged when he came into office, but has not delivered, in the realm of national security.

By declining to specify what it means to be “engaged in combat,” the letter does not foreclose the possible scenario — however hypothetical — of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on American soil. It also raises anew questions about the standards the administration has used in deciding to use drone strikes to kill Americans suspected of terrorist involvement overseas — notably Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Is there any reason to believe that military drones will soon be hovering over Manhattan, aiming to kill Americans believed to be involved in terrorist financing? No.

But is it well past time for the United States government to specify, precisely, its views on whom it thinks it can kill in the struggle against Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces? The answer is yes.

The Obama administration’s continued refusal to do so should alarm any American concerned about the constitutional right of our citizens — no matter what evil they may or may not be engaged in — to due process under the law. For those Americans, Mr. Holder’s seemingly simple but maddeningly vague letter offers no reassurance.

Ryan Goodman is a professor of law and co-chairman of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University.

Richard Nixon wished for total handgun ban

Source

Richard Nixon wished for total handgun ban

Associated Press Sat Mar 9, 2013 11:24 AM

WASHINGTON — Few presidents in modern times have been as interested in gun control as Richard Nixon, of all people. He proposed ridding the market of Saturday night specials, contemplated banning handguns altogether and refused to pander to gun owners by feigning interest in their weapons.

Several previously unreported Oval Office recordings and White House memos from the Nixon years show a conservative president who at times appeared willing to take on the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby then as now, even as his aides worried about the political ramifications.

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”

Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.” He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.

Nixon made his remarks in the Oval Office on May 16, 1972, the day after a would-be assassin shot and paralyzed segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace. As president, Nixon never publicly called for a ban on all handguns. Instead, he urged Congress to pass more modest legislation banning Saturday night specials, which were cheaply made, easily concealed and often used by criminals.

Not all of the president’s men appeared to share his passion on the issue. The recordings and memos show that Nixon administration officials saw gun control as a political loser.

Nixon, a Republican, did say publicly that if Congress passed a ban on Saturday night specials, he would sign it. But in a sign of how potent the NRA was even 40 years ago, this narrow piece of legislation never made it to his desk, and there is no sign that he ever sent a draft bill to Capitol Hill.

Today, President Barack Obama faces similar hurdles in trying to ban assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines. Gun control advocates say no one needs such powerful weapons to kill an intruder or take down an animal. In Nixon’s time, the argument of such advocates was that Saturday night specials were too poorly made to be relied on for self-defense or hunting.

“Let me ask you,” Nixon said to Attorney General John Mitchell in June 1971, “there is only one thing you are checking on, that’s the manufacture of those $20 guns? We should probably stop that.” Saturday night specials sold for $10 to $30 at the time. Mitchell responded that banning those guns would be “pretty difficult, actually,” because of the gun lobby.

“No hunters are going to use $20 guns,” Nixon countered.

“No, but the gun lobby’s against any incursion into the elimination of firearms,” said Mitchell.

The term Saturday night special originated in Detroit, where police observed the frequency with which the guns were used to commit weekend mayhem. Lynyrd Skynyrd memorialized the weapon in its 1975 song, “Saturday Night Special,” in which the Southern rock band sang: “Ain’t good for nothin’/But put a man six feet in a hole.”

Nixon’s private comments were not always supportive of gun control, particularly measures that would go beyond handguns. For example, in a taped conversation just a few days after saying that people shouldn’t have handguns, the president asked rhetorically, “What do they want to do, just disarm the populace? Disarm the good folks and leave the arms in the hands of criminals?”

But most of his comments on the tapes, available at the websites of the National Archives and of the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, were in favor of stronger gun control.

At a June 29, 1972, news conference, about six weeks after Wallace’s shooting, Nixon said he’d sign legislation banning Saturday night specials. Later that year, the Senate did pass such a bill, but the House never acted on the legislation.

The bill’s sponsor, Indiana Democrat Birch Bayh, said in a recent interview that the NRA helped prevent his bill from getting through Congress. The Nixon administration supported an unsuccessful Republican alternative Senate bill on Saturday night specials that had a definition the NRA preferred.

The shooting of another politician put gun control back on the radar the following year. On Jan. 30, 1973, two robbers shot Sen. John Stennis, D-Miss., and surgeons initially thought he would die. Stennis survived and lived until 1995.

The day of the shooting, Nixon told White House special counsel Charles Colson, “At least I hope that Saturday night special legislation, at least we’re supporting that, you know. We’re not for gun control generally, but we are for that. God damn it that ought to be passed. Or was it passed?”

When Colson told him it hadn’t, Nixon instructed his counsel, “We better damn well be for it now, huh?”

At a news conference the next day, the president repeated his call to ban Saturday night specials. He also volunteered a comment that few national politicians would make today: “Let me say, personally, I have never hunted in my life. I have no interest in guns and so forth.”

By March 1973, aide John Ehrlichman was telling Nixon that gun control was a “loser issue for us.”

“You’ve got a highly mobilized lobby,” he told the president. “I think what we have to do is carve out a little piece of it, and Saturday night specials, of course, has been our tactic.”

Other White House officials also argued against doing much, including Tom C. Korologos, a White House deputy assistant for legislative affairs who later was an outside lobbyist for the NRA and ambassador to Belgium under President George W. Bush.

“The thing that worries me is that the president’s hard-core support comes from the gun-folk and obviously we need support these days,” Korologos wrote in an Aug. 31, 1973 memo, referring to the Watergate scandal that would undo Nixon’s presidency.

“Lurking in the background is the president’s personal statement: ‘I’m a liberal on gun control,’” Korologos said. Nixon might have made this statement privately; there is no record of him saying it publicly.

Korologos’ conclusion: “I vote for a ‘talk’ meeting and then ‘tough it out’ by doing nothing and hope nobody gets shot in the next three years.”

The effort to ban Saturday night specials receded in recent decades as the focus of gun control advocates shifted to rein in more powerful weapons.

Nixon’s focus soon shifted, too.

In June 1972, a little over a month after his chat about banning handguns, Nixon had a recorded conversation that showed him trying to get the FBI to stop investigating the break-in at Democratic offices at the Watergate office building by burglars tied to his re-election committee.

Few remember the tapes about handguns. History forever remembers the tape that gave Nixon’s Watergate pursuers their “smoking gun.”

———

Follow Fred Frommer on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ffrommer

Google says the FBI is spying on some of you

Google says the FBI is spying on some of you

By Chris Gayomali | The Week

For millions of Americans, Google is the fabric that weaves the various threads of our digital lives together: Gmail, Gchat, Google Voice, search queries, YouTube, Maps, Chrome — you name it. So it shouldn't really come as a surprise that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has repeatedly tapped the tech company for otherwise-private information concerning a small percentage of Google's users.

But let's put it more plainly: The FBI has been spying on some of you.

In a new Transparency Report announced in an official blog post, Google has released previously unseen information about the number of National Security Letters (NSLs) it has received from the FBI in the past couple of years. According to Wired, these letters "allow the government to get detailed information on Americans' finances and communications without oversight from a judge." Needless to say, the FBI sends NSLs out all the time — hundreds of thousands of them, in fact — to internet service providers, banks, credit companies, and other businesses. Unsurprisingly, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have accused the FBI of abusing the letters' power post-9/11.

Until recently, it's been unlawful for a company to disclose when it has received an NSL. Now, thanks to a new deal with the Obama administration, Google is able to publish a broad range of instances in which it has received such FBI requests.

The table below provides a range of how many National Security Letters (NSLs) we've received and a range of how many of the uers/accounts were specified each year since 2009. For more information about NSLs, please refer to our FAQ. These ranges are not included in the total sum of user data requests that we report biannually

As you can see, Google says it receives between 0 and 999 NSLs from the government each year. In 2009, those letters contained requests asking for information concerning between 1,000 and 1,999 users/accounts. In 2010, the FBI was slightly busier — 2,000 to 2,999 different users/accounts were requested. Then in 2011 and 2012, that range dipped back down.

The search giant doesn't comply with every NSL it receives, and claims to carefully vet each request. "We review it carefully and only provide information within the scope and authority of the request," writes Google. "We may refuse to produce information or try to narrow the request in some cases." Google also says that the standard practice is to notify users when an NSL has been received concerning them, although the FBI has the power to nullify the disclosure if it may result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person."

You can read Google's Transparency Report for yourself here.

And it's worth remembering: The FBI and other government agencies can still access your email without a warrant as long as the information been stored on a third-party server for 180 days or more (per a convoluted and terribly antiquated 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act). A new email and phone tracking bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday seeks to make it harder for authorities to snoop around without a judge's order.

AG Holder - Obama OK to murder Americans with drones!!!!!

Source

Holder letter ignites new debate on drones

By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau

March 6, 2013, 7:07 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Can the president legally order a drone strike to kill an American on U.S. soil?

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote this week in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that he could envision "an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" to use such lethal force.

Those words touched off a heated debate Wednesday in the Senate over when and where the president can order the killing of U.S. citizens designated as "enemy combatants."

President Obama and his aides have said that targeted killings of Americans must be governed by some due process. But they have resisted public disclosure of their rules. Until this week, the administration had refused to allow even members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to read most of the legal opinions that justified the one known drone killing of an American, the attack on Anwar Awlaki in 2011 in Yemen.

The debate burst into public view on Capitol Hill. On the Senate floor, Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan to be the new director of the CIA, imploring colleagues to join him in criticizing Obama for refusing to rule out the use of lethal force against terrorism suspects in this country. Brennan has been a chief architect and defender of the administration's drone program.

"Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?" Paul asked. "No one person, no one politician should be allowed … to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything we fundamentally believe in our country."

Paul showed no sign of giving up, holding the floor for more than eight hours and continuing to talk into the night. He demanded a public promise from the White House to never target drones against Americans in the United States. Paul said that he was not objecting to the use of lethal force to repel an attack, but that the administration was claiming a far broader power.

"Do we want martial law in this country?" Paul asked, mocking the claim that the entire world could be considered a battlefield in the war against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. "The hell this is a battlefield! This is our country."

"If there was an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by others in telling the president that no president has the authority to kill Americans without trial," Paul declared to a near-empty chamber. As the afternoon wore on, his words appeared to have had an effect, as several Republican colleagues and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon joined the filibuster, delaying a final vote on Brennan's nomination at least until Thursday.

Simultaneously, Holder was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where senators tried to pin him down about the limits of the power the government was claiming.

In his letter, Holder had said he hoped "no president will ever have to confront" the need to order the killing of an American on U.S. soil.

But, he added, "it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." He mentioned the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, as a possible example.

That explanation did not satisfy several members of the committee. The letter "raises many questions for citizens on when the government can kill them," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) demanded to know what in the Constitution gives the president or anyone else the power to kill an American terrorist suspect "sitting quietly in a cafe in the U.S." who at that time is not posing an immediate threat.

After initially saying only that killing a suspect in that sort of circumstance would not be "appropriate," Holder eventually told Cruz that such an attack would not be constitutional. He also said that he expected Obama to speak more publicly about the issue soon. "I think there is a greater need for transparency —a greater need for appropriately sharing information — and we are struggling with how to do that, but it is something that the president feels strongly about," he said.

Although Republicans asked most of the questions, the issue did not break down cleanly on partisan lines.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) applauded the administration's drones policy. "In every war we've had, unfortunately, American citizens have sided with the enemy. They've been few in number, but that does happen," he said.

A battery of Patriot missiles now guards the U.S. Capitol against attack, he noted. "Let's go back in time," he said. "What would we all give to have those Patriot missile batteries available" on Sept. 11?

Using them to blow up one of the airliners aimed at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon "would have meant that we would have lost a planeload of American citizens, but we'd save thousands more. That's the world in which we live in," Graham said.

"I want to stand by you and the president to make sure that we don't criminalize the war and that the commander in chief continues to have the authority to protect us all," he told Holder. "And I've got a lot of my colleagues who are well-meaning, but there is only one commander in chief in our Constitution."

Holder, appearing uncomfortable before the committee, repeatedly told its members that his letter merely dealt with the unlikely possibility of an extreme event. He emphasized that there was no plan to broaden the administration's drone program to aim at targets inside the U.S.

"It's hard for me to imagine a situation where that would occur," he said.

Finding and isolating terrorists abroad is much harder than in the U.S., often making capturing a suspect impractical, he said. In the U.S. many law enforcement tools exist that allow officials to capture suspects without killing them.

"Thus the use of drones is entirely, entirely hypothetical" for this country, he said.

Holder added, "The government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States."

richard.serrano@latimes.com

Michael A. Memoli of the Washington Bureau contributed to this report.

House panel approves police destruction of seized medical marijuana

Source

House panel approves police destruction of seized medical marijuana

Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013 11:58 am

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | 7 comments

Rejecting the pleas of the state's former top federal prosecutor, a House panel voted Thursday to let police destroy marijuana they have seized even if it turns out the person had a right to possess it.

Melvin McDonald, who was the U.S. Attorney for Arizona in the early 1980s, told members of the Judiciary Committee that SB 1441 is an improper end-run around the 2010 voter approval of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. And he called the fear by police that they will be subject to prosecution under federal law if they give back the drugs "utter nonsense.''

McDonald admitted he is more than an idle bystander.

He told lawmakers of the seizures suffered by his stepson, Bennett Black, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a 1997 accident and eventually had to have part of his brain removed. McDonald said both the seizures and the pills designed to control them made Bennett sick and nauseous.

It was only when his wife, Cindy, began to get marijuana for their son -- illegally until the law was passed -- that he was actually able to eat and reverse the weight loss from 180 pounds to 118 pounds.

Committee members approved the measure anyway on a 5-3 party-line vote. Its fate, however, , remains uncertain.

Two of the Republicans who supported the legislation said they did so to give the full House a chance to weigh in. But they expressed concern with anything they believe undermines the 2010 law.

Rep. Ethan Orr of Tucson said he fears that the legislation could be used to effectively shut down an entire medical marijuana clinic by seizing the drugs, leaving its patients without their drugs while the clinic owners sought out a new supply.

And Rep. Doris Goodale of Kingman explained how she used to be against anyone using marijuana.

"I have come to realize through personal family situations that yes, there is an applicable use of medical marijuana,'' she said. Goodale also said she does not want to undermine the will of the public which created the program.

Those soft Republican votes are only part of the problem faced by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council which already has pushed the measure through the Senate.

Because the law was adopted by voters, it can be amended only with a three-fourths vote of each chamber. That means proponents have to convince 45 of the 60 House members to go along.

And Anjali Abraham with the American Civil Liberties Union said even that may not work.

She pointed out the Arizona Constitution allows legislators to tinker with voter-approved measures only when the "further the purpose'' of the original law. Abraham said allowing police to keep marijuana taken from patients does not do that.

The legislation is designed to overturn a ruling last year by the state Court of Appeals.

In that case, Valerie Okun, a California medical marijuana patient, was stopped by Border Patrol just inside Arizona. The agents took her marijuana and referred the case to the Yuma County Attorney's Office for prosecution.

The case was dropped after Okun eventually produced her California medical marijuana card. Arizona law, which allows those with a doctor's recommendation and a state-issued card to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks, provides similar recognition to patients from other states.

But when Okun demanded her marijuana back, the Yuma County Sheriff's Office refused, saying deputies would be violating federal laws which continue to make possession of marijuana a crime.

The appellate judges, however, said there is no danger of federal prosecution, at least in part because the deputies would be obeying a lawful court order.

That case is now on appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. But Kim MacEachern, lobbyist for the prosecutors, said lawmakers should make clear that marijuana, once seized, cannot be returned.

McDonald told lawmakers any concern about federal prosecution is "utter nonsense.''

"The Department of Justice has more issues on their plate than to worry about a deputy sheriff turning back to a lady marijuana that should have never been seized in the first place,'' he said. And he said the legislation lacks merit.

"It is nothing more than prosecutors trying to yet create another exception to allow them to do what the voters of the state of Arizona said you can't do,'' McDonald said. He said those who have medical marijuana need it to live.

"My boy does not eat without first taking the marijuana,'' he said.

MacEachern said the legislation still leaves patients with the option of filing a claim against the agency for the value of the drugs taken.

She also said the prosecutors' desire to destroy the drugs is not unprecedented. MacEachern said that's what happens with prescription drugs when police take it from individuals who cannot immediately prove they are entitled to possess them.

Senator Kimberly Yee wants to repeal Arizona's medical-marijuana laws

I suspect if you asked the Founders why they created the Second Amendment they would say to allow the people to protect themselves from tyrants like Sen. Kimberly Yee.

Of course the Founders are not here so we can't ask them.

On the other hand Sen. Kimberly Yee's desire to flush Arizona's medical marijuana law which is Prop 203 down the toilet is almost certainly unconstitutional and a slap in the face of the people that voted for it.

Source

Arizona senator aims to tighten medical-marijuana laws

By Lindsey Collom The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Mar 9, 2013 10:00 PM

Sen. Kimberly Yee has become the go-to legislator for bills involving Arizona’s medical-marijuana law.

The Phoenix Republican is the primary sponsor of three measures this session that would tighten what members in the law-enforcement community have identified as loopholes in the 2010 voter-mandated law as well as pave the way for university researchers to study the effects of medical marijuana.

Her bills give direction to law enforcement on what to do with medical marijuana that is seized during a criminal investigation (destroy it) and would require manufacturers to put warning labels on edible medical-marijuana products — ice cream and candy, items attractive to children — similar to those on cigarettes.

We recently spoke with Yee about her work involving the medical-marijuana act. Here’s an edited excerpt:

Question: All of your bills to modify the medical-pot law have passed through the Senate and are advancing in the House, unlike a repeal measure that went nowhere. Does that say something about legislators’ acceptance of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act?

Answer: A small majority of voters passed this medical-marijuana act in 2010, so clearly it was the will of the voters to proceed with medical marijuana in this state. I believe it is the legislators’ role at this point to close any loopholes that they see in the measure, and so that’s what we’re doing here. It’s certainly not in the same path as (the) one person who sponsored the bill in repealing the act altogether.

Q: Some critics say medical marijuana is the first step toward lawful recreational use. Is that where Arizona is headed?

A: I know there are some states that are moving towards recreational use of marijuana. I don’t believe that’s something this state should (do). The voters in Arizona voted for this medical- marijuana act because it was medically based, and that’s what these bills are about, keeping it medically based. I’m finding by talking to a number of individuals in Arizona they didn’t realize some of the other elements contained in the act. For instance, allowing any person of any age, even babies and children, to have medical-marijuana use. If they had known that, they may not have voted on it.

Q: In addressing medical marijuana, are you finding resistance among your own party?

A: In committee today I did — a Higher Education Committee in the House where at least one Republican gave indication that he was not supporting any bill that had the word marijuana in (it). I thought that was surprising because, clearly, these bills have the words contained in the act. Just because a person sponsors a medical-marijuana bill does not mean that you’re advancing medical marijuana in this state. In fact, if this legislator had actually read the bill, he would see that medical marijuana is actually being advanced in a way that voters intended.

Q: You got a little defensive.

A: Yes, I think he was indicating in his statements that if you have a bill that contains the word marijuana, you would be considered a liberal. And I found that to be shortsighted because legislators should actually open the bills, read them and look at the policy within that bill. And if this particular member had done that, they would see this bill is about medical research, very tight scientific studies that are approved not only by our federal government, but our state universities in a very specified and secure setting. And I wouldn’t have been the sponsor of this bill otherwise, without all of those restrictions on the bill and ensuring that we do look at medical research in this area. And I think what’s important about this that is we may find, after our research is conducted at our universities, that we’ll be able to better understand both the positive and negative effects of medical marijuana. But we really can’t proceed blindly and continue forward in a public-policy setting without this very important information.

Q: Are you a medical-marijuana cardholder?

A: No, I’m not a cardholder. I carry a lot of bills. These are just four of them. These are health and public safety related, and education obviously. So the bills I sponsor run the gamut, and I think that’s a good broad scope. We need to carefully select the bills we sponsor and that’s what I do.

Q: Anything else?

A: I think it’s important for voters to know that as we have these types of statewide ballot initiatives, to really read them and get a full extent of what they’re about. As we’ve seen in the medical- marijuana act, there were a number of loopholes that weren’t ready for prime time. As a result, the Legislature, in the third year after the measure passed, has had to look to see how we can better implement this medical-marijuana law in Arizona. And also for voters to understand what was in this medical-marijuana act that has caused some concern. For instance, I think it would be important to let readers know the medical-marijuana act allowed for infants and young children to have access to medical marijuana. I don’t think voters realized there was no age restriction. Regardless, the voters in Arizona passed this as a slight majority, and that’s where we are today.

Exonerated US man wins civil rights suit, $13.2M

Source

Exonerated US man wins civil rights suit, $13.2M

Associated Press Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:33 AM

CINCINNATI -- The tears flowed as a federal jury exonerated David Ayers of murder after he spent 13 years in prison, with jurors finding that two police detectives violated his civil rights by coercing and falsifying testimony and withholding evidence supporting his innocence. The jurors awarded him $13.2 million.

