Mediaboss Marketing

MORRISON A hold put on proceedings in a wrongful death suit filed against a woman who hit and killed a motorcyclist more than 5 years ago is coming to an end.

Theresa Ruf, 47, is charged with reckless homicide and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident in the June 5, 2012, death of Samuel L. Munz, 53, of rural Sterling. Ruf rear-ended Munz as he was waiting to make a left turn into his driveway.

Munzs family also sued Ruf on Aug. 15, 2012.

On March 12, 2013, Rufs attorney, James Pignatelli, argued that a stay should be granted because information that would be made public in the civil suit might incriminate her in her criminal case.

Ruf was granted an indefinite stay, meaning evidence involving her, including a deposition, could not be obtained by Jim Mertes, the familys attorney, until the court allowed it. The stay did not apply to any other discovery in the civil case.

On March 29, Mertes filed a motion to lift the stay. Among his arguments:

Ruf never asserted her Fifth Amendment rights when she was answering interrogatories in the criminal case, nor did she invoke when she answered the complaint in the civil suit. In fact, she admitted driving the SUV that struck Munz, that she had no insurance at the time, and that she had a drink at Kellys 2 hours before the crash.

Rufs waivers to date have dramatically reduced the extent to which she would be burdened by any further invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege, he wrote.

In terms of self-incrimination, it would be up to Ruf to decide if and what to say in either case it may be a difficult choice, but its still a choice; shes not being compelled to incriminate herself, and therefore lifting the stay would not violate her Fifth Amendment protection.

Illinois appellate courts routinely have denied requests for stays of civil proceedings when there is a related criminal case.

Perhaps Mertes most compelling argument, though:

At the time he filed his motion to lift the stay, Ruf had been granted 36 motions to continue the criminal case, causing a delay of nearly 5 years since the civil suit was filed. That timeline is unfairly affecting Munzs wife, Vicky, who relied on him for his income, is impairing the resolution of his estate, and is an unreasonable delay in the familys attempt to seek justice, shifting the balance from Rufs right not to self-incriminate to the familys right to seek redress, Mertes argued.

Whiteside County Judge Stanley Steines agreed, and on June 5 5 years to the day since the crash ordered that the stay be lifted, either 30 days after the conclusion of the criminal case, or on Sept. 1, whichever comes first.

The trial in the criminal case is scheduled for July 18, but that date may change. Ruf has a pretrial conference Wednesday.

In addition, Sauk Valley Medias request to be allowed to photograph and to use electronic devices to report the proceedings in Rufs criminal case was granted, with one restriction.

On May 8, Pignatelli filed an objection to SVMs request, in which he cited his clients unspecified medical condition and said allowing news cameras would substantially impair her ability to defend herself.

He later modified his objection, asking that video cameras only not be allowed at the hearings. The judge agreed to the terms on June 8.

Under a program launched 5 years ago by the Illinois Supreme Court, enhanced, or extended, media coverage is allowed at those hearings and trials that are open to the public.

Among other things, media are allowed to use a limited number of still and video cameras, audio equipment and cellphones from which reporters can tweet or text developments, to broaden coverage of proceedings. Pooling the information with other media that request it is a main requirement.

Shooting images of jurors and recording discussions between attorneys and their clients, opposing attorneys, or sidebars with the judge, are prohibited.

While the presumption is such access should be granted, witnesses or attorneys and their clients can object to the extended coverage.

It is up to the presiding judge to decide whether the basis for the objections has merit, either by ruling on submitted, written arguments or by holding hearings and listening to testimony, or both.

Judges are given wide latitude in determining whether to restrict extended coverage.

View post:
Whiteside County judge lifts stay in wrongful death suit - SaukValley.com

Texas' 'sanctuary cities' bill heads to court

Sebastian Robertson, WFAA 10:11 PM. CDT June 24, 2017

Protesters opposed to Senate Bill 4, the "sanctuary cities" bill, turn out in force for the last day of the session, on May 29, 2017. (Erika Rich for The Texas Tribune)

DALLAS -- During a Facebook live in early May, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signedSB4into law.

