Mediaboss Marketing

For months, Phoenix has been wrapped up in multiple legal disputes over its handling of the growinghomelessness crisis. Now, the city is caught between two separate and potentially conflicting court orders regarding its largest homeless encampment, known as "The Zone."

Legal experts disagree on whether Phoenix will be able to simultaneously comply with both orders, and it's unclear whether the city's next move could have a ripple effect on other jurisdictions throughout the Valley and the Western United States.

Here's a breakdown of the two orders, how experts are interpreting them and what they could mean for other communities.

Phoenix is engaged in two separate lawsuits over how it has handled the growing unhoused population in The Zone. Rulings in both cases have directed the city to take certain actions related to the encampment.

On March 27, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ordered the city to remove tents on public property in the encampment, which is near 12th Avenue and Madison Street. The order was issued in advance of trial in a lawsuit, Brown v. City of Phoenix, filed against the city by nearby business and property owners who claim the encampment is a public nuisance.

But in December, a federal judge ordered the city to stop enforcing camping and sleeping bans against unsheltered people as long as there are not enough shelter beds available and to stop seizing unsheltered peoples belongings without prior notice. That order is part of a separate lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed against the city over its treatment of unhoused people.

The city and the ACLU reached a tentative settlement in that case in March. But the details of the settlement have not yet been made public, and it's unclear whether the city will still have to comply with the December order once the settlement is finalized.

Its also unclear what steps Phoenix will take regarding Blaney's order or whether it will appeal that decision.

Our legal team does not see a direct conflict between the two cases. Any further legal action is under review," said Kristin Couturier, a spokesperson for the city.

The ACLU declined to comment.

Homelessness settlement: ACLU, Phoenix reach tentative deal in federal case over homelessness

A 2018 decision by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reshaped how cities in the West, including Arizona, can police unhoused people.

Martin v. City of Boise established that unhoused people cannot be criminally cited for sleeping outside on public property when there is no adequate and available alternative, such as open shelter beds. The lawsuit found doing so violates the Eighth Amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

A subsequent case, Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, upheld Martin v. City of Boise and established that if there are not enough shelter beds, unhoused people can use tents, blankets and other measures for protection against the elements while sleeping.

In late March, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill in the Legislature that would have targeted homeless encampments by prohibiting tents and other types of shelter in streets, sidewalks and other public areas.

"We need to address Arizona's housing and homelessness crisis in a comprehensive manner," Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. "Rather than solving these issues in a meaningful way, this bill only makes them less visible."

Finding solutions: Phoenix mayor stresses indoor solutions for unsheltered people after homeless encampment ruling

Legal experts had different views on whether the orders in Brown v. City of Phoenix and the ACLU case were directly opposed.

Gary Blasi, an expert on homelessness law and professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, said its possible for Phoenix to comply with both orders.

For example, if the city provides shelter to the people living in The Zone, such as hotel rooms, tiny homes or adequate structured campgrounds, then the city could arrest people who refused those options and were still camping on the street, Blasi said. Depending on what Phoenix does, it could be a meaningful step toward solving the citys homelessness problem, he said.

If people sort of widen their view from, This is a choice between giving people an unabridged right to sleep anywhere they want or putting them in jail and taking their stuff thats a no-win situation, Blasi said. But there are win-win situations.

But Will Knight, the decriminalization director at the National Homelessness Law Center who previously worked on the ACLU lawsuit, believes the orders are in direct conflict.

There are other legal issues at play besides Martin v. City of Boise, he said, such as a right to privacy that is granted in the Fourth Amendment and under the Arizona Constitution.

In Knights view, creating a structured campground or other one-size-fits-all solution and then arresting or citing people who refuse to go there is still against the law because those alternatives would not meet the definition of adequate housing.

The bottom line is, there's only one solution: provide people with adequate housing, then services so they can get on their feet," Knight said. "Anything short of that is morally irresponsible, legally incorrect, and financially, fiscally catastrophic.