The verdict on Friday, including the money for Ayers’ pain and suffering, brings an end to the legal battle he’s been fighting since his arrest in the 1999 killing of 76-year-old Dorothy Brown.

Ayers, 56, was released from prison in 2011 after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed his conviction and the state decided not to seek another trial.

Ayers, who was a security guard for the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, had been found guilty of killing Brown at her CMHA apartment in Cleveland. She was found bludgeoned to death, covered in defensive wounds and naked from the waist down; she also had been robbed. DNA testing later proved that a pubic hair found in her mouth did not come from Ayers.

“This should have been stopped a long time ago,” Ayers told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper after the jury’s verdict Friday. “My goal is that it never happens to anyone else ever again.”

A phone number listed for Ayers did not accept messages Saturday.

Ayers filed a civil rights lawsuit in March 2012 against six Cleveland police officers, the city and the county housing authority. Allegations against three of the officers, the city and the housing authority were dismissed by a judge who found that their roles did not violate Ayers’ rights.

One of the remaining officers settled out of court with Ayers for an undisclosed amount. The Friday verdict was against Michael Cipo and Denise Kovach, who were the lead investigators in the case.

Kovach and Cipo could not be reached for comment. They have denied misconduct.

Phone and email requests for comment with Cleveland police and the three city attorneys who represent Cipo and Kovach were not immediately answered Saturday. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that attorney Rachel Steinback of Chicago, who represented Ayers, said the city is self-insured so the award will come from taxpayer money, not an insurance company.

Among the most serious allegations by Ayers against Kovach and Cipo were that the two detectives conspired with each other to fabricate a confession that he never made, coerced a friend of Ayers to lie by saying that Ayers had told him of the murder before Brown’s body was discovered, and gave key information about the crime to Ayers’ prison cellmate so he could later testify against Ayers about an admission he didn’t make.

In an August filing, Cipo and Kovach argued to have the lawsuit dismissed, saying that they acted in good faith and with probable cause, and that Ayers was responsible for any alleged injuries that he incurred.

Federal Judge James Gwin denied their request late last month shortly before the trial, ruling that Ayers had produced sufficient evidence that the detectives had violated his rights.

———

Follow Amanda Lee Myers on Twitter at https://twitter.com/AmandaLeeAP

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick convicted of racketeering conspiracy, corruption

Jury convicts ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of racketeering conspiracy, corruption

By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, March 11, 8:28 AM

DETROIT — Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted Monday of corruption charges, ensuring a return to prison for a man once among the nation’s youngest big-city leaders.

Jurors convicted Kilpatrick of a raft of crimes, including a racketeering conspiracy charge that carries a maximum punishment of 20 years behind bars. He was portrayed during a five-month trial as an unscrupulous politician who took bribes, rigged contracts and lived far beyond his means while in office until fall 2008.

Kilpatrick wore a surprised, puzzled look at times as U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds read the jury’s verdict: guilty of 24 charges, not guilty on three and no consensus on three more. Kilpatrick declined to speak to reporters as he left the courthouse.

Prosecutors said Kilpatrick ran a “private profit machine” out of Detroit’s City Hall. The government presented evidence to show he got a share of the spoils after ensuring that Bobby Ferguson’s excavating company was awarded millions in work from the water department.

Business owners said they were forced to hire Ferguson as a subcontractor or risk losing city contracts. Separately, fundraiser Emma Bell said she gave Kilpatrick more than $200,000 as his personal cut of political donations, pulling cash from her bra during private meetings. A high-ranking aide, Derrick Miller, told jurors that he often was the middle man, passing bribes from others.

Internal Revenue Service agents said Kilpatrick spent $840,000 beyond his mayoral salary.

Ferguson, Kilpatrick’s pal, was also convicted of a racketeering conspiracy charge. The jury could not reach a verdict on the same charge for Kilpatrick’s father, Bernard Kilpatrick, but convicted him of submitting a false tax return.

Kwame Kilpatrick, who now lives near Dallas, declined to testify. He has long denied any wrongdoing, and defense attorney James Thomas told jurors that his client often was showered with cash gifts from city workers and political supporters during holidays and birthdays.

The government said Kilpatrick abused the Civic Fund, a nonprofit fund he created to help distressed Detroit residents. There was evidence that it was used for yoga lessons, camps for his kids, golf clubs and travel.

Kilpatrick, 42, was elected in 2001 at age 31. He resigned in 2008 and pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in a different scandal involving sexually explicit text messages and an extramarital affair with his chief of staff.

The Democrat spent 14 months in prison for violating probation in that case after a judge said he failed to report assets that could be put toward his $1 million restitution to Detroit.

Voters booted his mother, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, from Congress in 2010, partly because of a negative perception of her due to her son’s troubles.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Dr. Patterson - It's time to legalize marijuana!!!

Source

Patterson: GOP should lead movement on marijuana

East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.

Posted: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:15 am

Guest Commentary by Tom Patterson

Republicans should get out front for once and lead the movement to legalize marijuana. It makes sense any way you look at it.

“Medical marijuana” has turned out to be the farce that many of us suspected. Patients with glaucoma, AIDS and cancer were shamelessly paraded as the poster children for the initiative, yet they make up less than 10 percent of the patients at the marijuana dispensaries. The bulk of the clientele is 18- to 30-year-old males with “pain” and “mood disorder” problems that can’t be proved or disproved.

One naturopath alone has written thousands of prescriptions. High school students are ending up with a lot of the pot. The feds won’t promise not to prosecute and when state legislators discuss doing something about this mess, the howl of “defying the will of the people” starts up.

So what could be a better time to take a different tack and do what a growing number of Americans want anyway: legalize, regulate and tax it. Policymakers seem still influenced by “Reefer Madness”, the movie that ludicrously exaggerated claims of marijuana’s supposed tendencies to turn users into crazed maniacs.

In fact, marijuana is safer and has fewer bad consequences than alcohol. Alcohol claims an estimated 76,000 lives per year while marijuana advocates claim that pot has “never killed anyone”.

I doubt that’s strictly true, but in my emergency physician days, dealing with alcohol problems – auto accidents, domestic abuse, end-stage liver disease – was part of the daily grind. Hard drugs also commonly caused sickness and death but marijuana just never came up.

Every substance on earth can cause harm if abused or taken in excess. But, unlike alcohol, marijuana doesn’t stimulate aggressive behavior or cause “mean drunks”. And while chronic, heavy use may induce apathy, medically speaking there is no such thing as marijuana addiction or fatal overdoses. When we try to scare teens by claiming that marijuana is worse than it is, we look foolish and untrustworthy.

Many understandably worry about the effect of legalization on teenagers. But our current drug laws don’t work now to protect teens, who report that pot is easier to get than beer. In fact, drinking and cigarette smoking have dropped by 10 percent among high school seniors over the last five years, while pot smoking has risen by 23 percent. More teenagers smoke pot here than the Netherlands, where it is legal for adults.

Others worry about marijuana being a “gateway drug” to the hard stuff. But there’s no medical reason why pot should lead to hard drugs. In fact, it’s likely that if marijuana were purchased from a pharmacy rather than an illegal drug seller, the probability of being graduated to addictive drugs would be reduced.

More importantly, marijuana is a freedom issue. In a free society (that’s still us, isn’t it?), we have a natural right to do what we want with their own bodies. We don’t have to prove to government that is healthy or safe. In fact, it’s government that has the heavy burden of proof to show that our behavior is harmful to others to justify criminalizing it. That’s mighty hard to do.

But here’s the clincher. Even for those who believe on balance that there is some to benefit of criminalizing marijuana, we can’t afford it. At a time when government is flat broke, the War on Pot is estimated to cost $42 billion annually in direct expenses of enforcement, adjudication and incarceration. That doesn’t even include the massive human costs to the 700,000 arrested each year for marijuana offenses, much less the horrible toll of financially supporting the murderous drug cartels who control marijuana distribution.

We could end all this and use the money instead to reduce public debt or lower taxes while controlling marijuana use and abuse. It wouldn’t have to work perfectly to be far better than what we have today.

Republicans can get on the right side of a freedom and finance issue that is massively popular with the youth demographic. What are they waiting for?

East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.

Judge strikes down NYC rule on sugary-drinks size

Source

Judge strikes down NYC rule on sugary-drinks size

Associated Press Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:50 PM

NEW YORK — A judge struck down New York City’s groundbreaking limit on the size of sugar-laden drinks Monday shortly before it was set to take effect, agreeing with the beverage industry and other opponents that the rule is arbitrary in applying to only some sweet beverages and some places that sell them. .

“The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of this rule,” Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling wrote.

Further, the Board of Health went beyond its authority in approving the size limit, he said. The restriction was supposed to start Tuesday.

“The portion cap rule, if upheld, would create an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of powers doctrine,” by straying into territory that should belong to the elected City Council, not the board appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Tingling wrote.

That, he wrote, “has the potential to be more troubling than sweetened beverages.

The city Board of Health approved the measure in September. Championed by Bloomberg, it follows on other efforts his administration has made to improve New Yorkers’ eating habits, from compelling chain restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus to barring artificial trans fats in restaurant food to prodding food manufacturers to use less salt.

The city has said that while restaurant inspectors would start enforcing the soda size rule in March, they wouldn’t seek fines — $200 for a violation — until June.

Soda makers, restaurateurs, movie theater owners and other business groups sued, asking a judge to declare the measure invalid. In February, they asked Tingling to bar the city from enforcing the regulation while the suit played out.

City officials have called the size limit a pioneering move for public health. They point to the city’s rising obesity rate — about 24 percent of adults, up from 18 percent in 2002 — and to studies tying sugary drinks to weight gain. Care for obesity-related illnesses costs government health programs about $2.8 billion a year in New York City alone, according to city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley.

The supersize-drink crackdown will “have significant public health effects, and the sooner that happens, the better,” city lawyer Mark W. Muschenheim said in court in February.

Critics said the measure is too limited to make a meaningful impact on New Yorkers’ waistlines. But they said it would take a bite out of business for the eateries that have to comply, while other establishments still will get sell sugary drinks in 2-liter bottles and supersize cups.

Beverage makers had expected to spend about $600,000 changing bottles and labels, movie theater owners feared losing soda sales that account for 20 percent of their profits, and delis and restaurants would have had to change inventory, reprint menus and make other adjustments, according to court papers.

“These are costs which these businesses are not going to be compensated for,” and the money will be wasted if the court ultimately nixes the law, James E. Brandt, a lawyer for the American Beverage Association and other opponents, told the judge in February.

Critics also said the restriction should have gone before the elected City Council instead of the Bloomberg-appointed health board. The city says the panel of doctors and other health professionals had both the authority and expertise to make the decision.

Gabrielle Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly buys AR-15

Source

Giffords' husband buys assault weapon to make point

By Catalina Camia USA Today Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:54 PM

Retired astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, recently purchased an assault weapon to make a point about the ease of background checks for gun owners.

Kelly posted on his Facebook page on Friday that he bought an AR-15, one of the 157 military-style weapons that would be banned under a bill pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel is set to consider three gun bills Tuesday, including the proposed assault weapons ban authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a few minutes," Kelly said. "Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background check at a gun show or the Internet. We really need to close the gun show and private seller loophole."

Kelly, who is also a retired Navy captain, and Giffords are both gun owners who have been outspoken about the need for new gun-control measures. Americans for Responsible Solutions, their super PAC, has been running ads featuring Giffords that tout the proposed assault weapons ban and universal background checks.

Kelly said on his Facebook page that he plans to give the AR-15 to the Tucson Police Department when he receives the weapon.

Giffords was shot in the head January 2011 in a Tucson rampage that left six people dead. President Obama and others have been pushing for new gun legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December that left 20 students and six of their educators dead.

"Look b*tch*s, sue us if you want a new truck"

Source

Women who survived flurry of LAPD bullets have yet to get truck

By Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times

March 11, 2013, 10:56 p.m.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck hasn't come through on a promise to provide a new truck for two women injured by officers in pursuit of fugitive ex-cop Christopher Dorner, an attorney for the women said Monday.

Beck pledged to provide the truck to Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, who were delivering newspapers in Torrance last month when LAPD officers riddled their blue Toyota Tacoma with bullets. Dorner was believed to be driving a gray Nissan Titan.

Hernandez was shot twice in the back, and Carranza was injured by broken glass.

Beck called the shooting "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension" hours after Dorner allegedly shot police officers. He promised to provide a truck from a donor regardless of potential litigation by the women.

But Glen Jonas, the women's attorney, said they are still without a truck.

"After they shot my clients ... this broken promise of a truck donation and the nonsense that followed is a slap in the face," he said.

Jonas said the women were first offered a used truck, then a non-four-wheel-drive Ford to replace their four-wheel-drive Toyota. The women also had to agree not to sell it for a year. His clients agreed to that truck, he said.

But then the dealership and LAPD officials said the truck would be considered a prize for tax purposes, Jonas said. "Essentially, they'd have to pay taxes like they won it on a game show."

Jonas said the situation is all the more difficult because the women haven't been able to work since being injured.

LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith said the department, working with a car dealership, was able to secure a new truck for the women and even covered the taxes and fees. But, he said, the dealership has advised that the vehicle must be legally declared for tax purposes. "We are trying to work it out," Smith said.

The seven officers involved in the incident are assigned to desk duty during an internal investigation into the shooting, which also left holes in several homes on the cul-de-sac.

The officers were protecting the home of a high-ranking LAPD official named in a threatening manifesto authorities said was written by Dorner, and they believed that official could have been a potential target. Dorner at the time had already killed the daughter of an LAPD captain and her fiance — a USC police officer — and a Riverside police officer, officials said.

richard.winton@latimes.com

Oakland cops don't need no stinking evidence to throw you in jail.

Source

Accountant calls Oakland to account for time on most-wanted list

Chau Van, a San Leandro accountant with no criminal record, found himself on Oakland’s Most Wanted list in February 2012 for an unsolved assault. When he saw his face on local TV, he hid out in his home for nearly a week, then went to the police — who threw him in jail for 72 hours even though they had no warrant for his arrest, he said.

Even after they let him go, he said, it took six months to remove him from the list. Now Van, 37, wants compensation.

“They offered no explanation to us why his name was put on there in the first place and why they did not take it off,’’ said attorney Dewitt Lacy, who filed a suit in federal court last week seeking unspecified damages for Van against the city, its police chief and other officers.

“This was a careless and thoughtless mistake.’’

There was no immediate comment from the city.

Read more here.

Source

Oakland cops' error lands man in jail

Updated 8:45 am, Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Chau Van was first shocked, then terrified, to find himself on Oakland's most wanted list in February 2012 for a shooting. The San Leandro accountant, as his lawyers put it, was "a law-abiding citizen with no history of violence."

After hiding out in his home for nearly a week while his name and photo circulated in the media, he finally decided to go to a police station to straighten things out, only to get more distressed when officers promptly threw him in jail. His crime, he was told, wasn't a shooting, but an assault with a baseball bat.

"Today we have one less criminal on our streets," Police Chief Howard Jordan proclaimed in a statement at the time. "Today a victim is one step closer to justice."

Seventy-two hours later, Van was released, without apology, after police told him the district attorney didn't have enough evidence to charge him with any kind of crime, his lawyers said.

Still, they said, his name remained on the most wanted list for the next six months, and police wouldn't tell him why despite repeated requests for an explanation. The department removed his name only after Van filed a damage claim with the city, said his attorney, Dewitt Lacy.

"He is an upstanding member of the community and has always lived a respectable life," Lacy said. He said Van, 37, was the victim of "a careless and thoughtless mistake" that the city still refuses to admit.

In a federal court suit filed last week, his attorneys said Van "lives in a state of embarrassment, depression and shame." The suit seeks unspecified damages from the city, Jordan and other officers.

Van was not available to discuss his case, his lawyers said. Oakland officials declined to comment.

"We need to review the allegations and determine the facts before we respond," said Alex Katz, spokesman for City Attorney Barbara Parker.

Unsolved crime

The assault that started it all took place in December 2011. The victim said he was hit in the head with a bat, then kicked and punched by a group of men, and allegedly identified Van as the bat-wielder in a photo lineup. The crime apparently remains unsolved.

Police haven't said where they got Van's photo for the lineup, but they may have had it on file from a 2007 drunken-driving conviction that Alameda County prosecutors documented Monday.

Two months later, Van said in his lawsuit, a friend called him and told him he was being identified on local television as one of Oakland's most wanted criminals. He checked the Internet and found numerous articles, one of which asked the public to notify federal authorities if they spotted "the dangerous fugitive, Chau Van."

A lawyer advised him to stay at home and then called the police, who acknowledged they had no warrant for Van's arrest, the suit said. Six days later, the suit said, he went to police headquarters "to resolve this devastating mistake" and was arrested, searched and jailed.

The Police Department's news release the next day declared, "One of Oakland's four most wanted suspects has been taken off the streets," and identified him as Van Chau, inverting his name. No statement was issued when he was released without charges three days later.

'Constant fear'

In the six months that his name remained on the wanted list, Van "lived in constant fear for his safety" because authorities had not retracted their false description of him as a violent felon, his suit said. It accuses the city and its officers of false arrest, defamation and violation of Van's civil rights.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: begelko@sfchronicle.com

'Truth serum' may be used to assess Holmes' sanity

Source

'Truth serum' may be used to assess Holmes' sanity, court says

By Dan Elliott and P. Solomon Banda, The Associated Press

Posted: 03/12/2013 09:29:49 AM PDT

DENVER -- The defendant in the deadly Colorado theater shooting could be given "truth serum" under a court order issued Monday to help determine whether he is insane if he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.

Suspect James Holmes could be required to submit to a "narcoanalytic interview" as part of an evaluation to determine if he was legally insane at the time of the July 20 shootings, Arpahoe County District Judge William Sylvester said.

A narcoanalylitic interview is a decades-old process in which patients are given drugs to lower their inhibition. Academic studies have shown that the technique has involved the use of sodium amytal and pentothal, sometimes called truth serum.

The prospect of such interviews that may ensue under such a plea alarmed defense attorneys, who filed documents opposing the technique.

Holmes, 25, is scheduled to enter a plea Tuesday to multiple counts of murder and attempted murder. He is charged with killing 12 people and injuring 70 at a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" in the Denver suburb of Aurora.

If Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, he would be examined by doctors at the state mental hospital.

In an advisory that Holmes would have to sign if he enters an insanity plea, Sylvester didn't specify what type of drugs would be used but said the examination could include "medically appropriate" ones.

Sylvester said Holmes also could be given a polygraph examination as part of the evaluation.

After reading a draft of the advisory, Holmes' lawyers objected, saying a narcoanalytic interview and a polygraph would violate their client's rights.

In the final version of the advisory, Sylvester said he had incorporated some suggestions from the defense and the prosecution, but he did not address the defense objections to a narcoanalytic interview and polygraph.

Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor who is a law professor at the University of Denver and a defense attorney, said she could not find any case law about use of the narcoanalytic interview.

"It comes up so rarely," she said, adding she knows nothing about it.

She noted the technique is clearly allowed by Colorado law.

------

Associated Press writer Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this report

Houston cops ticket homeless vet for searching trash can for food

Source

Houston cops ticket homeless vet for searching trash can for food

Published March 12, 2013

FoxNews.com

A homeless veteran says he was just looking for something to eat when he was ticketed by Houston police officers for rummaging through a trash can.

44-year-old James Kelly tells the Houston Chronicle he was cited for "disturbing the contents of a garbage can in (the) downtown business district."

"I was just basically looking for something to eat," Kelly told the paper. "I wasn't in a real good mood."

Houston city officials pointed out in an e-mail to the paper that a charitable food event was happening at the same time Kelly was cited, but referred all other questions on the matter to police.

"The ordinance is specific to the Central Business District," the Houston Police Department said in a statement. "It is a violation for anyone to remove any contents of any bin, bag or other container that has been placed for collection of garbage, trash or recyclable materials. An officer has probable cause to issue such a citation when a person is seen opening a lid and rummaging through contents of a dumpster or trash can."

Kelly, who spent about nine years in Navy, says he does not plan to stay in Houston, but has nowhere to live at this time.

Source

Homeless man ticketed for garbage picking

Posted: Mar 12, 2013 8:40 AM Updated: Mar 12, 2013 8:41 AM

The case of a homeless man ticketed by Houston, Texas police for digging through a garbage can has sparked outrage.

James Kelly, a Navy veteran, says he was searching for donuts when a Houston police officer issued a misdemeanor ticket. He was cited with "disturbing the contents of a garbage can in the downtown central business district."

"Anyone that desires to see someone else go hungry has no heart," said Kelly.

His attorney said many homeless people, like Kelly, often look through garbage cans to find something to eat or to collect aluminum cans to sell.

"The city of Houston has shown, over the many years, a hostile environment toward the homeless," said attorney Randall Kallinen, who plans to represent Kelly in court next month.