"Texas has now banned 'sanctuary cities' in the Lone Star State." said Abbott.

Set to take effect in September,SB4, commonly known as the "sanctuary city law" requires police to ask about a person's immigration status when they are legally detained or arrested and threatens to prosecute law enforcement officials that don't cooperate.

"Our Latino brothers and sisters are not criminals and our local police officers have more important things to do than acting as immigration agents," said Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings earlier this month.

Monday a Federal District Court in San Antonio will consider blocking the law. Opponents have called the law unconstitutional and say it will disproportionately impact the Latino community.

While many cities have filed suits attempting to block the passage of this law many leaders are preparing for its passage.

Saturday afternoon, nearly one thousand Latino leaders gathered for a full weekend of meetings as they work on a plan of action should SB4 go into effect. The meetings were organized by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

A portion of Saturday's meeting touched on how immigrants should interact with police.

"Basically it's to get them to know the rights and responsibilities of living in the United States but also for them to know the rights of the constitution under the fourth and fifth amendment so that if they are detained by a police officer or any law enforcement they know how to act and how to cooperate," Immigration Lawyer Douglas Interiano.

Those hoping to stop the bill before it gets teeth will have their work cut out for them.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions released the following statement Friday:

The Department of Justice fully supports Texass effort and is participating in this lawsuit because of the strong federal interest in facilitating the state and local cooperation that is critical in enforcing our nations immigration laws.

2017 WFAA-TV

See the original post:
Leaders consider next move before 'sanctuary cities' law goes into effect - WFAA

The Supreme Courthas ruled on an important test first posed by Justice William Brennan nearly 40 years ago about property rights, as Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the Court's four liberal Justices on Friday.

In 1978, Brennan wrote for a 6-3 majority in the Penn Central v. New York City case that redefined property rights under the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause and also served as a foundation for historic preservation programs at a local level.

The current case in front of the Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, didn't involve a glamorous property such as Grand Central Station, the subject of Brennans opinion. Instead, the dispute was about a vacant vacation property, and if the parcel was part of a combined lot, or a parcel on its own.

On Friday, the majority 5-3 opinion written by Kennedy sided with the state of Wisconsin in the dispute, saying the test devised by Brennan was properly applied by the state, but that the courts also needed to include more than just Brennan's test in deciding similar disputes.

"The governmental action was a reasonable land-use regulation, enacted as part of a coordinated federal, state, and local effort to preserve the river and surrounding land," Kennedy said. "Like the ultimate question whether a regulation has gone too far, the question of the proper parcel in regulatory takings cases cannot be solved by any simple test. ...Courts must instead define the parcel in a manner that reflects reasonable expectations about the property."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent. "State law defines the boundaries of distinct parcels of land, and those boundaries should determine the 'private property' at issue in regulatory takings cases. Whether a regulation effects a taking of that property is a separate question, one in which common ownership of adjacent property may be taken into account," he said.

The Murr family has owned two riverfront lots since the 1960s; one of the lots contained a vacation cottage; the other lot wasnt developed. One lot was in the parents name while the other was in the name of a company owned by the family. The two lots were jointly conveyed to four of their children in 1994 and 1995.

In 2004, when the children began to explore selling the empty lot to pay for improvements in the cottage, they found out that a zoning law established in 1975 barred the children from selling the empty lot separate from the cottage because two adjoining lots were now owned by one entity. The zoning law also prohibited the development of the empty lot because it didnt meet minimum size requirements for an independent lot.

The dispute in front of the Supreme Court involved a concept called a parcel as a whole. In 1978, Brennan fashioned that test as part of the Penn Central decision.

A New York City commission prohibited the Penn Central Railroad from redeveloping Grand Central Station after two plans substantially changed the buildings historic look above the building. Penn Central sued, claiming it should receive full compensation for the air rights about Grand Central Station.