While cities throughout the federal Ninth Circuit, which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii, will no doubt be watching Phoenixs next move, its unclear whether they will follow suit.

Officials in Hawaii are consulting with the states Attorney General on the ruling but were not yet able to comment further, said James Koshiba, the governors coordinator on homelessness.

The Joint Office of Homeless Services serving Portland and Multnomah County does not believe Blaney's order would affect the region, spokesperson Julia Comnes said.

Officials in Los Angeles and Seattle declined to comment, while an official in San Francisco did not respond to requests for comment.

While there are some basic guardrails to the Constitution that cities must follow, such as not arresting unhoused people when there is no shelter available, cities have a lot of discretion as to how they comply with those guardrails, Blasi said.

And while Blaney's order could influence how other cities and states interpret similar legal issues, it does not set a binding legal precedent for them, Knight said.

'Nobody knows where theyll go': Future of Phoenix homeless camp unclear after court order

Juliette Rihl covers housing insecurity and homelessness for The Arizona Republic. She can be reached atjrihl@arizonarepublic.comor on Twitter@julietterihl.

Coverage of housing insecurity on azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic is supported by a grant from the Arizona Community Foundation.

Follow this link:
Phoenix facing big developments in homelessness lawsuits. What to ... - The Arizona Republic

AUGUSTA, Maine (April 5, 2023) Last week, a Maine committee held a hearing on a bill that would ban material support or resources for warrantless federal surveillance programs. The passage of the bill would take an essential step every state needs to take at a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end unconstitutional spying on its own.

A coalition of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat led by Sen Eric Brakey (R) introduced Senate Bill 1056 (LD1056) on March 7. The legislation would prohibit any state entity, including political subdivisions, from assisting, participating with, or providing material support or resources to enable or facilitate a United States Government agency in the collection or use of an individuals electronic data or metadata, unless one or more of the following apply.

The bill is similar toa law enacted in Michigan in 2018.

In 2014, California also passed a bill that created a foundation to prohibit state participation in federal warrantless surveillance. Somesimple amendments to the law are necessaryto give it a practical impact.

On March 29, the Joint Judiciary Committee held a hearing on LD1056, an important first step in the legislative process. Sen. Brakey emphasized the fact that the federal government continues to collect and store massive amounts of private data without a warrant. The Tenth Amendment Centers national communications director testified in favor of the bill, highlighting Maines strong commitment to protecting privacy and explaining how federal surveillance gives law enforcement an easy way to circumvent state warrant requirements. He also laid out the legal basis for refusing to provide material support or resources to federal programs.

Brakey indicated that he would be willing to amend LD1056 to provide a more detailed definition of electronic data and to address concerns raised by the Maine State Police.

PRACTICAL EFFECT

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the information sharing environment or ISE.

Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to abipartisan congressional reportto demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: They havent contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.

Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According toits website, the ISE provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigatorshave mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies. In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.

Because the federal government relies heavily on partnerships and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies, the passage of LD1056 potentially hinders warrantless surveillance in the state. For instance, if the feds wanted to engage in mass surveillance on specific groups or political organizations in Maine, it would have to proceed without state or local assistance. This would likely prove problematic.

State and local law enforcement agencies regularly providesurveillance data to the federal government through ISE and Fusion Centers. They collect and store information from cell-site simulators (AKA stingrays), automated license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, facial recognition systems, and even smart or advanced power meters in homes.

The passage of LD1056 would set the stage to end this sharing of warrantless information with the federal government. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from actively assisting in warrantless surveillance operations.

By including a prohibition on participation in the illegal collection and use of electronic data and metadata by the state, LD1056 would also prohibit what NSA former Chief Technical DirectorWilliam Binney calledthe countrys greatest threat since the Civil War.

The bill bans the state from using electronic data or metadata obtained by the NSA without a warrant.