"All too often, you feel nobody cares whether you live or die, but the support coming around this thing does my heart good," said Kelly.

Read more: http://bit.ly/YXPbKy

Source

Homeless man speaks out on garbage picking ticket

HOUSTON - A homeless man was ticketed by police for digging through a garbage can.

James Kelly, who is a veteran, told Local 2 he was searching for donuts in Hermann Park when a Houston police officer issued a misdemeanor ticket. He was cited with "disturbing the contents of a garbage can in the downtown central business district."

"Anyone that desires to see someone else go hungry has no heart," said Kelly.

Some groups that provide services for people living on the streets of Houston are criticizing the police department for issuing the citation.

His attorney said many homeless people, like Kelly, often look through garbage cans to find something to eat or to collect aluminum cans to sell.

"The city of Houston has shown, over the many years, a hostile environment toward the homeless," said attorney Randall Kallinen, who plans to represent Kelly in court next month.

The veteran's story has also gone viral on social media. Kelly's supporters said his rights have been violated. Kelly is humbled by the support.

"All too often, you feel nobody [cares] whether you live or die, but the support coming around this thing does my heart good," said Kelly.

Some critics believe this crackdown on the homeless is linked to a feeding ordinance passed last year by the city. They think it is part of an ongoing effort to move the city away from downtown. Groups are now required to get permission from the city or private property owners before they can pass out meals to the homeless.

A representative for the mayor's office said the two issues are not related and there are more than 20 groups feeding the homeless.

The Houston Police Department also issued a copy of the ordinance that Kelly allegedly violated.

"The ordinance is specific to the Central Business District. It is a violation of city ordinance for anyone to remove any contents of any bin, bag or other container that has been placed for collection of garbage, trash or recyclable materials. (See the ordinance: Art. 1 Sec. 39-2, Houston Code of Ordinances). An officer has probable cause to issue such a citation when a person is seen opening a lid and rummaging through contents of a dumpster or trash can."

Kelly is scheduled to be in court next month. His attorney hopes to convince a judge to dismiss the charge.

Source

Homeless man ticketed by police for rummaging through Hermann Park garbage can

Monday, March 11, 2013

Erik Barajas

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- A homeless man was ticketed by Houston police this weekend for rummaging through a garbage can at Hermann Park, and the case is prompting outrage.

It's a story that's been getting a lot of attention on social media, especially in light of the city's controversial ordinance on feeding Houston's homeless.

"That's more or less a harassment ticket," a man named Russell said.

Russell is one of the more than 8,000 homeless people in Houston proper. He also frequents Hermann Park were the homeless man was ticketed over the weekend.

On the ticket, the officer wrote "disturbing the contents of a garbage can in the downtown central business district."

Acknowledging there is a need to keep parks clean and safe, some groups that provide resources to the homeless say there needs to be a better approach.

"That doesn't really help that person overcome the issues that drove them to need to look for food out of a garbage can in the park," Marilyn Brown said.

Brown is the CEO of Coalition for the Homeless. She says a citation for a homeless person often leads to a litany of more tickets.

"If you don't have a car, if you don't have transportation, you may not even know what day it is to court. So it does start compounding very quickly, and they can add up," she said.

In a statement released to Eyewitness News, HPD says: "An officer has probable cause to issue such a citation when a person is seen opening a lid and rummaging through contents of a dumpster or trash can."

Russell says since money is scarce on the streets, a citation usually means one thing.

"Does it do any good to get a ticket? Not really," he said. "You aren't going to be able to pay for it anyhow. I guess you'll have to sit it out in jail or something."

We learned that a court date has been set, and a local attorney has offered to represent the man pro bono.

Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist - Freedom fighter or criminal???

Last survivor of plot to kill Hitler dies at 90

By David Rising Associated Press Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:48 PM

BERLIN — As a 22-year-old German army lieutenant, Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist volunteered to wear a suicide vest to a meeting with Adolf Hitler and to blow himself up along with the Nazi dictator.

The assassination didn’t come to pass, but von Kleist went on to play a key role in the most famous attempt on Hitler later that same year, and was the last surviving member of the group of German officers who tried and failed to kill the Fuehrer on July 20, 1944.

Von Kleist died Friday at age 90 at his home in Munich, his wife Gundula von Kleist told The Associated Press.

Von Kleist was born July 10, 1922, on his family estate Schmenzin in Pommerania in an area of northeastern Germany that is today Poland.

The von Kleist family was a long line of Prussian landowners, who had served the state for centuries in high-ranking military and administrative positions.

Von Kleist’s father, Ewald von Kleist, was an early opponent of Hitler even before he came to power, and was arrested many times after the Nazi dictator took control in 1933. The elder von Kleist famously traveled to England in 1938, the year before World War II broke out, to try and determine whether other Western nations would support a coup attempt against Hitler, but failed to get the British government to change its policy of appeasement.

Despite his family’s opposition to the Nazis, younger von Kleist joined the German army in 1940, and was wounded in 1943 in fighting on the Eastern Front.

During his convalescence, he was approached in January 1944 by Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, another officer from an aristocratic family, and presented with a plan to kill Hitler. Von Kleist had been chosen as the officer to model a new uniform for Hitler, and von Stauffenberg proposed that he wear a suicide vest underneath, and detonate it when he stood next to the dictator.

Years later von Kleist remembered explaining the suicide plot to his father, who paused only briefly before telling his 22-year-old son: “Yes, you have to do this.”

“Fathers love their sons and mine certainly did, and I had been quite sure he would say no,” von Kleist recalled. “But, as always, I had underestimated him.”

The suicide attack plan never came to fruition.

Months later, however, von Kleist was approached again by von Stauffenberg to take part in what would become known as the July 20 plot — for the day in 1944 that the assassination was attempted — which was brought to the big screen in 2008 in “Valkyrie,” starring Tom Cruise as von Stauffenberg.

Von Kleist was supposed to play a key role as the person who was to carry a briefcase packed with explosives to a meeting with Hitler. In a change of plans, however, von Stauffenberg decided to plant the bomb himself.

Von Stauffenberg placed the bomb in a conference room where Hitler was meeting with his aides and military advisers at his East Prussian headquarters. Hitler escaped the full force of the blast when someone moved the briefcase next to a table leg, deflecting much of the explosive force.

Von Kleist remained in Berlin, charged with overseeing the arrest of officers and officials loyal to Hitler in the city.

But when news spread that Hitler had survived, the plot crumbled and von Stauffenberg, von Kleist’s father, and scores of others were arrested and executed in an orgy of revenge killings. Some were hanged by the neck with piano wire. Von Stauffenberg was shot by firing squad.

Von Kleist himself was arrested, questioned at length by the Gestapo, and sent to a concentration camp, but then inexplicably let go and returned to combat duty.

Following the war, von Kleist founded the Ewald von Kleist publishing house, and became involved in public education on security issues and trans-Atlantic relations. In 1952 he founded the independent defense affairs association known as the Society for Military Studies, and the European Military Studies magazine in 1954.

In 1963 he founded what would become the annual Munich Security Conference — a forum that still today brings together the world’s top diplomats and defense officials, in an informal setting for talks on global security policy, and has long been considered the preeminent conference on NATO issues.

Von Kleist served as the conference’s moderator until 1998, before handing it over to Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s longtime foreign policy adviser Horst Teltschik, who has also since stepped down.

For his efforts leading the Munich Security Conference, von Kleist was awarded the U.S. Department of Defense’s Medal for Distinguished Public Service in 1991, its highest award for a civilian.

His other decorations include Germany’s Federal Order of Merit and France’s Officier de la Legion d’Honneur.

His wife said funeral services would be private.

“My husband didn’t want anything big,” she said.

How do you spell hypocrite - Gun grabber Mark Kelly

Source

Mark Kelly’s purchase of rifle draws criticism

Associated Press Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:50 PM

The husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords generated nearly 4,000 comments on Facebook from people on both sides of the gun debate after he posted a photo of himself buying a military-style rifle — a purchase he made to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he’s lobbying Congress to ban.

A background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Mark Kelly said in the Facebook post, adding that it’s scary to think people can buy similar guns without background checks at gun shows or on the Internet.

It didn’t take long for gun-rights supporters to accuse Kelly of being a hypocrite for buying an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun. Many of the Facebook comments focused on his motivations and the rules for purchasing such guns.

Kelly and Giffords started a gun control advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, amid the wave of recent mass shootings. They have been touring the country in recent months in support of expanded background checks for gun purchases.

Kelly bought the guns at a Tucson shop the day before he appeared with his wife at the supermarket where she was wounded during a shooting rampage that left six dead and 12 others injured two years ago.

The public event last week was the first time the survivors had come together since the January 2011 shooting.

Giffords resigned from Congress last year as she continues to recover from her injuries.

The AR-15 is among 157 military-style weapons that would be banned under a bill pending before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he intends to eventually hand in the rifle to Tucson police.

Doug MacKinlay is the owner of Diamondback Police Supply, the shop where Kelly bought the guns. He said Kelly bought the rifle on March 5 but couldn’t immediately take possession of it because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn’t used in a crime, MacKinlay said.

MacKinlay said Kelly never revealed to the store’s staff why he was buying the guns and added that it would be wrong to refuse to sell a gun to someone because of their personal views.

“He is a U.S. citizen, an Arizona citizen and expressing his Second Amendment right to purchase and own a firearm,” MacKinlay said.

Todd Rathner, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s affiliate in Arizona and a national NRA board member, questioned the point that Kelly was trying to make in buying the guns, saying a model citizen such as Kelly should be able to buy a gun relatively quickly. He also noted that such a purchase could have been a good investment as the value of those types of weapon soars amid heightened demand from gun owners.

“If you believe him, it’s a cheap publicity stunt,” Rathner said. “If you don’t, then he was speculating on the value of the rifle because he knew the prices would be inflated.”

The advocacy group started by Giffords and Kelly had no immediate comment Tuesday on Kelly’s gun buys.

But the group released a statement from Kelly on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval Tuesday of a proposal to expand federal firearms background checks to nearly all gun purchases. Kelly said the 10-8 vote was a huge step in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people. Kelly’s statement didn’t address the controversy over his own gun buys.

Kelly, a former astronaut who plans to keep the handgun, told CNN on Monday that it was important for him to have firsthand information on the ease of buying guns such as the AR-15 and that he looks forward to buying a firearm at a gun show in the future. Kelly and Giffords have long been supporters of gun rights and owned handguns themselves.

No separation of Church and State in Utah - Zion curtain stays up!!!

Utah lawmakers keep ‘Zion curtains’ in place

Associated Press Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:30 PM

SALT LAKE CITY — A measure that would have scaled back one of Utah’s offbeat liquor laws died in the state Legislature on Tuesday.

Lawmakers killed a proposal that would remove barriers in Utah restaurants that shield patrons from seeing servers mix and pour drinks. The Senate replaced the repeal with other minor liquor regulations in a preliminary vote of 24-2.

Republican Sen. John Valentine, of Orem, said the move to keep the barricades stemmed from lawmakers’ fear that taking them down would foster a bigger culture of drinking in Utah.

“We have restaurants. And we have bars,” Valentine said, emphasizing a clear distinction between the two. “And we do not want to foster the culture of alcohol in those restaurants.”

The barriers, known as “Zion curtains,” went up around the state in 2010. They materialized as part of a compromise after lawmakers lifted a requirement for bars to operate as members-only social clubs.

The curtains go back decades in the state’s history, and the nickname nods to Utah’s legacy as home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The majority of Utah legislators and residents belong to the Mormon church, which teaches its members to abstain from alcohol.

A former incarnate of the barriers went up in the late 1960s in social clubs serving alcohol, and stood until the state legalized bars in 2009. Those former barriers took the form of glass walls separating customers from bartenders.

Opponents of today’s Zion curtains say the law forces restaurant owners to waste money and space on configurations to keep bartenders out of sight. Some construct wall-like barriers, and others put up strategically positioned service bars. Curtain opponents also say the law hinders tourism by annoying outsiders and reinforcing their perception of Utah as staunchly sober.

Rep. Ryan Wilcox, a Republican from Ogden, is one of those critics. He sponsored the bill to take down the barricades, saying the barrier rule treats new restaurant owners unfairly. The patchwork nature of Utah’s liquor laws, Wilcox contends, makes them difficult for the state to enforce.

Lawmakers replaced the measure to take down the barriers with a measure that includes a smaller step to ease up on liquor restrictions. The new bill would free up some of the state’s limited liquor licenses, which it restricts based on a population quotas, by creating a master liquor license for chain restaurants. It would allow them to hold one permit for multiple restaurants, rather than gobble up a license for each site.

The Senate is set to cast a final vote on the bill before it adjourns Thursday. After that, the governor would have to approve for it to become law.

Phoenix light rail narcs can now write tickets????

Hiring guards to cite transit riders who don’t pay fare appears to pass in Phoenix

By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:19 PM

Efforts to clamp down on freeloaders who take advantage of Phoenix’s “honor system” for fare payments on the light-rail system appear to have gotten a boost Tuesday.

Early returns suggested voters approved a proposition that allows the city manager to hire private security guards to ticket passengers who don’t pay a fare or commit other violations on mass transit — currently, only police officers and their assistants have the authority to issue such civil citations.

Officials said the change would greatly aid their ability to patrol the light-rail system and ticket violators. Contract security guards also are far cheaper to hire than uniformed police officers.

Because the change requires an amendment to the city charter, it had to be approved by residents. Neighboring cities along the light rail, Mesa and Tempe, already give transit security officers the authority to give citations.

Under Proposition 300, security workers on light-rail trains in Phoenix will be able to cite passengers for civil violations, including those who don’t pay fares, those who use tobacco on the train or those who cross the tracks illegally.

Private guards currently work on the trains, but they can only warn riders and turn them over to police.

Phoenix Councilwoman Thelda Williams said there has long been a perception that Phoenix doesn’t ticket offending riders as readily as Tempe and Mesa. Figures from Metro light rail, the agency that runs the Valley’s rail system, show that Phoenix has had a higher fare-evasion rate.

“Everybody I know that rides the train says, ‘I never see anyone pay,’ ” Williams said after the council approved the ballot proposition last November. “I’ve heard this for years.”

But city officials said the plan to use private security workers isn’t just meant to capture fare revenue. By primarily using contract workers to check fares and patrol rail cars, sworn police officers and their assistants can focus on more serious crimes.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton will say anything to get elected???

Source

Will Greg Stanton honor his pledge to ax food tax?

“The food tax needs to be repealed as soon as possible. If I was able to vote last week, I would have supported a repeal of the food tax two years early, and in a way that does not require termination or layoffs of sworn police officers and firefighters. We can do this as soon as April 2013 and save taxpayers $100 million while also protecting key city services.”

–Greg Stanton, Nov. 6, 2011, two days before the mayoral election

“The question for me is, ‘Can we repeal this emergency measure without gutting public safety and compromising the city’s fiscal health?’ That’s the bottom line.”

–Greg Stanton, State of the City speech, Feb. 28, 2013.

Stanton ran for mayor insisting that he didn’t suffer from city hall syndrome, a common malady in which our leaders identify more with the people inside city offices than outside. Of late, however, Stanton – the swing vote on the food tax — has shown distinct symptoms as we inch ever closer to April.

The Phoenix City Council enacted the five-year 2 percent tax on groceries in 2010 with no public input, warning that to do otherwise would result in criminals running amok and padlocks gracing the doors of libraries and senior centers. Then it basically used the proceeds of the tax to fund employee pay raises [And most of the Phoenix city employees are COPS or police officers].

Phoenix employeess’ pay has increased by an average of 4.8 percent every year since the food tax was imposed – far outstripping the temporary 3.2 percent cut to pay and benefits in 2010. (Half of that was restored last year, with the rest likely coming next year.)

Normally, I’d applaud an employer for finding a way to raise pay in tough times. But not when the raises were made possible by taxing the food of people who haven’t been so fortunate.

Repeal of the food tax fell one vote short in fall 2011, when then-candidate Stanton announced he would have voted for immediate repeal and then pledged to end the tax by April 2013.

Given that April is just 19 days away, I thought a little follow-up was in order.

Me: Are you going to keep your commitment to voters and end the tax in April?

Stanton: “During the campaign, we obviously thought that revenue would be better, that our budget situation would be better. I have a long-term commitment on protecting public safety and so I’m going to let the city manager present information so we have the full information in front of us.”

City Manager David Cavazos – the guy who scored a 33 percent, $78,000 pay raise last fall – will release two versions of a proposed budget for next year on March 26, with and without revenue from the food tax.

Any bets on what’ll be on the chopping block in the no-food-tax budget?

I’m guessing it won’t be the city’s 23 public information officers or any of the $3.6 million spent on lobbying and dues to groups like the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I’m guessing it won’t be the golf courses that lose $2 million a year and it certainly won’t be any piece of next year’s pay raise, approved in last year’s labor contracts.

No, it’ll be a pick-ax to police and firefighters, cuts choreographed to stop this silly talk of ending the food tax early.

But if public safety really is the top priority, why has the city spent $106 million on employee pay since the food tax was enacted – coincidentally just about what the tax has generated? Why not hold off in order to avoid public safety cuts, knowing that Stanton’s vote would end the tax in April 2013?

Or, as it turns out, will it?

Stanton continues to dodge the question, talking instead about how revenue projections are off by $20 million and pension payments are $15 million higher than projected.

In other words, he’s about to renege on his pledge and he’ll use Cavazos’ doomsday budget as political cover.

“I, as the mayor, have an obligation to do what I believe is in the best interest of the people of this city,” Stanton told me repeatedly.

Funny how that view changes on this side of an election.

No ethics for Phoenix City Council members???

Experts: Phoenix ethics rules for elected leaders lag

By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:02 PM

Phoenix’s ethics rules for its elected leaders significantly lag the best practices of large U.S. cities, a task force of legal experts has found.

That’s the conclusion reached by a group of prominent attorneys and judges who spent four months reviewing the city’s ethics policies, also determining that Phoenix employees are often held to a “higher standard” than City Council members.

Topping the group’s list of concerns is Phoenix’s lack of a legal mechanism to investigate or sanction council members who potentially violate its conflict-of-interest or gift policies.

On Wednesday, former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, who led the task force, gave the critique to a subcommittee of City Council members. He said that “most levels of government,” including the state, already have processes to sanction elected officials through a vote of their peers.

“The area of greatest weakness is with the elected officials,” Romley said of the city’s ethics safeguards. “We were quite surprised that there was nothing in place (to enforce rules) on elected officials.”

Phoenix’s Ethics Review Task Force, which Mayor Greg Stanton created last fall, has released 27 recommendations to improve overall policies for elected officials, board members, employees and volunteers.

Perhaps the most controversial measure calls for the creation of an independent ethics commission to oversee investigations of potential violations by elected officials. Residents would have to approve the move through a ballot measure because it requires an amendment to the City Charter.

Task-force members said other shortcomings they found were inconsistencies between the city’s rules for elected officials and general employees, who can be fired or disciplined for violations.

For example, state laws restrict council members from participating in deals in which a relative’s involvement could present a conflict of interest. But employees are restricted from directly doing business with anyone with whom their relationship “may create the appearance of a conflict.”

Council members so far haven’t been overtly enthusiastic about the task force’s recommendations. Wednesday’s subcommittee praised the group’s work but wanted more time to mull the issue before deciding whether to advance it to the full council for a vote.

“I know that from experience it sounds simple, but it’s not,” Councilwoman Thelda Williams said. “Ethics is kind of a personal perception for me and most people, I truly believe.”

Councilmen Daniel Valenzuela said he supports the aim of the task force but wants to ensure there’s no ambiguity in defining “unprofessional conduct” of elected officials, which could be investigated by the ethics panel. He said he does not want it to become an “overused tool” for tarnishing city leaders.

Romley said the task force hopes the council will approve the recommendations and convene another group to flesh out guidelines for elected officials.

“The City Council has the opportunity to walk the walk,” said Ernest Calderon, a task- force member and longtime Phoenix attorney. “I believe that the citizens of Phoenix don’t want a good council. They want a great council.”

Meanwhile, Stanton told The Arizona Republic that he will not take a stance on the specific recommendations until the subcommittee acts, though he supports the overall message.

Although the lack of a way to investigate council ethics violations was the task force’s main concern, it seeks other changes. Other key recommendations:

Require elected officials and board members to report within 48 hours gifts, including food, that exceed $50. Gifts that create an appearance of undue influence or conflict of interest would be banned entirely.

Create a uniform gift policy that applies to elected officials and employees, banning gifts that create an appearance of undue influence and gifts of entertainment, such as tickets to sporting or cultural events.

Establish ethics policies for the use of social media by elected officials and employees. These policies would likely vary for the two groups.

Conduct a city review and update of ethics policies at least every four years. The city’s policies haven’t been updated since 2005.

Mark Kelly’s gun purchase doesn’t sit right

Source

Kelly’s gun purchase doesn’t sit right

It’s time for your favorite resident gun nut, as some folks have called me, to pooh-pooh Mark Kelly’s gun purchase in Tucson.