Brennan and the majority disagreed, saying the commissions decision wasnt a taking under the Fifth Amendment and that the railroad still could derive a reasonable economic return from the buildings use. The decision established a four-part test to determine if a property holder should receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment if a government policy or action results in a taking of their property.

One of the four parts was called the parcel of a whole. Brennan said that this Court focuses rather both on the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a wholehere, the city tax block designated as the landmark site. In that context, the Court said the Grand Central building and the air space above it was one property in terms of the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause.

The Murr familys lawyerscited another landmark Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), to support their claim that they should be able to sell the property or seek compensation from the government.

The Lucas decision said that the denial of all economic use of a property by a government regulation was a taking under the Fifth Amendment and required just compensation. The Wisconsin government has argued that the properties should be considered as a whole in the takings analysis, citing the Penn Central decision. The state appeals court ruled against the Murr family and the family filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which was accepted in January 2016.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

Filed Under: Fifth Amendment, Supreme Court

Visit link:
Supreme Court decides Takings Clause case as term winds down - Constitution Daily (blog)

Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, free on bail while she appeals her perjury conviction, invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify this week in a court hearing in which an accused Pittsburgh killer is challenging wiretap evidence against him.

In a complicated pretrial legal fight, Price Montgomery, an alleged drug dealer charged with fatally shooting a witness, is seeking to exploit a feud between Kane and one of her top deputies that broke out in 2014, at the same time the Attorney Generals Office had tapped Montgomerys cellphone.

Kane went on a vacation to Haiti at that time, and because of the feud had refused to sign routine paperwork authorizing deputy Adrian King to make key decisions in her absence. Nonetheless, King approved the wiretap, using an autopen to add Kanes signature to the document; the recorded conversations allegedly implicate Montgomery.

Now, Montgomery and his codefendants want the wiretap evidence barred on grounds that the tap was approved without proper legal authority.

The hearing showed howKanes tumultuous tenure as attorney general continues to have a ripple effect, almost a year after she stepped down.

Kane, who has kept a low profile since her conviction, took the stand briefly Tuesday in federal court in Pittsburgh only to decline to answer questions, according to several courtroom observers. King had testified the day before, saying that Kane approved the wiretap in a call from the airport as she left for her trip. King provided cellphone records and his notes from the call to back up his account.

King was a key witness against Kane in her criminal case. The former attorney general took note of that in explaining why she took the Fifth.

I know how this works: I say one thing. Adrian King says another. I get charged with perjury, Kane told federal prosecutors a few days before the hearing, according to defense attorney Michael DeRiso, who represents one of Montgomerys codefendants. He said prosecutors had shared notes of Kanes remarks with them.

Kane could not be reached for comment; a call to her home this week went unanswered.

Kanes lawyer for the hearing, Thomas J. Farrell, refused to say whether he was her lawyer. Federal prosecutors also declined comment. U.S. District Judge Mark R., Hornak will rule on the suppression motion in the fall.

Montgomery, 36, is charged with the Aug. 22, 2014, killing of Tina Crawford, 34, also of Pittsburgh, who was shot 10 times at her home as she was leaving to talk with federal prosecutors. Her mother was wounded in the same attack.

Two months before the shootings, Montgomery had been arrested on drug-dealing charges after police seized 1,500 bricks of heroin, more than $100,000, and 16 handguns, shotguns, and rifles in a raid.

Though the wiretap was placed by the Attorney Generals Office, federal prosecutors are pursuing the case. DeRiso said that knocking out the wiretap evidence would undermine the drug charges, but was uncertain about its impact on the charge involving the killing of the witness.

In legal papers defending Kanes right to invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination, Farrell noted that even innocent people may cite the Fifth Amendment so as not to provide any information to authorities.

He also noted that Kanes conflict with King was explored during the 2016 trial in Montgomery County that ended with her conviction on perjury and obstruction charges.