Reutersrevealedthe extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases rarely involve national security issues. Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.

In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data. using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.

This is the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War, Binney said.

NSA FACILITIES

The original definition of material support or resources included providing tangible support such as money, goods, and materials and also less concrete support, such as personnel and training.Section 805of the PATRIOT Act expanded the definition to include expert advice or assistance.

Practically speaking, the legislation will almost certainly stop the NSA from ever setting up a new facility in Arkansas

In 2006, the agency maxed out the Baltimore-area power grid, creating the potential, as the Baltimore Sun reported, for a virtual shutdown of the agency. Since then, the NSA aggressively expanded in states like Utah, Texas, Georgia and elsewhere, generally focusing on locations that can provide cheap and plentiful resources like water and power.

For instance, analysts estimated the NSA data storage facility in Bluffdale, Utah, would 46 million gallons of water every day to cool its massive computers when at peak capacity. The city supplies this water based on a contract it entered into with the spy agency. The state could turn off the water by voiding the contract or refusing to renew it. No water would effectively mean no NSA facility.

What will stop the NSA from expanding in other states? Bills like LD1056. By passing this legislation, Maine would become much less attractive for the NSA because it will not be able to access state or local water or power supplies. If enough states step up and pass the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, we can literally box them in and shut them down.

LEGAL BASIS

The state of Maine can legally bar state agents from assisting with warrantless surveillance. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as theanti-commandeering doctrine.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. Theanti-commandeering doctrineis based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.Printz v. U.S.serves as the cornerstone.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty

No determination of constitutionality is necessaryto invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.

WHATS NEXT

LD1056 needs to be brought up in a work session of the Joint Judiciary Committee. A majority report in favor would greatly improve its chances for passage in the full House and Senate.

Tags: Fourth Amendment, LD1056, Maine, NSA, Privacy, surveillance

Original post:
Maine Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban Material Support or ... - blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The growing deployment of smart locks in apartments, often installed without tenants permission, has created a new stream of sensitive location data for law enforcement, landlords, and private companies. Tenants should not be forced to submit to tracking just to enter their home. At minimum, we need privacy laws that require consent to collect this data, a warrant for police access, and strong data minimization.

Smart locks come in many forms. At the most basic level, they are physical locks that can be opened with a nontraditional key like a smartphone or fingerprint. Most significantly from a privacy perspective, they allow the lock company (and sometimes landlords) to collect data each time you or any of your guests unlock your physical door. To do this, the locks themselves may be connected to the internet, or they can rely on an app you must install on your phone (the key) to transmit the data to the lock companys servers. Depending on the model, the lock might also record other datalike an image of the person trying to unlock the door.

Smart locks have become increasingly popular in recent years, specifically with landlords. For example, in 2019, tenants in New York City forced a settlement after a landlord attempted to require tenants to use smart locks. The settlement required an option for physical keys. The smart lock at issue in that case was made by a company called Latch. While Latch was not named in the lawsuit, the company changed its privacy policy to remove reference to marketing and collection of other location data. Its software is reportedly in more than 125,000 dwelling units or commercial spaces. Many other companies make smart locks as well. They are part of the growth of smart home devices.

Despite their convenience to some people, smart locks can create a revealing data trail that raises concerns about law enforcement power, data privacy, and information security.

This data could give law enforcement a powerful new stream of data to be obtained without your knowledge. Companies tend to store this kind of data for much longer than necessary, and it is often unclear precisely what legal process companies require before handing it over to law enforcement. This gives police a tool to obtain a near perfect log of every time you or any guest entered your homea particularly private place under the Fourth Amendment. In the past, police could theoretically piece this data together on their own with great effort by conducting an around-the-clock stakeout. But in all but the most important investigations, these tactics would be prohibitively expensive. Because it is easy for police to access smart lock data, police will more frequently use this tactic. Moreover, smart lock data is retrospectivemeaning that police can go back in time to obtain data about periods of time before an individual was under investigation.