But, unlike most critics, I don’t find Kelly hypocritical for buying a .45-caliber handgun and an AR-15-style rifle. He was using the purchase to bolster his position on why we need universal background checks. Don’t necessarily agree, but fair enough.

What bothers me is the distinction he’s drawing by keeping the handgun and sending the rifle away like the plague. Both are semiautomatic. Both have plenty of stopping power.

I don’t see the difference, other than one fits in your hand and the other goes on your shoulder. Having shot both, I don’t see one as more dangerous or ownership more reckless than the other.

And that’s what rubs me the wrong way. The whole thing felt like it was meant to demonize people who legally buy one type of firearm — which, frankly, doesn’t do anything to move this debate forward.

VA suppresses and manipulates health data???

Researcher alleges VA covered up adverse consequences to toxic exposures

Now if the US. Veterans Administration is going to do this don't you think that other government agencies like the DEA and FDA are also going to do it???

Source

Researcher alleges VA covered up adverse consequences to toxic exposures

Posted by Steve Vogel on March 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm

A senior epidemiologist for the Department of Veterans Affairs who resigned in December told a congressional committee Wednesday that the agency has covered up data showing adverse consequences for veterans who were exposed to toxic materials from burn pits and other environmental hazards in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Gulf War.

Steven S. Coughlin testified that he resigned from the VA’s Office of Public Health in December “because of serious ethical concerns” about the agency’s conduct, which he said included not releasing study results that point to a connection between environmental exposures and illnesses.

“On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible,” Coughlin said in his testimony to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs’ oversight and Investigations subcommittee.

Coughlin said during his work studying the relationship between exposure to burn pits and asthma and bronchitis among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, his supervisor told him not to look at data regarding hospitalizations and doctors’ visits.

“When I advised him I did not want to continue as a co-investigator under these circumstances, he threatened me,” Coughlin said.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki has directed the Office of Research Oversight to review the allegations, according to the VA.

“Research on the health of Gulf War Veterans has been and continues to be a priority for VA,” the agency said in a statement. “The Department depends on this research to inform our decisions and guide our efforts in caring for Gulf War Veterans. All allegations of malfeasance are taken seriously and are investigated fully.”

During the hearing, several speakers said the VA has been slow to clearly acknowledge research that has validated Gulf War illnesses as a serious medical condition.

“There are many examples large and small of the VA minimizing Gulf War illness,” said Lea Steele, a professor of biomedical studies and director of the Veterans Health Research Program at Baylor University.

Victoria Davey, chief officer for the VA’s Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards, told the subcommittee that the department takes the ailment seriously.

“We do not believe it is psychological,” she said.

VA doctor: Health data suppressed, manipulated

VA doctor: Health data suppressed, manipulated

By Patricia Kime - Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Mar 13, 2013 21:25:01 EDT

The Veterans Affairs Department has suppressed and manipulated data that would support claims from Iraq, Afghanistan and Persian Gulf veterans that they’ve contracted illnesses from environmental pollution while serving in theatre, a high-level whistleblower told a House Veterans Affairs panel on Wednesday.

Dr. Steven Coughlin, an epidemiologist formerly with the VA’s Office of Public Health, told the House Veterans Oversight Committee that when results of research he conducted didn’t gel with unwritten department policies on the health consequences of oil-well fires, burn pits, pesticides, nerve agents and other pollutants, the information disappeared.

“This applies to data regarding adverse health consequences of environmental exposures, such as burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and toxic exposures in the Gulf War. On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible,” Coughlin said.

Coughlin worked on two large population studies for VA, including a Gulf War study and the National Health Study of a New Generation before he resigned in protest last December over the handling of his work, he said.

Coughlin’s laundry list of charges against the Office of Public Health also included the loss of data from a congressionally-mandated study on Gulf War family members and the failure of VA to reach out to 2,000 participants of the New Generation survey who, in the course of the survey, said they’d experienced suicidal thoughts in the weeks preceding the survey.

“Some of those veterans are now homeless or deceased,” he charged.

Coughlin was not alone in testifying that VA is failing to serve Gulf War veterans and their successors.

Similar to the government’s long battle against acknowledging the health consequences of Vietnam veterans’ exposure to Agent Orange, VA still “ignores the science of research” into Gulf War Illness that it is a serious medical condition with neurological and physical components, said Lea Steele, a professor of biomedicine at Baylor University.

She said VA’s survey of 30,000 Gulf War veterans included scores of questions on psychological stress, substance abuse and alternative medicine but none on basic symptoms of the illness, which include memory and processing difficulties, pain, fatigue and digestive disorders.

“This pattern of chronic symptoms has been well documented. … We also know that Gulf War Illness is not a stress-induced or psychiatric disorder,” Steele said.

About a third of the nearly 700,000 U.S. troops who deployed to Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1991 suffer from an array of symptoms of unknown origin. Once referred to as Gulf War Syndrome, it now commonly is known as Gulf War Illness, although the Institute of Medicine and Veterans Affairs call it Chronic Multisymptom Illness.

Coughlin told the panel that the VA’s obfuscation of data includes information on troops who deployed in the past decade. He said he was asked to include additional information when compiling tables to downplay the prevalence of respiratory illnesses like asthma and chronic bronchitis in those who served near open air burn pits.

“I urge you to initiate legislation to cure the epidemic of serious ethical problems in the VA’s Office of Public Health,” Coughlin told the congressional oversight committee.

VA officials did not respond directly to the explosive allegations. Victoria Davey, chief officer for public health at the Veterans Health Administration testified that the department has a 22-year history of treating Gulf War veterans and is committed to serving those with Gulf War Illness.

“Veterans with CMI, like all veterans enrolled in VA care, receive personalized, proactive patient-centered care,” she said.

She added that VA’s three War-Related Illness and Injury Study Centers provide specialized care tailored specifically to individual patients. More than 130,000 Gulf War veterans have received health exams under the department’s Gulf War registry program, Davey said.

Rep. Michael Coffman, R-Colo., subcommittee chair and retired a Marine who served in the Gulf War, promised further investigation.

“I find the conduct of the Veterans Administration embarrassing on this issue in terms of their treatment. If there were any Gulf War veterans in senior positions at VA, I don’t’ think we’d be here today,” he said.

Anthony Hardie, a Gulf War veteran who serves in an advisory capacity with the congressionally directed Gulf War Illness Research Medical Program, said new laws are needed to force VA to release findings, improve research and ensure that affected veterans receive the benefits and treatment they rate.

“Help right these ongoing wrongs, including comprehensive legislation and criminal sanctions for such behavior,” Hardie, who suffers from ongoing ailments related to service, said.

Researcher says officials covered up vets' health data

Researcher says officials covered up vets' health data

Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY5:52p.m. EDT March 13, 2013

WASHINGTON — Department of Veterans Affairs officials purposely manipulate or hide data that would support the claims of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent paying costly benefits, a former VA researcher told a House subcommittee Wednesday.

"If the studies produce results that do not support the office of public health's unwritten policy, they do not release them," said Steven Coughlin, a former epidemiologist in the VA's public health department.

"This applies to data regarding adverse health consequences of environmental exposures, such as burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and toxic exposures in the Gulf War," Coughlin said. "On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible."

Coughlin testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs that VA routinely minimizes research that would bolster the claims of veterans suffering from the series of symptoms associated with Gulf War illness, as well as health issues linked to exposure to large burn pits and dust in Iraq.

Victoria Davey, chief officer of VA's office of public health and environmental hazards, told the committee that veterans receive personalized, proactive care. She did not directly address critics' accusations, and instead talked about the VA's care for veterans and the "cutting-edge" research it has conducted.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., and a Marine who served during 1991 war, called VA's handling of Gulf War illness "embarrassing." He asked VA why they changed Congress's charge to ask the IOM to do research on treatments, to which she said VA let the experts decide what should be looked at. He also asked why VA had spent money meant for Gulf War vets on other programs, but Davey said she was not prepared to respond to that question.

"If you had anyone on your panel who was a Gulf war vet, I don't think we'd be here today," Coffman said.

Lea Steele, a researcher at the Veterans Health Research Program at Baylor University, backed Coughlin's claims, saying, "In some sectors within VA, there appears to be backward movement."

Steele also charged that VA has used money meant for Gulf War illness to fund other programs. For example, $1 million went to a Lou Gehrig's disease post-mortem brain bank. The majority of samples are not from Gulf War vets, she said.

VA spent $120 million on Gulf War illness, but just five programs focused on treatments, and two of those were for psychiatric care.

"Studies consistently show Gulf War illness is not due to war trauma," she said. She told the committee that VA has not managed an effective program.

Coughlin's allegations echo previous cases in which the VA was slow to respond to health problems in veterans, ranging from exposure to the chemical defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam, to Gulf War illness, to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2010, Coughlin participated in a study of recent veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan that linked exposure to burn pits to greater incidences of asthma or bronchitis. His request to see their medical records was denied, Coughlin said, and the results of the study were never published.

"I was very concerned they were withholding data or misleading people," he told USA TODAY. "I don't want to speculate about why."

Coughlin said a 2012 panel of outside experts hired to help the Institute of Medicine study neurological connections to Gulf War illness was stacked in favor of those who believed the disease is psychological.

"There was no one to present the opposing side — that it's neurological," Coughlin said. "Science is self-correcting, but if people don't publish data that doesn't support an opposing hypothesis, then it's a huge problem."

The IOM research included veterans from the past 20 years, rather than just Gulf War veterans, and "lumped" their symptoms together, according to Steele. Bernard Rosof, head of the IOM committee, said they found no one cause to what they called "chronic multisymptom illness," and that there was no one treatment for all of those veterans.

Steele agreed that VA excluded data from the research, and that it was "akin to medical malpractice."

It's doubly important because today's veterans are coming back with the same symptoms as the Gulf War veterans did, he said.

"Anything that supports the position that Gulf War illness is a neurological condition is unlikely to ever be published," Coughlin said.

Anthony Hardie, a Gulf War veteran and appointed member of the Congressionally Directed Gulf War Illness Research Medical Program, said Coughlin's testimony confirms what veterans have been saying for years.

"There are staff within VA who are working against Gulf War veterans," Hardie said. "It puts focus on the specifics and details on the generalities that were already clear."

Hardie said he knows and respects VA Chief of Staff John Gingrich, and he feels, based on Coughlin's testimony, that Gingrich was lied to by his staff. Those people should be "punished with criminal sanctions," he said.

"I hope there's a shake-up at VA," said Hardie, who has been completely disabled by Gulf War illness. "I hope the leadership takes this seriously."

Coughlin will also testify that after a study determined that more than 2,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans said they had considered suicide during the previous two weeks, no VA official had reached out to them.

"Some of them are now deceased or homeless," Coughlin said. "No one reached out to them to see how they could help them."

Coughlin said he complained about the veterans' treatment to his supervisor, who did nothing. He then took the matter to the VA's inspector general, who decided not to pursue the case.

After the 1991 Gulf War, a series of research reports raised concerns that the veterans' children were more likely to be born with defects, and that veterans' spouses were also becoming ill. Congress mandated that the VA maintain a registry of Gulf War veterans' family members. The data has never been released, and Coughlin said he has "been advised that these results have been permanently lost."

He said his supervisors told VA's chief of staff that restructuring a survey for Gulf War veterans so it did not focus on psychosomatic issues would cost more than $1 million and delay the study for a year — neither of which was true.

Coughlin said he was told to retract his claims and admit that he had made a mistake.

He refused, adding that he kept a document trail of e-mails and reports to support his claims. "I thought, 'I don't want to work for these people,' so I left."

Coughlin, who was a senior cancer epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the director of the public health ethics program at Tulane University, said continuing to work for the VA was "against my conscience."

Whistleblower: VA Hiding Veteran Health Data

Whistleblower: VA Hiding Veteran Health Data

Mar 14, 2013

Military.com

by Bryant Jordan

A former epidemiologist for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs told lawmakers on Wednesday that the agency’s Office of Public Health buries or obscures research findings on veterans exposed to environmental toxins and hazards going as far back as the Persian Gulf War.

Steven Coughlin, who had worked more than four years for the VA before quitting over “serious ethical concerns” in December, said in testimony that leadership in the agency’s public health office did not want to find or reveal evidence that Gulf War illness and other sicknesses were linked to troops’ military experience.

"On the rare occasions when embarrassing study results are released, data are manipulated to make them unintelligible,” he told the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Coughlin said his former office never released findings of a $10 million study that produced data on 60,000 Iraq and Afghan war vets – of which up to 30 percent were Gulf War vets – that revealed exposures to pesticides, oil well fires and more.

He said the results of a congressionally mandated study on Gulf War veterans and their family members also was never released, and claims he was advised that “these results have been permanently lost.”

“Anything that supports the position that Gulf War illness is a neurological condition is unlikely to ever be published,” he said. One of Couglin’s former supervisors, Dr. Aaron Schneiderman, threatened retaliation against him after he balked at the idea of deliberately leaving out certain relevant data in a research project, Coughlin said.

Victoria Davey, chief of the VA’s public health and environmental hazards office, told lawmakers that the office follows strict guidelines in analyzing and publishing its work. However, but she never directly addressed Coughlin’s allegations.

In a statement released after the hearing on Wednesday, the VA said VA Secretary Erik Shinseki has ordered the VA’s Office of Research Oversight to review Coughlin’s claims, including the alleged threat.

Any retaliation against VA employees is against the law and is not tolerated, the statement said.

“The Department of Veterans Affairs has a decade’s long history of conducting world-class research studies that meet accepted and rigorous scientific standards,” the statement read. “All allegations of malfeasance are taken seriously and are investigated fully.

Coughlin said Schneiderman told him not to look at data regarding hospitalizations and doctors’ visits while he was working on research into the health effects of burn pits on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have reported serious respiratory problems that they believe are connected to inhaling smoke from the massive trash burn pits found in combat zones.

Coughlin told the House panel that when he said he did not want to continue in the project under those conditions, Schneiderman threatened him.

As with Vietnam veterans before them, large numbers of Gulf War veterans became ill in the years following the 1991 war. Those Gulf War veterans were told their problems were psychological.

The VA has said it does recognize there are health issues associated with Gulf War service, and notes that Shinseki formed a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of VA programs to help improve care and services for Gulf War vets.

The VA says in 2010 it recognized nine diseases linked to experience in the Gulf War.

According to Lea Steele, an epidemiologist with the Institute of Biomedical Studies at Baylor University, the VA still has serious problems in its approach – and funding – of Gulf War research.

She told Congress on Wednesday that scientific advances over the past 10 years have provided important insights into Gulf War illness. Steele has been studying Gulf War illness since 1998.

“After so many years of waiting, there is finally some hope for Gulf War veterans,” she said. “Hope that they will have answers that are long overdue and hope that treatments will be found that can meaningfully improve their health and their lives.”

“What is not acceptable is federal research that is poorly informed, based on notions developed in the early years after the Gulf War rather than on the scientific evidence now available,” she said.

VA has reportedly spent $120 million over the past decade on Gulf War illness research, but some of that money never went to Gulf War research, Steele said.

In one instance, $10 million was earmarked for something called a “Gulf War Biorepository Trust” that had nothing to do with Gulf War veterans. It was, instead, used to fund a brain bank for veterans who had ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

As of 2010, only one of the 60 brains in the brain bank had come from a Gulf War veteran, Steele said. The others were those of older veterans.

VA Covered Up Data on Mental Health

Whistleblower: Veterans Affairs Covered Up Data on Mental Health, Gulf War Syndrome

Mar 13, 2013 1:09 PM EDT

A former Veterans Affairs researcher turned whistleblower tells Congress the department repeatedly withheld data on Gulf War syndrome and neglected suicidal vets. Jamie Reno reports.

The Department of Veterans Affairs routinely disseminated false information about the health of America’s veterans, withheld research showing a link between nerve gas and Gulf War syndrome, rushed studies out the door without taking recommended fixes by an independent board, and failed to offer crucial care to veterans who came forward as suicidal.

These are the allegations of Steven Coughlin, an epidemiologist who worked at the VA’s Office of Public Health until he resigned last year, citing “serious ethical issues.” On Wednesday Coughlin will testify at a congressional hearing on the health of Gulf War veterans.

“What I saw [at VA] was both embarrassing and astonishing. I couldn’t stay any longer,” says Coughlin, who left the VA in December, just four and a half years into the job.

Coughlin was previously associate professor of epidemiology and director of the program in public-health ethics at Tulane University and is a former chair of the writing group that prepared the ethics guidelines for the American College of Epidemiology.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Coughlin said that whenever he spoke out about any alleged unethical activity, his bosses “intimidated and admonished” him. He says they first tried to silence him after he spoke out about a major health study of 60,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Coughlin believed that the nearly 2,000 subjects who self-identified as suicidal should have been checked up on afterward by mental-health clinicians. Instead, he says, the researchers interviewed them and moved on.

Coughlin says his supervisors also frequently “obscured the facts” about the impact of toxic exposures on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the causes of Gulf War illness.

“Many of those veterans are now homeless or deceased,” he says. “It’s very unfortunate. My supervisors did all they could to block my efforts.”

After getting nowhere with his superiors, Coughlin says, he contacted the chairman of the VA’s Institutional Review Board and the VA inspector-general to request that the study be put on hold until his supervisors could identify clinicians to call back suicidal veterans.

“That’s when all hell broke loose,” he says. “My supervisors tried to remove me from the study, and I received a written admonition. It was shocking. All I was trying to do was help ensure the safety of the veterans participating in our study.”

Coughlin says he was unsuccessful in getting OPH to address the problem in the study of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, but he managed to incorporate clinician callbacks in a separate Gulf War survey, and he says those calls “saved lives.”

The VA declined to comment specifically for this story, but in a statement released Wednesday, it said the department has a "decades long history of conducting world-class research studies that meet accepted and rigorous scientific standards." The statement, which noted that "all allegations of malfeasance are taken seriously and are investigated fully," also said that the Obama Administration in 2010 recognized nine new diseases as associated with Gulf War Illness.

"VA agrees with Gulf War veterans that there are health issues associated with service in the Gulf War," the statement read. "That is why Secretary (Eric) Shinseki formed a Task Force to conduct a comprehensive review of VA's programs to help improve the care and services we provide to Gulf War Veterans. We will continue to learn and examine ways to improve treatment, process claims, and better care for these veterans.”

Coughlin says his supervisors also frequently “obscured the facts” about the impact of toxic exposures on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the causes of Gulf War illness, which afflicted as many as 250,000 veterans, according to the Institute of Medicine.

While the cause of Gulf War illness has been debated for years, a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies have concluded that it is a neurological condition caused by exposure to nerve gas, pesticides, and other toxic elements.

However, says Coughlin, “the people I worked for refuse to release any information to the public that reaches that conclusion. They insist on holding on to the outdated theory that Gulf War illness is psychosomatic.”

He says there is VA data on adverse health consequences of toxic exposures in the Gulf War that “the public has never seen, and I’m sure will never see.”

He says his supervisors paid the Institute of Medicine $1 million to review the latest literature on Gulf War illness, but the first five outside experts they invited to the IOM committee all reported that it was psychiatric and not neurological. “This understandably outraged Gulf War advocates,” Coughlin says. “It was so obviously biased.”

Anthony Hardie, a Gulf War veteran and advocate who will also be testifying at the congressional hearing, tells The Daily Beast that Coughlin’s story “only confirms what Gulf War veterans have believed all along: this cabal of federal bureaucrats and contractors who continue to obfuscate, manipulate, and lie remain a serious obstacle to ill Gulf War veterans’ legitimate quest for treatments and justice.”

Coughlin says the OPH’s 2009–10 National Health Study of a New Generation of U.S. Veterans, which targeted 60,000 post-9/11 veterans, cost $10 million, plus the salaries of those who worked on it. He says 20 percent to 30 percent of these veterans were also Gulf War veterans, and the study produced data regarding their exposures to pesticides, oil-well fires, and pyridostigmine-bromide pills.

OPH never released any data from the study, or even the fact that it exists, Coughlin says. The VA’s official position on pyridostigmine-bromide pills, which the Department of Defense says Gulf War veterans took as protection against nerve gas, did not cause Gulf War illness. But a 2008 study by Beatrice Golomb at the University of California, San Diego, “thoroughly, conclusively shows that this class of chemicals actually are a cause of illness in Gulf War veterans.”

Coughlin also says the OHP released a major survey on Gulf War veterans without fixing it as recommended by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, which was mandated by Congress in 2002. Coughlin says his supervisors told the VA that implementing the fixes would cost the government $1 million and delay the study for a year or longer.

“None of this was true. It would not have cost nearly that much to restart the study,” Coughlin says. “But as a result of the false statements made by my supervisors, the chief of staff ordered the survey to proceed without the changes.”

Coughlin says he’ll ask Congress to initiate legislation to cure the “epidemic” of ethical problems at the OPH and urge the committee to direct the VA to identify procedures to ensure that veterans who participate in large-scale epidemiologic studies receive appropriate follow-up care to prevent possible suicides.