A jury found that she lied under oath in denying that she had unlawfully leaked confidential investigative material to a newspaper in a bid to embarrass a political enemy. King, now a lawyer in Philadelphia, was a key prosecution witness, testifying that he had warned Kane not to leak material. His relationship with Kane grew chilly after he provided that advice.

Kane was sentenced to serve 10 to 23 months in jail. She has appealed her conviction to Superior Court.

Published: June 23, 2017 5:38 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read more from the original source:
Former AG Kane takes Fifth in wiretap case - Philly.com - Philly.com

Justice Clarence Thomas is well known for writing separate opinions highlighting the gap between the Supreme Courts contemporary jurisprudence in a given area and the original constitutional understanding or original public meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions. Earlier this week, for example, Thomas suggested that the court should reconsider its qualified immunity jurisprudence.

Friday, inMurr v. Wisconsin, Thomas suggested that the court shouldreconsider the constitutional foundation of regulatory takings doctrine. Although he joined the dissent authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Thomas also wrote separately to highlight the tension between the courts doctrine and the original meaning of the Fifth Amendments takings clause. He wrote:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICEs dissent because it correctly applies this Courts regulatory takings precedents, which no party has asked us to reconsider. The Court, however, has never purported to ground those precedents in the Constitution as it was originally understood. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922), the Court announced a general rule that if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. But we have since observed that, prior to Mahon, it was generally thought that the Takings Clause reached only a direct appropriation of property, Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 551 (1871), or the functional equivalent of a practical ouster of [the owners] possession, Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 642 (1879). Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1014 (1992). In my view, it would be desirable for us to take a fresh look at our regulatory takings jurisprudence, to see whether it can be grounded in the original public meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See generally Rappaport, Originalism and Regulatory Takings: Why the Fifth Amendment May Not Protect Against Regulatory Takings, but the Fourteenth Amendment May, 45 San Diego L. Rev. 729 (2008) (describing the debate among scholars over those questions).

The paper Thomas cites at the end of his opinion is by University of San Diego law professor Michael Rappaport, a prominent originalist scholar (and contributor to the Originalism Blog). Here is the abstract to Rappaports paper:

This article explores the widely disputed issue of whether Takings Clause protects against regulatory takings, offering a novel and intermediate solution. Critics of the regulatory takings doctrine have argued that the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause does not cover regulatory takings. They have quickly moved from this claim to the conclusion that the incorporated Takings Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment also does not cover regulatory takings.

In this article, I accept the claim that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause does not cover regulatory takings, but then explore the possibility that the incorporated Takings Clause does cover such takings. Applying Akhil Amars theory of incorporation, I argue that there are strong reasons, based on history, structure, and purpose, to conclude that the Takings Clause had a different meaning under the Fourteenth Amendment. Amar argues that the Bill of Rights was dominated by republican ideas, but that the Fourteenth Amendment was founded on more liberal notions intended to protect individual rights. This would suggest that a broad reading of the Takings Clause would further the principles underlying the Fourteenth Amendment.

Moreover, that some state courts had come to apply takings principles to regulatory and other nonphysical takings in the period between the enactment of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment provides additional support for the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment enactors would have understood it to apply to regulatory takings. While the paper does not attempt to prove that the Fourteenth Amendment Takings Clause applies to regulatory takings, leaving that task to others, it argues that critics of regulatory takings doctrine should no longer simply assume that the Constitutions original meaning does not apply to state regulatory takings.

Regulatory takings is not the only context in which property rights activists may be asking the Fifth Amendment to do the constitutional work better done by the 14th Amendment (if it is to be done at all). Eminent domain may be another (for reasons I briefly sketch in this exchange).

If there is to be greater clarity about regulatory takings, it might help if the entire doctrine rested on a more secure and constitutionally sound foundation.

Read more:
Should regulatory takings doctrine be reconsidered from the ground up? - Washington Post