“The VA is the nation’s largest health-care provider, and these large studies cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and are so important to veterans’ health,” says Coughlin, who is currently looking for another job. “My only motivation for coming forward is to help veterans. That’s the only reason I paid for my own flight to come to Washington. I think the attention from the House committee and the media will lead to positive changes. It will hopefully help veterans.”

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Jamie Reno, an award-winning correspondent for Newsweek for 17 years, has also written for The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Rolling Stone, People, Men’s Journal, ESPN, Los Angeles Times, TV Guide, MSNBC, Newsmax, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today. Reno, who’s won more than 85 writing awards, was the lead reporter on a Newsweek series on the 9/11 terrorist attacks that earned him and his colleagues the National Magazine Award for General Excellence, the highest award in magazine journalism. Reno, who’s also an acclaimed author, singer-songwriter, and 15-year cancer survivor, lives in San Diego with his wife, Gabriela, and their daughter, Mandy.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Bill Montgomery wants to run all the Mexicans out of Arizona???

Is county attorney unfair to undocumented? (Would you care if he was?)

Last week the local Hispanic Bar Association sent a scathing 12-page letter to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery that began with this bold, aggressive and completely inaccurate proclamation: “The community will no longer tolerate the unequal treatment of undocumented Latino workers that are arrested, detained and prosecuted in Maricopa County.”

It’s a nice thought.

But from what I have seen over the past 30 years, our otherwise lovely community has absolutely NO problem with the unequal treatment of undocumented Latino workers. If anything, a majority of those living in the county where Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been elected six times don’t believe undocumented Latino workers have any rights.

They do, of course.

And the attorneys from the Hispanic Bar Association, called Los Abogados, want to make sure they are protected. Not just for the workers, but for all of us.

“The law is for everyone,” said the group’s president, Gaetano “Guy” Testini.

The lawyers’ group says the county attorney unfairly prosecutes undocumented immigrants by making “plea offers that guarantee a non-citizen’s deportation from the United States and denies them their day in Immigration Court.”

They do so, the group believes, by charging undocumented immigrants with Class 4 felonies tied to forgery and identity theft statutes. They point out that defendants often are charged with multiple counts with presumptive sentences of 2½ years per count. This practically forces a defendant to accept a plea.

“Therefore,” the letter to Montgomery says, “as you are well award, plea agreements for one count of forgery amount to automatic deportation… “

Again, most people in Maricopa County, and in Arizona, would have no problem with this.

A politically ambitious guy like Montgomery understands that reality.

Still, the Hispanic lawyers are hoping to make their case.

“We think this is important,” Testini told me. “And we’re in a position to approach things a little differently than other groups with civil rights concerns. We speak about the legal aspects. We don’t believe this situation is fair.”

Why not?

One comparative example they cite is underage drinkers.

In their letter, the lawyers say, “Legally speaking, persons who provide fake identification for any unlawful purpose, including underage adults attempting to buy alcohol or enter a bar, have committed fraud.”

Since it is often a fraud charge facing undocumented immigrants they add, “Consider the harsh and unequal punishment that is being applies to different classes of individuals for the same underlying conduct.”

Testini added, “We don’t believe for a minute that an underage kid trying to by a drink should be charged with a felony. But we don’t believe that a lot of undocumented workers should be charged with felonies, either.”

The lawyers also question why employers are not being prosecuted.

And they say in their letter that Montgomery’s policy “exceeds its authority as a state law enforcement agency.”

Testini said that the county attorney has sent him an e-mail promising to address the group’s concerns. Montgomery’s spokesman told me the same thing, saying, “The County Attorney is in communication with Los Abogados on the issues raised in their letter. Nothing to share with media on this at the present time.”

Testini added, “To his (Montgomery’s) credit, he has an open door to us and allows us to speak with him about these issues. Andrew Thomas (the previous county attorney) wasn’t that way. But the problem is this: Is the open door just a rotating door where you go round and round but nothing changes? We’re hoping that he’ll really look at our concerns and do something.”

I wouldn’t count on it.

Testini admits that fairness is a tough sell when speaking about undocumented immigrants.

“Even with the kids who would be part of the Dream Act you don’t see a lot of support,” he said. “That’s just a shame. So it is even tougher with undocumented workers. But this is about the law, which is supposed to be applied equally to everyone.”

That’s true.

But we all know where we live.

In their letter, the lawyers suggest that Montgomery’s policy is political and meant to “cater to the overwhelming anti-immigrant sentiment in Arizona.”

Really? Ya think?

Wrongfully Convicted and Seeking Restitution

Source

Wrongfully Convicted and Seeking Restitution

By JACK HEALY

Published: March 13, 2013 79 Comments

COLORADO SPRINGS — Robert Dewey spent almost 18 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Now he spends his time waiting. Waiting for food stamps, or his monthly $698 disability check. Swallowing painkillers and waiting for his wrenched back to stop aching. Waiting for the state to repay him for lost time.

A lifelong motorcycle rider, Mr. Dewey, 52, knows the dangers of slick and twisting roads. But in the 10 months since he was exonerated by DNA testing and released from prison, the most perilous roads in front of him are not the highways he navigates on his rebuilt Harley-Davidson, but the one leading him away from prison and into a bewildering world of smartphones, grandchildren and uncertain new freedoms.

“When you come out, you’re on top,” he said one recent afternoon, dragging on a cigarette and sinking deeper into the couch at a friend’s house. “It’s easy to fall.”

Mr. Dewey’s release is among a few high-profile exonerations that are now prodding Colorado to confront the question of what it owes inmates who have been falsely imprisoned, a civic soul-searching that Louisiana, Texas, Illinois and other states are also confronting.

Colorado is one of 23 states that have no system to compensate the wrongfully convicted. It does not provide a formal network of counseling, education or other assistance, which advocacy groups like the Innocence Project say aggravates an already difficult and meager transition back to civilian life.

A bill in Colorado’s statehouse would change that here, granting $70,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment, plus tuition waivers at state colleges. It passed an early legislative test last Thursday, receiving unanimous support from the state’s House Judiciary Committee.

“We have a responsibility to make this injustice a justice,” said Representative Angela Williams, a Democrat from Denver who is championing the measure. “You lose everything. You’re starting from scratch. How do you save money? How do you invest?”

A spokesman for Colorado’s governor, John W. Hickenlooper, said he had not decided whether to support the bill. But Mr. Dewey, now jobless, is betting everything on its passage.

“I’m just seeing dollars roll down the sink,” he said. “I have no credit. I asked my bank for a loan of $250 — they wouldn’t do it. It’s hard out here.”

Robert Dewey had lived a rough life. He served time for armed robbery and unlawful possession of a weapon. He had worked as a laborer and repairman, but by the mid-1990s, he was using drugs and hanging out on the fringes of a ragged group of methamphetamine users in western Colorado.

Then, in 1994, Jacie Taylor, a 19-year-old woman who had fallen into the same circle, was raped and strangled in her apartment in the town of Palisade, Colo. The police eventually homed in on Mr. Dewey, who had been staying nearby, and arrested him in June 1995.

Years later, DNA evidence would link the murder to Douglas Thames, who had also passed through Palisade. Mr. Thames has now been charged in Ms. Taylor’s death.

Mr. Dewey knew none of this in 1996 when he was sentenced to life in prison. It felt like a dream, he said, a grim movie in which he was the audience, not the protagonist. Next thing he knew, he was a convicted killer peering out a cell window at distant city lights glowing on the horizon.

“I didn’t know who did it,” he said. “Didn’t care at the moment. I just knew it wasn’t me.”

After years of work by his court-appointed lawyer, Danyel Joffe, the Innocence Project came on board in 2007 and paid for tests that showed no DNA links between Mr. Dewey and the crime scene. His conviction was reversed, and he was released last April. He left with an apology and a handshake from prosecutors in Mesa County, he said, but little else.

There have been moments of grace, like petting a dog, or touching a tree for the first time in more than a decade. But there have been mountains of difficulties.

Because Mr. Dewey had been sentenced to life, he said, he never touched a computer or took any vocational classes while he was in prison. He came out awe-struck by a world that had gone online and turned digital. The first time he walked into a Walmart, he said, he was so overwhelmed by its colors and scale that he had to run outside to smoke a cigarette.

After his release, people mailed donations of $100 or $200 and sent him tools and parts for his motorcycle. A man in prison even sent Mr. Dewey $20, he said. But the donations have dried up, and he is often short of money. He wonders whether he will ever save enough to make it to Missouri to see grandchildren who were born while he was in prison.

He says that he wants to work, but that a painful back injury aggravated in prison makes him reluctant to do so.

“God bless him, but the system has created him the way he is,” said Stephen Laiche, one of Mr. Dewey’s lawyers in his 1996 trial. Mr. Laiche is now working to seal Mr. Dewey’s records from the murder case. “Are we surprised that he can’t get a job? Because we wrongfully convicted him, he couldn’t work for 20 years.”

But Mr. Dewey seems determined to tell and retell a story that he lives every day. A few weeks ago, he spoke to a dozen people at a Unitarian church in the northern Colorado town of Greeley, recounting again in the carpeted silence his nearly 18 years in the “shoe box.”

“Yeah, I’m bitter, " he said. “I’m not blaming it on anybody. It is what it is. I just try to do the best I can.”

Alameda County Supervisor Nadia Lockyer - a meth freak???

I do have a problem with hypocrite politicians who use drugs and want to throw use serfs in prison for using the same drugs they use.

And so I guess this is another article where the politicians send us the message of "Do as I say, not as I do".

For those of you who are not familiar with California geography Almeda County is in the east part of the San Francisco Bay area and I think Oakland is it's biggest city.

Source

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer calls off divorce from Nadia Lockyer, who's done with meth rehab

By Josh Richman

jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com

Posted: 03/14/2013 08:56:24 AM PDT

California state Treasurer Bill Lockyer's differences with his estranged wife, former Alameda County Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, might not be so irreconcilable after all.

Tom Dresslar, Bill Lockyer's spokesman, said the 71-year-old mainstay of state Democratic politics this week withdrew divorce papers he had filed last July against his 41-year-old wife, whose methamphetamine addiction and extramarital affair ended her political career and could have stained his.

"He and Nadia have agreed to try and work things out, to try and reconcile," Dresslar said. "He's proud of the progress she has made in her treatment, and they are both looking forward and not backward."

Nadia Lockyer recently finished a 180-day residential drug treatment program she had entered after her Aug. 28 arrest in Orange County. Police were tipped that she had drugs in the home where she was staying with her 9-year-old son, Diego. Officers found a tube of aluminum foil with a burned end, and when they met Lockyer later that day she showed signs of being under the influence of drugs.

She was charged with felony methamphetamine possession and three misdemeanors: being under the influence of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and child abuse and endangerment.

She's scheduled for a court appearance Thursday morning in Santa Ana; her attorney, Allan Stokke, last week said that she's "doing just fine" and that the judge has been happy with her progress.

Nadia Lockyer early last year claimed Stephen Chikhani of San Jose had attacked her in a Newark hotel room, but the state Justice Department investigated and eventually declined to charge him with any crime. As details emerged about Lockyer's lengthy affair with Chikhani and their drug use, she resigned her Alameda County supervisorial seat last April.

Bill Lockyer had filed for divorce in July in Alameda County Superior Court, citing "irreconcilable differences" and seeking joint physical and legal custody of their son. After Nadia Lockyer's August arrest, a judge ruled she could see their son, but only under her estranged husband's supervision. The boy has been living with his father in Hayward.

"All the decisions that Bill makes with regards to his marriage are made with Diego's best interests in mind," Dresslar said.

Bill Lockyer — who served for 25 years in the Legislature, two terms as state attorney general and now is in his second term as state treasurer — is a formidable fundraiser who transferred $1.5 million from his own campaign coffers to his wife's, letting her swamp rivals for a Board of Supervisors seat in a blizzard of direct mail and advertising in 2010.

It was Nadia Lockyer during that supervisorial campaign that Nadia Lockyer met Chikhani at a chemical-dependency program and began her relationship with him, she said in an exclusive interview with the Bay Area News Group last April. She was dealing with chronic pain and wasn't an addict then, she said.

Bill Lockyer has formed a campaign committee to run for state controller in 2014. He has more than $2.2 million banked.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is a gun grabber???

Source

Phoenix Mayor Stanton outlines aggressive plan to fight gun violence

By Dustin Gardiner and Amy B Wang The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Mar 1, 2013 4:42 PM

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton on Thursday outlined an aggressive plan to combat violence in the city, vowing to stage what he called the largest gun buyback in Arizona history and double the number of police officers in schools citywide.

The mayor’s comments during his second State of the City speech stoked the debate over firearm safety a month after a string of deadly shootings killed four people and thrust Phoenix into the national news.

“Recently, we have felt pain and grief too often and too deeply,” Stanton said, naming several shooting victims, including a lawyer and businessman. “Violence has no place in our city.”

Police Chief Daniel V. Garcia said Phoenix will destroy the guns, an approach often criticized by gun-rights groups. A state law that took effect in August is designed to prohibit Arizona police agencies from destroying weapons they confiscate, but Garcia said the law does not apply to voluntary gun buybacks.

Jennifer Longdon, a gun-violence survivor who is paralyzed from a spinal cord injury, was sitting in the audience for Stanton’s speech. She wrote on Facebook that she began to sob “like a baby” when he made the announcement.

“Every gun we take off the streets is one gun that won’t rob a son like mine of his healthy, able-bodied mother,” wrote Longdon, who uses a wheelchair. “I wonder how different my life would be if I had been attacked by knives or bats or fists. (Guns) do damage that no other tool or weapon can ever hope to inflict.”

Stanton noted the politics surrounding such a hotly contested issue — his speech instantaneously sparked protests from gun-rights advocates on social media. He said the buyback effort would make the city safer without curtailing the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners.

“Why risk the controversy?” Stanton asked. “Because I respect Chief Garcia, who told me, ‘Every unwanted gun we take off the street is one less gun out there to harm our officers or hurt our residents.’”

Gun violence and school safety were just a piece of Stanton’s speech, which focused on Phoenix’s need to develop a modern, diverse economy that can weather the ups and downs of the real-estate market. He spoke about other familiar hurdles: building a vibrant downtown, larger transit system and skilled workforce.

But the emphasis on gun violence was the mayor’s boldest new policy initiative debuted for the year ahead. It will likely continue to draw jeers from some right-leaning leaders who view buybacks as an ineffective tool for reducing violence.

“These criminals are really going to be running down there to turn in their guns for a Safeway card,” joked Charles Heller, spokesman for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a non-profit that advocates for gun rights. “What the city of Phoenix is doing is interfering in the market.”

The buyback program, a partnership between Phoenix police and the non-profit Arizonans for Gun Safety, allows residents to drop off unwanted weapons with no questions asked. The effort is being funded with $100,000 from an anonymous donor, Stanton said.

Police officers will host the buybacks every Saturday during May, except Memorial Day weekend. The city will return stolen guns to their owners, and the police will keep those they suspect were used in a crime for investigation.

The program will compensate gun owners for their weapons, but officials have not yet determined the form and amount of payment. With past buybacks in Phoenix, Garcia said owners typically received about $100 per firearm.

Stanton also announced a new school-safety program that seeks to double the number of police officers in public, private and charter schools across the city.

“Education can only succeed if kids feels safe at school,” Stanton said, adding that he and Garcia had met with Phoenix-area superintendents and other education leaders earlier in the week. “We heard them loud and clear. The risk of school violence is one we cannot take.”

Under the program, each Phoenix police precinct commander would meet with superintendents in their district at least twice a year. The plan also proposes that districts hire off-duty police officers to patrol their schools as “school safety officers,” less expensive alternatives to traditional school-resource officers.

“We don’t need Steven Seagal to keep our kids safe,” said Stanton, a jab at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who recently announced that the action star would help train his volunteer posse to patrol schools.

According to the city, school-safety officers would cost less than half of what traditional resource officers would — about $42,000 per year to staff a high school and $35,000 a year to staff a middle or elementary school. These costs would include coverage for seven hours a day, five days a week. That sounds like an outright LIE!!!!! Most Phoenix area police officers start at about $50,000 a year, which is about $25/hr, before benefits. And of course many cops make $100,000 or more a year, before you add in the benefits.]

Like traditional school-resource officers, school-safety officers would be responsible for monitoring student activity, training staff on safety mandates and enforcing criminal laws on campus. [Do we really need a FULL TIME cop on every high school and elementary school campus who is making between $50,000 and $100,000 a year before benefits to enforce the law??? I doubt it. Even if we do need one we could certainly get by with a rent-a-cop that is being paid $10 an hour, instead of a full time Phoenix police officer who is being paid between $25 and $75 an hour]

“This is no-nonsense community policing — boots on the ground ... We need real cops doing real police work,” Stanton said. [And real police work is NOT handcuffing 10 year olds for chewing bubble gum or talking in class. Real police work is hunting down dangerous criminals, something these Phoenix police officers who are working at their cushy school resource officer job won't be doing]

US citing security to censor more public records

US citing security to censor more public records, analysis finds

Published March 11, 2013

Associated Press

The U.S. government, led by the Pentagon and CIA, censored in the name of national security files that the public requested last year under the Freedom of Information Act more often than at any time since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new analysis by The Associated Press.

Overall, the Obama administration last year answered its highest number of requests so far for copies of government documents, emails, photographs and more, and it slightly reduced its backlog of requests from previous years. But it more often cited legal provisions allowing the government to keep records or parts of its records secret, especially a rule intended to protect national security.

The AP's analysis showed the government released all or portions of the information that citizens, journalists, businesses and others sought at about the same rate as the previous three years. It turned over all or parts of the records in about 65 percent of requests. It fully rejected more than one-third of requests, a slight increase over 2011, including cases when it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper.

The government's responsiveness under the FOIA is widely viewed as a barometer of the federal offices' transparency. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas.

The AP's review comes at the start of the second term for Obama, who promised during his first week in office that the nation's signature open-records law would be "administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails." The review examined figures from the largest federal departments and agencies. Sunday was the start of Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that during the past year, the government "processed more requests, decreased the backlog, improved average processing times and disclosed more information pro-actively." Schultz said the improvements "represent the efforts of agencies across the government to meet the president's commitment to openness. While there is more work to be done, this past year demonstrates that agencies are responding to the president's call for greater transparency."

In a year of intense public interest over deadly U.S. drones, the raid that killed Usama bin Laden, terror threats and more, the government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times — a jump over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama's first year in office. The secretive CIA last year became even more secretive: Nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored for that reason last year, compared with 49 percent a year earlier.

Other federal agencies that invoked the national security exception included the Pentagon, Director of National Intelligence, NASA, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Communications Commission and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs.

U.S. courts are loath to overrule the administration whenever it cites national security. A federal judge, Colleen McMahon of New York, in January ruled against The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to see records about the government's legal justification for drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas, including American citizens. She cited an "Alice in Wonderland" predicament in which she was expected to determine what information should be revealed but unable to challenge the government's secrecy claim. Part of her ruling was sealed and made available only to the government's lawyers.

"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

The AP could not determine whether the administration was abusing the national security exemption or whether the public was asking for more documents about sensitive subjects. Nearly half the Pentagon's 2,390 denials last year under that clause came from the National Security Agency, which monitors Internet traffic and phone calls worldwide.

"FOIA is an imperfect law, and I don't think that's changed over the last four years since Obama took office," said Alexander Abdo, an ACLU staff attorney for its national security project. "We've seen a meteoric rise in the number of claims to protect secret law, the government's interpretations of laws or its understanding of its own authority. In some ways, the Obama administration is actually even more aggressive on secrecy than the Bush administration."

The Obama administration also more frequently invoked the law's "deliberative process" exception to withhold records describing decision-making behind the scenes. Obama had directed agencies to use it less often, but the number of such cases had surged after his first year in office to more than 71,000. After back-to-back years when figures steadily declined, the government cited that reason 66,353 times last year to keep records or parts of records secret.

Even as the Obama administration continued increasing its efforts answering FOIA requests, people submitted more than 590,000 requests for information in fiscal 2012 — an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year. Including leftover requests from previous years, the government responded to more requests than ever in 2012 — more than 603,000 — a 5 percent increase for the second consecutive year.

The Homeland Security Department, which includes offices that deal with immigration files, received more than twice as many requests for records — 190,589 new requests last year — as any other agency, and it answered significantly more requests than it did in 2011. Other agencies, including the State Department, National Transportation Safety Board and Nuclear Regulatory Commission performed worse last year. The State Department, for example, answered only 57 percent of its requests, down from 75 percent a year earlier.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services drove a dramatic increase in the number of times DHS censored immigration records under exceptions to police files containing personal information and law enforcement techniques. The agency invoked those exemptions more than 136,000 times in 2012, compared with more than 75,000 a year earlier. Even though USCIS is not a law-enforcement agency, officials used the exceptions specifically reserved for law enforcement.

The AP's analysis also found that the government generally took longer to answer requests. Some agencies, such as the Health and Human Services Department, took less time than the previous year to turn over files. But at the State Department, for example, even urgent requests submitted under a fast-track system covering breaking news or events when a person's life was at stake took an average two years to wait for files.

Journalists and others who need information quickly to report breaking news, for example, fared worse last year. The rate at which the government granted so-called expedited processing, which moves an urgent request to the front of the line for a speedy answer, fell from 24 percent in 2011 to 17 percent last year. The CIA denied every such request last year.

Under increased budget pressure across the government, agencies more often insisted that people pay search and copying fees. It waived costs in 59 percent of requests, generally when the amount was negligible or the release of the information is in the public interest, a decline from 64 percent of cases a year earlier. At the Treasury Department, which faced questions about its role in auto bailouts and stimulus programs during Obama's first term, only one in five requests were processed at no charge. A year earlier, it granted more than 75 percent of fee waivers. The CIA denied every request last year to waive fees.

The 33 agencies that AP examined were: Agency for International Development, CIA, Agriculture Department, Commerce Department, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Defense Department, Education Department, Energy Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, Justice Department, Labor Department, State Department, Transportation Department, Treasury Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Election Commission, Federal Trade Commission, NASA, National Science Foundation, National Transportation Safety Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service.

Four agencies that were included in AP's previous analysis of FOIA performance did not publicly release their 2012 reports. They included the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Personnel Management.

White House censors more public records, citing security concerns

Mar 11, 2013, 1:15pm EDT Updated: Mar 11, 2013, 1:30pm EDT

White House censors more public records, citing security concerns

Staff Washington Business Journal

The Obama administration is citing security concerns more often as a reason to keep the public in the dark, according to a new analysis by The Associated Press, Federal News Radio reports.

The Pentagon, intelligence community, NASA, Office of Management and Budget and several other agencies invoked the national security exemption last year in rejecting Freedom of Information Act requests.

The government is answering more open-records requests overall, having released two-thirds of the documents requested by the public last year. The other third included cases where agencies couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was improper.

Media blackout: Obama censors more documents, citing national security

Media blackout: Obama censors more documents, citing national security

By Susan Crabtree

The Washington Times

Monday, March 11, 2013

Amid intense public interest over drones, the Osama bin Laden raid and other terrorism-related news, the U.S. government cited national security as its reason for refusing to release documents requested by the public last year more often than in any year since President Obama took office, according to a study released Monday.

The Associated Press reviewed and analyzed the Obama administration’s level of responsiveness to Freedom of Information Act requests, giving the administration credit for answering its highest number of requests for copies of government files and slightly reducing the backlog of requests from previous years.

But the survey also faulted government agencies, led by the Pentagon and the CIA, for increasing the number of times they invoked legal reasons to keep records secret or redact them.

According to the AP analysis, the U.S. government last year turned over all or parts of the records requested in roughly 65 percent of requests, while rejecting more than one-third of requests, a slight increase over 2011. Over the last fiscal year, the government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times — an increase over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in 2010.

Not surprisingly, the CIA was the most secretive agency. It denied 60 percent of 3,586 requests for information, compared to 49 percent a year earlier.

The stepped-up secrecy flies in the face of Mr. Obama’s pledge during his first week in office to run the “most transparent government in history.” He promised at the time that the nation’s open-records law would be “administered with a clear presumption — in the face of doubt, openness prevails.”

Watchdogs organizations and others who regularly make FOIA requests offered some praise for the Obama administration’s progress on open-government issues, but they say government agencies still have an abysmal record when it comes to responding to public requests for information.

Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive at George Washington University said Mr. Obama has declassified such items as the national intelligence budget, the so-called “torture memos” and information about the Justice Department’s warrantless wiretapping program. But the openness on big issues has not filtered down to the agencies dealing with FOIA requests.

“We have just not seen the agencies respond to the Obama and [Attorney General] Eric Holder presumption of disclosure. … You see a real hangover of regular bureaucratic behavior,” he said.

Others point to a growing trend among government agencies to refuse to waive the costs of responding to request, even for those applicants whose eligibility for a public-interest fee waiver seems clear.

The Obama administration “has been responsible for a growing trend in which agencies issue baseless denials of public-interest fee waiver requests,” said Julie Murray, an attorney at the watchdog group Public Citizen.

Melanie Ann Pustay, who heads the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy, on Monday defended the administration’s record on transparency.

Even though agencies received more requests than in previous years, Ms. Pustay said, government officials “rose to the challenge” and processed more requests than ever before. The government as a whole processed more than 665,000 request in fiscal year 2012, which is 34,000 more than they processed in fiscal year 2011 and 65,000 more than they processed two years ago.

As a result, the government reduced its backlog of pending requests by 14 percent over the last fiscal year and 45 percent since Mr. Obama took office, she said.

Did the Phoenix Police frame Debra Milke for murder???

Source

Convictions of woman on Ariz. death row overturned

By Michael Kiefer The Republic | 12 News Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:57 PM

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday threw out the death sentence and murder conviction against Debra Milke, one of three women on Arizona’s Death Row.

The appeals court sent the case back to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new trial.

Milke, who turns 49 this month, was charged with first-degree murder, accused of ordering two acquaintances to kill her 4-year-old son Christopher.

According to court records and media accounts, Milke found the child to be an inconvenience in her life and asked James Styers, her roommate, to kill the boy. She dressed her son in his favorite clothes and cowboy boots and told him that he was going to Metrocenter mall to see Santa Claus. Another man, Roger Scott, drove Christopher and Styers to a pizzeria, and then to the desert near 99th Avenue and Happy Valley Road, where Styers shot the boy in the back of the head.

Milke, Styers and Scott were each sentenced to death — and all three of their cases have festered in the federal court system. Styers’ conviction and sentence are also pending before the appellate court. Scott lost his case in the 9th Circuit and is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue in Milke’s case is a confession supposedly obtained by now-retired Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate.

Milke last appeared in U.S. District Court in Phoenix in January 2010, but the judge denied her relief.

But Thursday, in an opinion written by 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, the court ruled that the confession to Saldate was illegally extracted. The case was remanded to Arizona courts.

Detective Saldate gets confessions from unconscious people on hospital gurneys???

Source

Convictions of woman on Ariz. death row overturned

By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:39 PM

Debra Milke was a celebrated villain of 1989, a woman accused and convicted of dressing up her 4-year-old son to see Santa Claus and, instead, sending him off to be shot execution-style in a desert wash.

She is one of three women on Arizona’s death row.

But on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her death sentence and murder conviction because the trial court refused to let her introduce evidence that might have discredited her supposed confession.

The Phoenix police detective who claimed Milke confessed to him had a history of lying to grand juries and extracting confessions even from unconscious suspects on hospital gurneys, according to the court opinion. There were no witnesses to the confession, and it was not recorded. Milke denied she ever confessed.

The 9th Circuit asked the U.S. District Court to send the case to the Arizona court system for a new trial and ordered that the detective’s personnel files be made available for Milke’s defense.

Assistant Arizona Attorney General Jeffrey Zick said his office will likely ask a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges to rehear the appeal before taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Milke was tried and convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, but a spokesman for the County Attorney’s Office said it would defer to the Arizona attorney general pending the appeal.

According to Milke’s attorney, Lori Voepel, Milke’s response when she heard of the opinion was, “Are you kidding?”

Milke, 49, was charged with first-degree murder, accused of conspiring with two acquaintances to kill her son Christopher in 1989.

According to court records and media accounts, Milke found the child to be an inconvenience and asked James Styers, her roommate, to kill him. She dressed the child in his favorite clothes and cowboy boots and told him that he was going to Metrocenter mall to see Santa Claus, court records said.

Another man, Roger Scott, drove Christopher and Styers to a pizzeria, and then to the desert near 99th Avenue and Happy Valley Road, where Styers shot the boy three times in the back of the head, according to court records.

Milke, Styers and Scott were each sentenced to death — and all three cases have languished in the federal court system. Styers’ conviction and sentence are pending before the appellate court. Scott lost his case in the 9th Circuit and is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is near the end of his appeals.

At issue in Milke’s case is the confession supposedly obtained by now-retired Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate. According to the 9th Circuit opinion, Saldate claimed Scott implicated Milke in the murder. Saldate then arrested Milke, and after a one-on-one interrogation that was not recorded, Saldate claimed he had extracted a confession. Milke always denied having confessed. Neither Scott nor Styers testified against Milke.

During her trial, Milke’s attorneys tried to subpoena Saldate’s personnel record, but the subpoena was quashed by the court. [So much for your right to a fair trial]

What the personnel record would have shown was that Saldate had a history of misconduct that could have been used to call into question his credibility.

According to the 9th Circuit ruling, he had falsified information to a grand jury, extracted confessions from people drifting in and out of consciousness in hospital rooms and continued to interrogate suspects even after they invoked their Miranda rights to an attorney. [That is a rather routine violation by the police of our Constitutional rights. Every time I am stop by the police I take the 5th and refuse to answer police questions. And every time the police respond by telling me I don't have any 5th Amendment rights. The police are corrupt to the core!!!!]

Once, he stopped a female motorist for a faulty taillight and then “took liberties” with her, letting her go without a citation after she promised to meet him later for sex. She didn’t show up for the arranged date and, instead, reported Saldate.

Saldate could not immediately be reached for comment.

The case was tried by now-retired Deputy County Attorney Noel Levy, the prosecutor who sent alleged “Snaggletooth Killer” Ray Krone to death row. Krone was exonerated after 10 years in prison. [Ray Krone was the 100th person in which DNA testing proved he was framed by the Phoenix Police for murder. Ray Krone did not take the 5th and talked to the Phoenix Police in an attempt to prove his innocence. I talked to Krone about this when he spoke at the ASU College of Law and Ray Krone told me the police twisted his words around claiming he was guilty. Ray told me he would never talk to the police again in an attemp to prove his innocence because the police are corrupt. He will always take the 5th now.]

In the 9th Circuit opinion handed down Thursday, written by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, the court ruled that Milke’s confession to Saldate was illegally extracted.

The court did not throw out the confession altogether but ordered that the potentially exculpatory material in Saldate’s file be provided so that the jury can weigh it against the supposed confession.

Sunshine Week - Getting the government to operate in the public eye!!

Source

Our View: On behalf of government transparency — local and national — this ‘Sunshine Week’

Posted: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:05 am

Tribune Editorial

The American Society of Newspaper Editors dedicate this week each year as Sunshine Week. Its purpose is to remind Americans that public officials must conduct public business openly for all to see.

Sunshine Week coincides with James Madison’s birthday. Madison was the nation’s fourth president. He drafted the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and became known as the “father of the Bill of Rights.” He believed fiercely that government should not be able to hide its activities from the public it was designed to serve.

And this year is the 47th anniversary of the federal Freedom of Information Act that was passed amid the push for clean government after the Watergate mess.

The Tribune and newspapers across the country work to ensure — as the St. Louis Post Dispatch said in an editorial this week — “that public business is accessible to the public, those who pay the taxes and elect the officials.” It goes on to say “those that work in the public interest must work in the public view.”

Don’t think that this happens without resistance.

The Arizona legislature is considering virtually eliminating public notices by putting them on government web sites instead of requiring independent publishing. A scheduled vote Monday was cancelled, presumably because the sponsor did not have the votes lined up; a second attempt at a floor vote Tuesday was also put off, leaving the bill’s status further up in the air.

At the federal level, Americans submitted more than 590,000 requests for information from its government in 2012 under the Freedom of Information Act. The Obama administration rejected one-third of the requests. According to an Associated Press analysis this week, the Obama administration last year cited legal exceptions more than any administration in history to deny requests for information. It often cited national security and “internal deliberations” as the need to reject requests.

“FOIA is an imperfect law, and I don’t think that’s changed over the last four years since Obama took office,” said Alexander Abdo, an ACLU staff attorney for its national security project. “We’ve seen a meteoric rise in the number of claims to protect secret law, the government’s interpretations of laws or its understanding of its own authority. In some ways, the Obama administration is actually even more aggressive on secrecy than the Bush administration.”

Newspapers will be diligent in exposing government acts done in secrecy whether they are city, county, state or federal officials. It is then up to the voters to toss the rascals out of government when they insist on trying to do business in secret.

Federal bills take aim at federal marijuana ban

Source

Bills take aim at federal marijuana ban

By Raju Chebium Gannett Washington Bureau Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:20 PM

WASHINGTON -- A few House members have begun a broad effort to overturn a 43-year-old federal ban on marijuana and say they’re prepared to keep up the pressure even if it takes years.

About 10 lawmakers, mostly liberal Democrats, are writing bills that will serve as legislative guideposts for the future if the GOP-controlled House, as expected, ignores their proposals during this Congress.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said it’s time to end the federal ban because 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana and many other states are exploring that option in response to growing public pressure.

“Maybe next year, maybe next Congress, but this is going to change. And the federal government will get out of the way,” he said. “I’m very patient. I’ve been working on this one way or another for 40 years and I think the likelihood of something happening in the next four or five years is greater than ever.”

Peter Bensinger, a former head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, urged lawmakers to keep the ban despite the pressure to legalize pot.

Advocacy groups, which have spent a lot of money over the years to push legalization, gloss over the negative effects of marijuana though studies show people do get hooked and smoking pot impairs judgment and could cause cancer like cigarettes, he said.

“Legalizing it is going to cost lives, money, addiction, dependency,” Bensinger warned in an interview Wednesday.

A number of lawmakers share that view, which is why previous congressional attempts to decriminalize marijuana went nowhere.

Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., acknowledged that getting any marijuana bill through a bitterly divided Congress -- which is consumed by debates over spending, gun regulations and other matters -- won’t be easy.

“It will take more states moving in the direction Washington and Colorado have before there’s a sufficient pressure on (Congress) to change the law,” he said. “It’s harder to get the attention of members of Congress from states where the legal status has not been changed because it’s simply not a relevant issue for their constituents.”

In February, Polis and Blumenauer introduced bills that begin to chip away at federal marijuana policy, which makes it illegal to grow, use, possess or distribute pot.

Polis’ measure seeks to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act. Blumenauer’s bill would allow the government to tax marijuana like tobacco and alcohol. If both bills become law, states would decide whether to legalize marijuana, not Uncle Sam, and state lawmakers would have Washington’s blessing to impose taxes on pot.

More proposals are expected in the coming months. For instance, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., is writing a bill to create a commission to study whether marijuana has medicinal value.

Though legalization advocates argue pot has proven benefits like relieving chronic pain and is not addictive, the federal government cites other studies showing pot has no medical benefits and acts as a “gateway,” leading users to try even more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin.

According to a 2011 federal survey, about 18 million people over the age of 12 have used marijuana at some point in their lives, making pot the country’s most-popular illegal drug under federal law. That means 7 percent of the nation’s 12-and-over population has used pot at some point.

So far, the legalization push in the House has very little bipartisan support.

The 10 lawmakers co-sponsoring Polis’ bill include California Democrat Barbara Lee, who represents San Francisco, New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes Manhattan, and one Republican, Californian Dana Rohrabacher, a tea party libertarian from conservative Orange County.

Blumenauer’s bill has six co-sponsors, including Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, but no Republicans.

Senators haven’t filed legislation to overturn the federal ban.

California became the first state to allow the use of pot for medical purposes in 1996.

Seventeen other states -- Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Michigan and Vermont -- and the District of Columbia now have medical marijuana laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Almost all of these states have set up patient registries to keep track of medical marijuana users. Eleven states also allow marijuana dispensaries.

In November, voters in Colorado and Washington took the unprecedented step of legalizing recreational use as well.

Nowhere in the world is it legal to grow and distribute pot, but that will be legal in those two states once authorities work out the regulatory details, according to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Recreational-use ballot measures are considered likely in California and Oregon in the next few years, though Californians rejected similar language in 2010 and Oregonians said no in 2012.

According to the Marijuana Policy Project, lawmakers filed medical marijuana bills in 17 states this year: West Virginia, Texas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, New York, New Hampshire, Missouri, Mississippi, Minnesota, Maryland, Kentucky, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Florida and Alabama.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said if the federal ban is overturned in this Congress, liberal states are likely to adopt legalization laws within a decade.

“Anywhere the salt water touches the West Coast, there will be legalization. All of New England will move in this direction reasonably quickly,” St. Pierre said.

Legalization will take years to become reality in conservative America, just as it took states like Oklahoma a long time to allow alcohol sales after Prohibition was repealed in 1933, St. Pierre said.

Unless the federal ban is lifted, all current and future state laws will violate the Controlled Substances Act, a 1970 U.S. statute that classifies marijuana as a dangerous, addictive drug with no medicinal value.

The broad push in the House comes as the Obama administration continues to grapple with how to respond to the state pot laws. Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce the administration’s plan soon.

In 2009, the Obama administration told federal prosecutors they don’t have to go after pot distributors who are complying with their state’s medical marijuana laws. In December, President Barack Obama said going after pot smokers in Washington and Colorado is a low-priority item.

Pressure is coming from those who favor the ban as well.

Bensinger, who works with anti-drug groups, said Holder should sue Washington and Colorado under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which puts federal law above state law. Earlier this month, the International Narcotics Control Board, a United Nations agency, urged action saying state pot laws violate international treaties the U.S. has signed.

Overturning the ban is a tough job, Bensinger said.

“You’d have to undo the federal law, you’d have to have the Congress be willing to pay no attention to the supremacy clause, and you’d have to break an international treaty,” he said. “This is uphill sledding.”

Mesa Police Sergeant Russell Dean Millsaps arrested on sex abuse charges.

Source

PD: Ex- Mesa cop arrested on sex charges

Posted: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:08 pm

ABC15.com

Police say a former Mesa Police Sergeant has been arrested on sex abuse charges.

Mesa police spokesman Tony Landato said detectives and Homeland Security Investigators served a search warrant at the former officer’s home near Horne and Brown Road Thursday afternoon.

Landato said 66-year-old Russell Dean Millsaps was arrested on charges of sexual exploitation of a minor.

Officials said Millsaps retired from the force in 1995.

Cicero officer charged with criminally transmitting HIV

Source

Cicero officer charged with criminally transmitting HIV

By Deanese Williams-Harris Tribune reporter

5:24 p.m. CDT, March 14, 2013

A Cicero police officer has been charged with criminally transmitting HIV after a man accused him of not informing him he had the virus before a sexual encounter.

John Savage, 38, of LaGrange Park was charged with criminally transmitting HIV and appeared today in Bond Court in Maywood, where he was released on his own recognizance, according to a news release from the office of Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart.

The victim, a 24-year-old man, said he and Savage went to a movie on July 29, 2012, and after that went back to Savage's home in LaGrange Park where they engaged in sexual activity, the release said.

The victim later asked Savage about his HIV status and Savage told him he was HIV positive, the release said.

The victim reported the incident to LaGrange Park police, who then contacted the sheriff's police.

Savage was arrested on Wednesday and was suspended from duty as a results of the charges, said Cicero spokesman Ray Hanania. However, he added, Savage was off-duty during the time of the alleged incident.

Savage as been employed for 13 years at the Cicero Police Department, Hanania said.

dawilliams@tribune.com

The military's Chicken Littles want you to think the sky is falling

Source

Think Again: The Pentagon

The military's Chicken Littles want you to think the sky is falling. Don't believe them: America has never been safer.

BY THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | MARCH/APRIL 2013

"The Pentagon Is Always Fighting the Last War."

Just the opposite. The Pentagon, as former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates derisively pointed out, has a bad case of "next-war-itis." With Iraq now ancient history and Afghanistan winding down, all four of the major U.S. military services today prefer to imagine distant, future, high-tech shoot-'em-ups against China (er, well-equipped adversaries) over dealing with the world as we find it, which is still full of those nasty little wars. As Marine Corps general and outgoing Central Command boss James Mattis once told me, "I find it intellectually embarrassing that people want to hug the Chinese [and exclaim], 'Oh, thank God we have another peer competitor at last! Now we can go back to building the weapons that we always wanted to build.'"

Some of these efforts can verge on the ridiculous. I recently sat through an Air Force briefing during which super-empowered individuals were portrayed as thiiiiiis close to being able to wipe out humanity with a genetic weapon or to kill off -- get this -- more than half the U.S. population through electromagnetic-pulse attacks that send us collectively back to subsistence farming (think of the TV drama Revolution). Another scenario posited a "one-machine" future when, naturally, the "beast" starts thinking for itself and can turn on humanity (here, take your pick of Terminator's Skynet or the Matrix trilogy). That's the beautiful thing about Armageddon-like future wars: They could happen tomorrow, or they could never happen. The only thing we know for sure is that we're totally unprepared!

If you thought all these plotlines portray a Pentagon in search of the right justifying villain, then you'd be right. But remember, amid all this institutional angst, what's really being fought over are slices of a $530 billion budgetary pie that many experts think should be shrunk by one-fifth over the rest of this decade.

The first services to be infected were "Big War Blue" -- the Navy and Air Force -- as both felt slighted in the post-9/11 long war against radical terrorist networks, seeing in its unfolding an existential threat: a long-term emphasis on "Small Wars Green" involving mainly the Army, the Marine Corps, and special operators like SEAL Team 6. Now, however, even the Army and the Marine Corps are beginning to catch the fever. So while the Navy and Air Force have been fighting harder for longer because they've gotten the short end of the stick for the last decade, the Army and Marine Corps are now running hard from the long war too, looking to make sure they don't get discarded like Iraq and Afghanistan.

After years of acting like it was on top of everything, the U.S. military is back in Chicken Little mode and, man, is that sky ever fallin'. According to Andrew Krepinevich, a longtime advisor to the Pentagon, America either stands up militarily to the Chinese now or risks a "latter-day Chinese Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of Influence." How does the Pentagon find those dollars? Krepinevich is blunt: "The big bill payer here is the ground forces."

All those gripes aside, next-war-itis is a good thing. After all, no American interests are served by having the U.S. military be the last to wake up to a genuine national security threat. And because these crystal-ball exercises are far more art than science, a certain number of bad bets will be placed. But those cost a great deal less than wars the military is ill-prepared to fight -- which is why the Pentagon is always fighting the wars yet to come, and the wars that will never be.

"The U.S. Military Still Needs to Be Able to Wage Two Wars at Once."

Not anymore. Or at least not for the foreseeable future. The two-wars concept, on some level, echoes World War II's European and Pacific theaters. During the Cold War, it became a matter of keeping the Soviets boxed in on both ends, lest the dominoes fall (as the United States feared in Southeast Asia). When the Reds went away, the Pentagon started calling them "major regional contingencies," but everyone soon realized that was just a bureaucratic euphemism for North Korea and Iraq (then later Iran) -- not exactly your daddy's world war.

So why has this Cold War artifact lasted so long inside the Pentagon? It created a force-sizing principle -- America needs X many troops/ships/aircraft/etc. -- that could be presented to Congress to justify a defense budget "floor" once the all-mighty Soviets were no more. Until the 9/11 attacks, it was just a theory. Now, after the United States just spent the better part of a decade waging two modest-sized wars and saw how they burned out the force, neither Congress nor the American people is in the mood to entertain the fantasy of simultaneously toppling Iran's mullahs in the Persian Gulf and duking it out with the Chinese in East Asia. So consider this one dead and buried until the United States reaches some semblance of fiscal order.

America's "pivot" from Southwest Asia (so long, Iraq and Afghanistan!) to East Asia (hello, China!) represents more than just Barack Obama's strategic rationale for tying off his predecessor's military adventures. In concluding two land wars that enlarged his two armies -- the Army and the Marine Corps -- the president can reduce their superexpensive manpower (keeping just one soldier in Afghanistan costs roughly $1 million a year) even as he shifts U.S. military and diplomatic efforts toward the Pacific.

All that "supplemental" spending on the Army and the far smaller Marine Corps to fund Iraq and Afghanistan depressed the Navy and Air Force shares of the procurement budget throughout the 2000s. For example, the Air Force's share of the defense budget across the 1990s averaged 31 to 32 percent. Now it stands just above 27 percent. Meanwhile, the Army picked up almost 2 percentage points that it's now sure to lose. For the services, the "pivot" has a wholly different meaning.

Plus, slotting in still-reddish Beijing for the old Red Menace is a stone that kills two birds: A Democratic administration avoids the "weak-on-defense" charge (see, we're standing up to those dastardly Chinese!) while sidestepping any serious military responsibility for what remains of, or is still to come from, the so-called Arab Spring (Syria, anyone?).

Obama's new secretaries of state and defense -- both Vietnam War veterans turned anti-war senators -- could not send a clearer signal in this regard: America doesn't do land wars (read: quagmires) anymore. Instead, the country returns to what scholars call "offshore balancing" and occasionally striking from a safe distance. "And how many troops/ships/aircraft/etc. does that take?" asks Congress. "Ah," says the Pentagon, "have we briefed you recently on Chinese military developments?"

Of course, the Pentagon will never admit exactly what is going on. No, that would be perceived as giving a green light to Antagonist B if America ever tussled with Antagonist A. Check out the recent tap dance by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, over the White House's 2013 budget submission:

There's been much made -- and I'm sure will be made -- about whether this strategy moves away from a force structure explicitly designed to fight and win two wars simultaneously. Fundamentally, our strategy has always been about our ability to respond to global contingencies wherever and whenever they occur. This won't change.… We can and will always be able to do more than one thing at a time. More importantly, wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win.

Got that Beijing/Tehran/Pyongyang?

"The U.S. Navy Is Too Small."

Not necessarily. Yes, the U.S. Navy has dwindled greatly from the Reagan-era dream of a "600-ship navy," but its slow slide to today's approximately 290 "battle-force ships" is no cause for alarm -- even with all that talk about the future of American power being in the South China Sea. To paraphrase Obama's election-debate comeback, "This ain't your grandfather's 1917 navy." The combined agility, firepower, and operational reach of today's seaborne force dwarf anything America enjoyed in the last century. Military expert John Pike notes that current U.S. aircraft carriers are 10 times more powerful than they were just two decades ago, thanks to precision munitions.

So, yeah, when you can deliver that much force that accurately -- and from such incredible distances -- the notion of steaming into some rogue regime's inner harbor to teach it some manners is excruciatingly quaint. And if Beijing wants to stockpile budget-draining capital ships -- even aircraft carriers -- then Mao bless 'em, because the U.S. Navy is already evolving past last century's paradigm toward this century's version of the many, the cheap(er), and the unmanned.

The Navy's latest vision of war, concocted with the help of D.C. think tanks and the Air Force, is the Air-Sea Battle concept. It says, in so many words, that the Navy won't let China's military prevent it from accessing some future East Asian crisis or war. So when China starts fielding its first aircraft carrier (a Soviet retread built in the 1980s) and its superscary carrier-killing missiles, the U.S. Navy starts testing its first carrier-capable unmanned combat aircraft (what else to call it when it sports an F-16's engine?). And if China forces the Navy into a standoff posture, then guess what? America comes up with a technological breakthrough that turns every carrier-launched strike force into another Doolittle raid -- as in, No pilots? No return? No problem. We'll become the kamikazes, only there won't be any "we" inside our "suicide" drones.

As for the Navy's pitch in recent years about needing to police the "global commons," let's be honest and say that bad-actor behavior on the high seas doesn't amount to much. Heck, put two former special-ops snipers fore and aft of a cargo ship, and that's all the security you need to handle your average Somali pirate crew -- as in, bang, bang, you're dead.

So have no fears about the Navy. It'll remain "big" enough.

"So the Wars of the Future Will Be Unmanned."

I didn't say that. Yes, deep inside the Pentagon, some 50-pound brains are dreaming up the Terminator-style wars of tomorrowland (typically waged against the Chinese hoards … of robots and unmanned vehicles). And yes, drones increasingly rule the skies. But seriously, think about that for a minute. What exactly do such forces fight over -- decisively -- in this rock 'em, sock 'em manner? Other than just blowing up each other's high-tech toys? If, at the end of the day, there's something truly valuable to contest, a country's manned forces still need to occupy and control it; otherwise, nothing is achieved. Wake me up when drones can set up local government elections in Afghanistan or reconfigure Mali's judicial system.

So, yes, drones are spectacular for finding and targeting bad actors (and other drones, eventually), but if your robot war requires a no man's land to unfold (say, the tribal regions of Pakistan), then all you can "control" in this manner are no man's lands -- or patches of ocean. If you really want to get your hands on what lies below (hydrocarbons, minerals, arable land), you still have to send in some bodies -- eventually. That's why they call it blood and treasure.

That's not to say all these new aerial drones don't strike fear into the hearts of America's enemies, not to mention the U.S. Air Force. I mean, you couldn't even squeeze a pilot in many of the newest drones, some of which are so slight they can be launched with a flick of the wrist. And with the Army now proposing a 5-pound bullet of a drone (the Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System) to shoot individual enemy soldiers from half a dozen miles away, the youngest of the four services correctly spots an existential threat amid all those toggling joysticks. Indeed, four years ago, the Air Force published a report that suggested the service could eventually get rid of two-thirds (or more) of its 13,250 pilots. No wonder the Air Force is talking so much about its indispensable role combating the hazards of space and cyberwar these days.

"America Doesn't Need the Marines Anymore."

Hold on there, soldier! The Marines go into survival mode just about every other decade, all the way back to when they lost their jobs as snipers lodged in the masts of ships after the Civil War. Troop numbers were decimated after World War I, and the Marine Corps was almost swallowed whole by the Army after World War II. Then came the post-Vietnam funk and the relegation to a mere amphibious feint in the Army's lightning-fast liberation of Kuwait in 1991's Operation Desert Storm. So no, the Marines' latest bout of angst is nothing new. Sure, there wasn't really any difference between how the United States deployed Marine Corps and Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan, the clearest evidence being their frequent relief of one another. And with the special-ops community stealing a good chunk of the Marines' thunder recently, it's only natural to wonder whether America's most iconic service has reached its own Zero Dark Something.

Still, it's never going to happen.

First of all, no other service can match the Marine Corps' outsized reputation (hell, mystique) or its connections on Capitol Hill. Americans simply expect that there will always be a Marine Corps. Logic doesn't enter into it.

Plus, an essential division of labor has settled in since 9/11: While the special operators handle the low end of the spectrum (killing bad guys discretely) and the Army stands ready for the Big One, the Marine Corps, which alone among the services is back up to its Cold War fighting strength (of 200,000), exists to respond to everything in between -- at the drop of a helmet. That's why it was the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit that swooped into Japan after the big 2011 earthquake and tsunami, not the 1st Armored Division. So, no, forget about furloughing America's global emergency-response force, because -- unlike in Armageddon -- bad things happen to good people(s) all the time.

If the Marine Corps is reaching for a new combat image, it's best captured in the emerging Navy concept of the Single Naval Battle -- a ship or two, a few good men, and something to fight over on the water, like an oil rig. Yes, that sounds like it's ripped from today's headlines (e.g., China and Japan's ongoing tussle over islets in the East China Sea), but toss in a future ice-free Arctic Ocean, where one-fifth of the world's known hydrocarbon reserves lie largely unexploited, and who knows? A British firm just announced that it's launching Britain's first private navy in two centuries to fight those nasty Somali pirates, so maybe the Marines' new survival strategy makes sense, even if -- again -- the overall market likely remains small.

"The U.S. Army Is Far Too Big."

Bingo. Today's Army declares that it exists to win land wars in a decisive fashion. The key word is "decisive": While Army generals don't advertise it anymore, that means occupying the defeated power and overseeing its stabilization and reconstruction for a significant period of time. But let's get real: Does anyone really think the American people will tolerate another Iraq or Afghanistan?

Compared with the past, today's wars are waged decidedly faster and thus are dramatically shorter. (Yes, by that I mean America should stop calling its subsequent military occupations and counterinsurgency campaigns "wars.") They're also far less lethal thanks to smarter bombs and better emergency care. Point being: America doesn't need today's Army if the next Iraq war is a Vietnam syndrome away from happening. The U.S. government is simply too broke.

At roughly 560,000 men and women, the Army is bigger than it has been since 1994, when it was still crashing from its Reagan-era Cold War heights of 780,000. Later in the 1990s, the Army bottomed out at 480,000, and there's no reason it can't go back to that level, given that none of the fabulously high-tech wars being dreamed up by Pentagon planners calls for multiyear occupations of distant California-size countries.

The Army's just-issued "Capstone Concept" -- its vision of how it sees the wars of the future and the Army's role in them -- tried its best to be coy on this subject. But come on: When the first serious scenario mentioned is the "implosion" of the North Korean regime, then, buddy, that is one bare cupboard. After the steep cuts of the 1970s and 1990s (and before that the demobilizations following World War I and World War II), the Army should be used to this budgetary sine wave by now. The republic will survive.

"Cyberwar Is the Next Big Thing."

You bet. That is, at least as far as D.C.'s Beltway bandits are concerned. There is only one great growth area in the U.S. defense budget today -- besides health care, which now eats up roughly 10 percent of the Pentagon's spending each year. Spending on cyberweapons and network defense has been skyrocketing for years. Over the next five years, the Pentagon alone is set to spend $18 billion on cyber (it requested $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2013), and the Obama administration's 2009 decision to set up U.S. Cyber Command sanctified that emerging "war-fighting domain" and its budgetary standing. Washington's small army of IT contractors couldn't be happier.

But is this a good use of taxpayer money? There's no question that the U.S. government and national security establishment in general are pretty bad at network security, and by that I mean both fall far below the standards of the world's best corporations and banks. Most Silicon Valley experts will tell you that, but you'll never hear it from D.C.'s many contractors or the national security cyber offices they serve in parasitic symbiosis. As far as they are concerned, it's the private sector that's light-years behind.

As for cyber serving as a stand-alone war-fighting domain, there you'll find the debates no less theological in their intensity. After serving as senior managing director for half a dozen years at a software firm that specializes in securing supply chains, I'm deeply skeptical. Given the uncontrollable nature of cyberweapons (see: Stuxnet's many permutations), I view them as the 21st century's version of chemical weapons -- nice to have, but hard to use. Another way to look at it is to simply call a spade a spade: Cyberwarfare is nothing more than espionage and sabotage updated for the digital era. Whatever cyberwar turns out to be in the national security realm, it will always be dwarfed by the industrial variants -- think cyberthieves, not cyberwarriors. But you wouldn't know it from the panicky warnings from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the generals about the imminent threat of a "cyber Pearl Harbor."

Please remember amid all this frenetic scaremongering that the Pentagon is never more frightened about our collective future than when it's desperately uncertain about its own. Given the rising health-care costs associated with America's aging population and the never-ending dysfunction in Washington, we should expect to be bombarded with frightening scenarios of planetary doom for the next decade or two. None of this bureaucratic chattering will bear any resemblance to global trends, which demonstrate that wars have grown increasingly infrequent, shorter in duration, and diminished in lethality. But you won't hear that from the next-warriors on the Potomac.

Police and prosecutors failed us in Debra Milke case

Source

Laurie Roberts | azcentral opinions

Police and prosecutors failed us in Debra Milke case

Posted on March 15, 2013 4:49 pm by Laurie Roberts Police and prosecutors failed us in Debra Milke case

It seems somehow fitting that Arizona’s most notorious baby killer – make that now Arizona’s possibly most notorious baby killer – would see her conviction tossed out this week.

This week, the 50th anniversary of the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. Miranda’s rape conviction was tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled that suspects must be informed of their rights before they can be questioned by police.

Fifty years after Miranda’s interrogation by Phoenix police, Debra Milke’s conviction was thrown out this week because of substantial – and alarming – questions about her interrogation by Phoenix police.

Questions about whether she got a fair trial and just how far some police and prosecutors will go in their zeal to get a conviction.

“It’s scary when you see something like this because this could happen to any one of us at any time,” Milke’s attorney, Mike Kimerer, told me.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals must agree because it forwarded its Milke opinion, issued Thursday, to the U.S. Attorney in Arizona and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, for possible investigation into whether there’s “a pattern of violating the federally protected rights of Arizona residents.”

It’s been more than 22 years since 4-year-old Christopher Milke was told he was going to see Santa and instead was taken into the desert and executed. For two decades, Debra Milke has lived on death row, put there by the testimony of a Phoenix detective who told jurors she confessed to ordering the boy’s 1989 execution.

Detective Armando Saldate testified that Milke confessed after acknowledging that she understood her Miranda rights. Milke said she didn’t understand and asked for an attorney but continued talking to defend herself and that Saldate twisted her words into a confession she never made.

It was his word against hers. There was no other direct evidence linking her to Christopher’s death.

Saldate didn’t tape the interview despite being asked to by a supervisor, and he didn’t have a witness to Milke’s confession though another detective waited just outside the room.

Saldate said in a 2010 hearing that he wasn’t required to tape interviews and didn’t like to because it “inhibited” conversation. Even so, he said he would have taped it but Milke objected.

The problem is, Saldate didn’t even bring a tape recorder to his meeting with Milke, at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office in Florence, or ask to borrow one before going into the interview room.

Milke was sentenced to death in 1991.

Turns out Saldate had a history of trampling people’s Miranda rights and lying under oath to get convictions or to further prosecutions, according to the 9th Circuit opinion. Only police and prosecutors never disclosed that to Milke’s attorney or to the jury.

Never disclosed a 1973 incident when Saldate pulled over a woman for a traffic stop, took “liberties” with her and later lied about it to internal affairs investigators.

Never disclosed four court cases in which confessions or indictments had been been tossed out because Saldate lied to grand juries and judges.

Never disclosed four other cases in which confessions were suppressed or convictions tossed because Saldate violated suspects’ Miranda and other constitutional rights during interrogations.

Like the time he managed to get a statement out of an incoherent suspect hospitalized with a skull fracture, a guy who didn’t even know his own name or what year it was.

Or the time he interrogated a suspect who was in intensive care, drifting in and out of consciousness, and came up with something to use against him at trial.

In overturning Milke’s conviction, the appeals panel criticized both Phoenix police and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for failing to disclose Saldate’s misconduct.

“It’s hard to imagine anything more relevant to the jury’s — or the judge’s – determination whether to believe Saldate than evidence that Saldate lied under oath and trampled the constitutional rights of suspects, “ the judges wrote.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a scathing concurrence, saying “no civilized system of justice should have to depend on such flimsy evidence, quite possibly tainted by dishonesty or overzealousness, to decide whether to take someone’s life or liberty.”

Not even, presumably, in Maricopa County.

Attorney General Tom Horne plans to appeal, vowing Friday to personally argue the case before the Supreme Court.

“This is a horrible crime,” he said in a statement. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision needs to be reversed, and justice for Christopher needs to be served.”

Justice, indeed, needs to be served. Which why Horne might want to read the 60-page opinion and ask a few hard questions about what happened here.

An innocent woman might have been condemned to die because police and prosecutors cut corners.

Or a guilty woman may walk free.

How do cities spell revenue??? St. Patty’s Day DUI tickets.

Source

St. Patty’s Day to bring DUI hunt in Tempe, Scottsdale

By Jackee Coe The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:40 PM

Tempe police will be conducting DUI enforcement St. Patrick's Day on the heels of two serious collisions this week – one fatal – involving suspected impaired drivers.

Officers and deputies from the Tempe and Scottsdale police departments and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will be out in force in both cities Sunday.

Much of the enforcement will focus on the downtown areas, but also will include all neighborhood and city streets in and around the cities, Tempe traffic Lt. Randy Wilson said.

“It’ll be centered around St. Patrick’s Day festivities,” he said. “It’s one of the major drinking holidays.”

Wilson said officers who participate in the task forces are passionate about it because they want to prevent injuries and deaths like the ones that occurred this week when two different suspected impaired drivers in separate incidents collided with other vehicles, killing one person and sending another to the hospital with life-threatening injuries.

On Sunday, Kaylynn Ruth Kayanie, 25, was allegedly speeding west on Broadway Road about 9 a.m. when she ran a red light and struck another vehicle that was driving south on Priest Drive, Police Department spokeswoman Molly Enright said.

The 45-year-old female driver of the other vehicle was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries, while two pedestrians in the crosswalk were treated and released from the hospital after being hit by flying debris from the collision.

Investigators suspect Kayanie was impaired and are awaiting drug-test results, she said.

On Tuesday night, 21-year-old Elsa Tovar was killed when the motorcycle she was driving was struck by Veronica Muckerman, 32, of Tempe, who police believe was drunk, Enright said.

Muckerman allegedly failed to yield to Tovar when turning left from westbound Broadway onto Rural Road about 5:50 p.m., she said.

Maricopa County Superior Court records show Muckerman, whose 9- and 12-year-old daughters were with her in the GMC Yukon with her, registered a blood alcohol-content of at least 0.137 percent on a breathalyzer test. The legal limit is .08.

Wilson said the two instances underscore the importance of DUI enforcement and exemplify why officers are so passionate.

“It’s not a job to them any longer,” he said. “They see these incidents as unnecessary harm and injury and death.”

Tempe police had 1,983 total DUI arrests last year, [Which will bring in over $2 million in revenue] including 291 drug DUI arrests, according to Police Department statistics. That National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that over 700 people were killed nationwide in collisions involving drunk drivers during the St. Patrick’s Day holiday from 2006 to 2010.

Police hope the high-visibility presence will “make somebody think twice” and deter people from driving impaired so “we don’t get called out and have to deal any of those incidents again this weekend,” Wilson said.

He encouraged people to choose a designated driver ahead of time or put the phone numbers for several cab companies into their phones before they leave so they “don’t have to think about it.”

“Be responsible. Be smart,” Wilson said. “If you’re going to go out and drink, that’s fine. Let’s just make sure that you get home safe.”

Drunk cop driving the wrong way causes fatal crash???

Source

Cops: Wrong-way driver caused fatal LSD crash, alcohol suspected

By Carlos Sadovi, Mick Swasko and Peter Nickeas Tribune reporters

7:59 p.m. CDT, March 15, 2013

Police believe that alcohol may have played a factor when a wrong-way driver struck two vehicles and injured three people, two fatally, in a crash early today on Lake Shore Drive.

The crash happened at about 4 a.m. after a man driving a silver SUV got on the southbound lanes of Lake Shore Drive near LaSalle and Lake Shore Drive, said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli.

The man was driving northbound on the southbound lanes when the crash happened between Belmont and Diversey Parkway, Mirabelli said. The man's vehicle hit a 2006 Toyota driven by a woman, said Mirabelli.

The man is a North Chicago police officer who has been with the department since 2008, according to statement by the North Chicago police. The statement names the officer, who was off-duty, but the Tribune is not naming the officer because he has not been charged with a crime.

The 35-year-old man lives in the far north suburbs. He was relieved of his police powers while the investigation is ongoing, according to the City of North Chicago release. Sources said that the officer had his 35th birthday on Friday.

After hitting the first vehicle, the man smashed into a 2013 Jeep, killing Fabian Torres, 27, of the 2800 block of South Avers Avenue, and Joaquin Garcia, of the 2200 block of West 18th Place, according to Mirabelli and the Cook County medical examiner's office.

The wrong-way driver is estimated to have been traveling more than 60 mph. Drivers traveling southbound told police that they were veering to avoid the man. They also say they had flashed their lights to let him know that he was traveling the wrong direction, Mirabelli said.

The man was the only occupant in his vehicle, a 2008 Chevy SUV. He is at Advocate Illinois Masonic Hospital with a fractured hip. His condition had stabilized, Mirabelli said.

The woman was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital where she was to be treated and released for her injuries, Mirabelli said.

Police are investigating whether alcohol played a factor in the crash.

The crash and the investigation closed southbound Lake Shore Drive as traffic was diverted off at the Belmont Avenue exit for more than five hours. The lanes were reopened by about 9 a.m., police said.

North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham Jr. confirmed that one of the city’s police officers was involved in the crash.

Rockingham said the officer was off-duty at the time of the crash and has been placed on leave pending the completion of the Chicago Police Department's investigation into the crash.

A woman at the officer's boyhood home, who identified herself as his mother, refused comment Friday evening.

Nathan Horton, a long-time friend and neighbor of the house where the officer grew up, said the officer “was a really good” basketball player on school teams in both elementary school and North Chicago High School.

Horton said his neighbor has always been an outgoing guy, “quick to approach people as a friend, and someone who always helped people out."

"This is a bad neighborhood and some kids were climbing over the fence in our backyard, and it was [the officer] who talked to the kids and told them to stay away,” Horton said.

Horton said the officer was not known to be a reckless driver in the close-knit, dead end section of houses in the North Chicago neighborhood.

“He rides a motorcycle and if he was a drinker, he wasn’t one around here," Horton said. "I never saw him at the local parties and I never saw him intoxicated."

“Honestly, when he became a cop I was surprised because you have to be a physical person to be a cop, and he was a helpful guy but never the type of guy to be confrontational or intimidating,” Horton said.

The mayor lamented that it was the latest trouble involving the North Chicago Police Department, which has faced multiple claims of excessive force over the past and the recent arrest of its former police chief.

“We can’t get out from under that cloud,” the mayor said.

Tribune reporter Robert McCoppin and freelance reporter Denys Bucksten contributed.

csadovi@tribune.com

Twitter: @csadovi

mswasko@tribune.com Twitter: @mickswasko

pnickeas@tribune.com Twitter: @peternickeas

More on photo radar bandit Redflex's Chicago problems.

Source

Probe deepens as U.S. attorney subpoenas ex-city official

By David Kidwell, Chicago Tribune reporter

12:50 a.m. CDT, March 16, 2013

Federal authorities have launched a criminal probe of bribery allegations in Chicago's red-light camera program, issuing a subpoena for financial records of the former city official at the center of the escalating international scandal.

The subpoena, confirmed Friday by the former official's attorney, was the first indication that the U.S. attorney's office has opened a case since the Tribune raised questions in October about the city's contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, triggering a series of investigations that now threaten to consume the company.

Redflex Holdings Ltd., the Australian parent company, has said an internal investigation uncovered evidence that its decadelong Chicago program was likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme involving the city manager and a longtime friend who was hired as the company's Chicago consultant. The program is also the subject of an investigation by city Inspector General Joseph Ferguson.

The subpoena was signed by an assistant U.S. attorney and delivered to the ex-wife of retired managing deputy transportation commissioner John Bills, his attorney Nishay Sanan said. Bills has denied any wrongdoing. Sanan said he sent a letter to federal prosecutors asking that all further requests for records come to him.

"I don't know why they didn't just subpoena my client directly, but they delivered a subpoena to his ex-wife," Sanan said.

The U.S. attorney's office declined to comment. Bills' ex-wife did not return a telephone message.

In October, the newspaper raised questions about Bills' ties to Redflex consultant Marty O'Malley and disclosed a 2010 company whistle-blower letter alleging an inappropriate relationship between Bills and Redflex that included lavish hotel accommodations. Bills and O'Malley, longtime friends from the same South Side neighborhood, said they had done nothing improper.

Bills oversaw the red-light program from its beginning in 2003 until he retired in 2011. It became Redflex's largest traffic camera program in North America, raising about $100 million for Redflex and more than $300 million in ticket revenue for the city.

In response to Tribune inquires, the company told the newspaper and City Hall that the whistle-blower allegations had no merit and that an internal investigation found only one instance of an improper hotel reimbursement for Bills, at the Arizona Biltmore. But the company hired a second law firm to take another look.

That investigation, led by former federal prosecutor and city Inspector General David Hoffman, found that the whistle-blower's allegations did have merit.

Redflex said earlier this month that Hoffman found the company paid $2.03 million to its Chicago consultant, with some of the money intended for Bills. The company also acknowledged that it plied Bills with 17 company-paid trips from 2003 through 2010, including airfare, hotels, golf outings, rental cars and meals.

"The arrangement between the city program manager, the consultant, and Redflex will likely be considered bribery by the authorities," said a summary of the Hoffman findings publicly released March 4 by the company to the Australian Securities Exchange. The summary said company officials misled City Hall and the Tribune.

Redflex acknowledged last month that it is sharing Hoffman's work with law enforcement. The chairman of the Australian company and the top executives of its Phoenix-based subsidiary have all left amid the unfolding controversy, and Redflex stock has plummeted.

Emanuel's administration referred the matter to the inspector general and barred Redflex from bidding on the city's speed camera program after the Tribune's initial report. Last month — after the company acknowledged its problems were more widespread and that it was sharing information with law enforcement — the mayor banned Redflex from renewing its contract to run more than 380 red-light cameras when it expires in June.

Tribune reporter Todd Lighty contributed.

dkidwell@tribune.com

Right to Lawyer Can Be Empty Promise for Poor

Source

Right to Lawyer Can Be Empty Promise for Poor

By ETHAN BRONNER

Published: March 15, 2013 186 Comments

ADEL, Ga. — Billy Jerome Presley spent 17 months in a Georgia jail because he did not have $2,700 for a child support payment. He had no prior jail record but also no lawyer. In Baltimore last fall, Carl Hymes, 21, was arrested on charges of shining a laser into the eyes of a police officer. Bail was set at $75,000. He had no arrest record but also no lawyer. In West Orange, N.J., last summer, Walter Bloss, 89, was served with an eviction notice from the rent-controlled apartment he had lived in for 43 years after a dispute with his landlord. He had gone to court without a lawyer.

Russell Davis, 37, was jailed three times over child support payments during court proceedings that he faced without a lawyer.

Fifty years ago, on March 18, 1963, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that those accused of a crime have a constitutional right to a lawyer whether or not they can afford one. But as legal officials observe the anniversary of what is widely considered one of the most significant judicial declarations of equality under law, many say that the promise inherent in the Gideon ruling remains unfulfilled because so many legal needs still go unmet.

Civil matters — including legal issues like home foreclosure, job loss, spousal abuse and parental custody — were not covered by the decision. Today, many states and counties do not offer lawyers to the poor in major civil disputes, and in some criminal ones as well. Those states that do are finding that more people than ever are qualifying for such help, making it impossible to keep up with the need. The result is that even at a time when many law school graduates are without work, many Americans are without lawyers.

The Legal Services Corporation, the Congressionally financed organization that provides lawyers to the poor in civil matters, says there are more than 60 million Americans — 35 percent more than in 2005 — who qualify for its services. But it calculates that 80 percent of the legal needs of the poor go unmet. In state after state, according to a survey of trial judges, more people are now representing themselves in court and they are failing to present necessary evidence, committing procedural errors and poorly examining witnesses, all while new lawyers remain unemployed.

“Some of our most essential rights — those involving our families, our homes, our livelihoods — are the least protected,” Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson of the Texas Supreme Court, said in a recent speech at New York University. He noted that a family of four earning $30,000 annually does not qualify for legal aid in many states.

James J. Sandman, president of the Legal Services Corporation, said, “Most Americans don’t realize that you can have your home taken away, your children taken away and you can be a victim of domestic violence but you have no constitutional right to a lawyer to protect you.”

According to the World Justice Project, a nonprofit group promoting the rule of law that got its start through the American Bar Association, the United States ranks 66th out of 98 countries in access to and affordability of civil legal services.

“In most countries, equality before the law means equality between those of high and low income,” remarked Earl Johnson Jr., a retired justice of the California Court of Appeal. “In this country for some reason we are concerned more with individuals versus government.”

With law school graduates hurting for work, it may appear that there is a glut of lawyers. But many experts say that is a misunderstanding.

“We don’t have an excess of lawyers,” said Martin Guggenheim, a law professor at New York University. “What we have is a miserable fit. In many areas like family and housing law, there is simply no private bar to go to. You couldn’t find a lawyer to help you even if you had the money because there isn’t a dime to be made in those cases.”

Even in situations where an individual is up against a state prosecutor and jail may result, not every jurisdiction provides lawyers to the defendants. In Georgia, those charged with failing to pay child support face a prosecutor and jail but are not supplied with a lawyer.

Mr. Presley lost his job in the recession and fell way behind on support payments for his four children. In 2011, he was jailed after a court proceeding without a lawyer in which he said he could not pay what he owed. He was brought back to court, shackled, every month or two. Each time, he said he still could not pay. Each time, he was sent back.

A year later, he contacted a public defender who handles only criminal cases but who sent his case to the Southern Center for Human Rights. Atteeyah Hollie, a lawyer there, got him released that same day, helped him find work and set up a payment plan.

An important service lawyers can provide defendants like Mr. Presley is knowledge of what courts want — receipts of medical treatment, evidence of a job search, bank account statements. On their own, many people misstep when facing a judge.

In Adel, Ga., a town of 5,000, child support court meets monthly. On a recent morning, a dozen men in shackles and jail uniforms faced Chuck Reddick, a state prosecutor, on their second or third round in court.

“In most cases, they simply can’t pay,” said John P. Daughtrey, who was sheriff here until losing an election in November. “An attorney could explain to the judge why jail is not the solution and how to fix it. As a sheriff, I want criminals in my jail, not a debtor’s prison.”

Mr. Reddick and Judge Carson Dane Perkins of Cook County Superior Court in Adel both said they would welcome lawyers for defendants because it would make the process clearer and smoother.

“If we could extend the right to a lawyer to civil procedures where you face a loss of liberty, that would be good,” Judge Perkins said. “Lawyers can get affidavits from employers and help make cases for those who can’t pay.”

The Southern Center for Human Rights has filed a class-action suit seeking a guarantee of a lawyer for such cases in Georgia. Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer there, said the center had received thousands of calls from Georgians facing child support hearings. Among them was Russell Davis, a Navy veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder who was jailed three times and lost his apartment and car while in jail.

Georgia also offers a case study on the mismatch between lawyers and clients at a time when each needs the other. According to the Legal Services Corporation, 70 percent of the state’s lawyers are in the Atlanta area, while 70 percent of the poor live outside it. There are six counties without a lawyer and dozens with only two or three.

Mr. Bloss, who faced eviction in New Jersey, went to legal services, which won for him the right to stay in his apartment while his case is under appeal.

In Baltimore, where Mr. Hymes was accused of shining a laser at a police officer and assigned bail of $75,000, first bail hearings do not include a lawyer. Tens of thousands are brought through Central Booking every year, facing a commissioner through a glass partition, who determines whether to release the detainee on his own recognizance or assign bail and at what level.

“For the poor, bail is a jail sentence,” said Douglas L. Colbert, a law professor at the University of Maryland. A study he conducted on 4,000 bail cases of nonviolent offenders found that two and a half times as many detainees were released on their own recognizance and bail was set at a far more affordable level if a lawyer was at the hearing.

Mr. Hymes was relatively lucky. When he eventually faced a judge with the help of a public defender, bail was slashed to $200 cash. It took his family a few weeks to pay. A student of Mr. Colbert’s, Iten Naguib, acted as an intermediary.

“If there had been an attorney involved at the initial stages,” Ms. Naguib said, “Mr. Hymes would likely have been released much earlier.”

You think you will get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!!!

The way the system works is people are almost always grossly over charged with crimes which will send them to prison for 20+ years, and then the people are offered a plea bargain which will only send them to prison for a year if they plead guilty.

And sadly 99 percent of the people charged with crimes accept these plea bargains because they don't have the money to fight the charges, or they know if the do fight the charges and are convicted they will effectively be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.

As a Libertarian I don't think people should get free lawyers.

On the other hand the system clearly does not work and is unfair because it is too complex and confusing for a normal person to understand without the help of a lawyer. And I suspect it was intentionally designed that way to give the government the upper hand in both criminal and civil cases.

Source

Experts: Right to attorney is at risk as cuts hit

By JJ Hensley The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:01 PM

As landmark civil-rights cases go, the Gideon case doesn’t have the renown of Brown vs. Board of Education or the notoriety of Miranda, a local case that went national and led to the “right to remain silent” warning familiar to any suspect or fan of TV crime dramas.

But the impact of Gideon vs. Wainwright, published 50 years ago Monday, has fundamentally altered the American legal system in a variety of ways, according to experts. And they suggest budget crises at the state and federal level are a threat to those protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision of March 18, 1963, guaranteed the right to representation by an attorney in state courts for any suspect who could not afford one. It came 25 years after a ruling made the same guarantee for defendants in federal courts. It stemmed from a case involving a man accused of burglary in Florida who showed up for court without an attorney.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the opinion, believed the decision was the most important he rendered in the court, said Larry Hammond, a Phoenix attorney who served as a law clerk for Black.

Hammond said the system has since fallen short of the promise the decision offered.

“I have mixed feelings about it,” Hammond said, noting the unrealistic workloads and lack of resources that tie the hands of public defenders at all levels. “It breaks my heart a little bit that we’re not better off, but I love the public defenders. What they’re doing is God’s work.”

It took awhile for Maricopa County to get on board with the notion of a public defender’s office. Two years after the decision was reached, the county Board of Supervisors paid for a division with an appointed administrator, five attorneys and a handful of investigators and staff members.

Craig Mehrens, a Phoenix attorney, went to work in the office shortly after it opened and said the variety of cases — ranging from first-degree murder to contributing to the delinquency of a minor — and staff shortages offered ample opportunity for young lawyers to hone their skills. For Mehrens, whose introduction to the legal community came through books he read, it solidified the value of a vigorous defense.

“Until you’re involved in the criminal-justice system, you have no concept how frightening it is. The public defender is the only human being that stands between that person and his going to prison or put to death. And, of course, in almost every case, the person accused has no concept of how the law works, has no idea what their rights are,” Mehrens said.

“Unfortunately, the public sees defense lawyers as thinking, ‘How do I get this guy off?’ Almost all the defense lawyers I know, they see their job as simply to make sure that person’s rights are not violated. We all know we are going to lose most of our cases.”

The office encountered problems almost from the outset. The first appointed public defender was dismissed after several years because he was alleged to have run his private practice from the public defender’s office, Mehrens said.

His successor held the position for 18 years, but he was fired by the Board of Supervisors in 1987 after he allowed attorneys in the office to testify in a court case about staffing shortages and caseloads.

Bob Storrs, a criminal-defense lawyer who began practicing in Arizona 45 years ago, said the Gideon decision also led to a host of other changes in the system.

Court-appointed lawyers conducted investigations and challenged prosecutors where a suspect might have been unwilling or unable, Storrs said. As investigations and prosecutions became more technical, those court-appointed lawyers became even more vital, he said.

“All of these kinds of things really have evolved out of Gideon. You have to look at it, and you try to make a determination and say, ‘Is this a good case? Do they have the right guy?’ It’s interviewing witnesses, getting a second opinion on the state’s experts,” Storrs said.

“Before Gideon, if they didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer, they went without a lawyer. The number of defendants that hire lawyers is still low in comparison with those that have court-appointed lawyers.”

Court-appointed attorneys accounted for about 80 percent of the lawyers in non-capital felony cases filed in Maricopa County in the last fiscal year.

Today, the system in Maricopa County relies on an administrative office that doles out cases to public defenders as well as to private attorneys who are assigned to cases as contract counsel. But time has not changed many of the issues that made Gideon such an important decision, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert.

“In a principled way, everybody would agree, I think, that people — regardless of whether they have money or not — are entitled to an adequate defense. If public defenders are swamped the way they are, that means that it’s going to be impossible for some people to get an adequate defense. That can lead to innocent people being convicted. It also leads to plea bargains of cases that shouldn’t be plea- bargained,” he said.

“People should be concerned about that ... just as a matter of fairness and constitutional principle. It’s in everybody’s interest to have that system work well.”

On the 50th anniversary of the landmark decision, it is the notion that budget cuts are once again jeopardizing the chance for indigent suspects to receive a fair trial that concerns legal observers, particularly at the federal level, where the right to counsel was solidified by a 1938 court decision.

Last month, the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Arizona laid off 10 staff members, including six attorneys, because the budget gridlock in Washington, D.C., has led to stagnant funding while prosecution costs have increased, said Jon Sands, federal public defender for Arizona. The sequester just made that worse, he said.

And the federal budget crisis comes at a time when the focus on certain crimes, including drug smuggling, immigration-related offenses, mortgage fraud and crime on tribal lands, has led to a deluge of cases in Arizona’s federal courts. Much of that falls on the shoulders of the Public Defender’s Office.

The federal public defender opened slightly more than 12,000 cases in Arizona in the most recent fiscal year, compared with 5,500 cases in fiscal 2001.

“What this (layoff) means is that indigent defendants will not be given counsel as quickly as they have in the past; cases will not be processed as quickly,” Sands said.

Employees who remain in his office also face furloughs, as do federal prosecutors, U.S. marshals and FBI agents.

“The whole system slows down, which seems to be counterproductive to everyone’s interest in having justice delivered fairly and swiftly,” Sands said.

The federal budget cuts also will affect private attorneys appointed as counsel for indigent defendants, said David Eisenberg, Arizona’s representative for a panel of attorneys appointed through the Criminal Justice Act.

The private attorneys pay experts and other expenses associated with their clients’ defenses and submit reimbursement vouchers. Eisenberg expects delays in attorneys’ voucher reimbursements but said it should not fundamentally alter the work the defense attorneys do on behalf of their clients.

“I think the delay in paying is going to make it more difficult for lawyers to run their practices,” he said.

First drunk-driving conviction can cost nearly $16,000 in California

Source

First drunk-driving conviction can cost nearly $16,000 in California

By Jerry Hirsch

March 14, 2013, 8:32 a.m.

Beware of the $16,000 cocktail.

Just in time for St. Patrick's Day partying, the Automobile Club of Southern California has calculated that a first-offense misdemeanor DUI conviction can now cost up to $15,649 in California.

That’s up 29% from 2011.

The penalties are even higher for teenagers. The expense of an under-age-21 first-offense misdemeanor DUI is up to $22,492.

“It only takes one or two drinks to slow physical and mental skills that affect vision, steering, braking judgment and reaction time,” said the Auto Club’s Senior Researcher Steven A. Bloch. “Drivers should be aware that the California Highway Patrol and law enforcement agencies regularly use sobriety checkpoints to look for drinking drivers during heavy drinking periods, such as St. Patrick’s Day.”

A recent AAA report found that 10% of motorists admitted to driving when they thought their blood alcohol content was above the legal limit in the past year.

The Auto Club developed its cost estimate by totaling up mandated state and local fines, penalties, restitution, legal fees and increased insurance costs. The calculations do not include thousands of dollars of other potential expenses drivers might face if they lose work time for a criminal trial or to go to jail, need to pay bail or incur injury or vehicle damage from a crash they caused.

It also doesn’t include other potential drunk-driving-conviction consequences such as the risk of a civil trial or the requirement to install an ignition interlock in a vehicle.

"This is entirely preventable," Bloch said.