Landlords could use this data to harass or penalize tenants. Landlords seeking to evict a rent-controlled or otherwise unwanted tenant could use this data to find minor lease violations, like having a guest stay an hour longer than allowed by policy. Or the smart lock could be used to quickly lock out a tenant without notice. Moreover, forcing tenants to unlock their unit with a smartphone could exclude the 15 percent of the population who do not have a smartphonedisproportionately affecting older people and people with lower income. Renters, in general, tend to have less net worth than homeowners, and are more likely to be young, Black, or Hispanic.

Private companies who manage this data could sell it. This information and the patterns may be useful for marketers to create inferences about you, like: family makeup; job status; type of job; entertainment; and travel schedule. Some companies appear to understand the risk (and loss of trust) that comes with selling this deeply revealing personal data, and they have privacy policies that rule this out. However, as companies acquire more data, they will be tempted to profit from it at the expense of their users.

Both the smart lock itself and the system used to store the data could be hacked. Today, traditional door locks can be picked, and home windows can be smashed to gain entry. However, the scale of a smart lock hack could increase the potential for harm. One can imagine a nightmare scenario of a ransomware group locking an entire apartment building out of their homes until the landlord pays a hefty sum. Similarly, a hack of the backend system that stores smart lock data would expose sensitive information about guests, tenants, and patterns of life that, many times, is unnecessary to retain in the first place. The Federal Trade Commission has been concerned about smart lock security since 2015.

Finally, smart lock users themselves may be able to abuse the data. Previous news reports have detailed how smart home devices can be used by abusers to maintain control of family members. Having a constant log of when they unlock their door could make it much harder for people to escape their abusers and find help.

New York City is one of the only jurisdictions to pass a privacy law to specifically regulate smart lock data from both landlords and private companies. The law includes requirements about consent, the option of a physical key, minimization, retention, disclosure, use, and security. The law also contains a private right of action if a company sells the data. Other more general privacy laws would regulate this data as well. Smart lock data tied to an individual or home falls under the definition of personal data in states with comprehensive privacy laws like California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. Some of the data may also be governed by the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Actwhich limits how certain data may be shared with the government and non-government entities.

Given the privacy risks, we need strong privacy laws to regulate the use of smart lock data, with the following components:

1. Option for traditional lock: Tenants must be given the option to use a traditional lock and key that does not track and collect their personal data. Choosing to retain a traditional lock must not come with any reprisal or additional incentive to choose a smart lock instead.

2. Consent for processing: Landlords and companies must be prohibited from processing a persons smart lock data, except with their informed, voluntary, specific, opt-in consent.

3. Data minimization: Companies and landlords must be prohibited from processing a persons smart lock data, except as strictly necessary to allow the smart lock to securely function. This includes prohibitions on unnecessary re-use, sharing, or retention of the data. More specifically, landlords must be prohibited from using the data to harass or evict tenants.

4. Warrant requirement and notice: Companies and landlords must be prohibited from disclosing smart lock data to law enforcement, except with a particularized warrant based on probable cause, and prompt notice to tenants. Companies should also publish transparency reports about the number of law enforcement requests that they receive and how often they comply.

5. Security requirements: Companies must protect smart locks and smart lock data with strong information security protocols and must give notice if that security is breached. Smart locks must have a physical key back up in case of failure or compromise.

6. Private right of action: People must have a private right of action to sue the corporations or landlords that violate their statutory privacy rights. Remedies must include liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney fees.

See the original post:
Smart Locks Endanger Tenants' Privacy and Should Be Regulated - EFF

The Arizona board responsible for certifying police voted to pursue action against former Tucson Police Officer Ryan Remington after he shot and killed a man in a motorized wheelchair during a confrontation over shoplifting in November 2021.

During a hearing on March 15, the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training board voted unanimously to begin proceedings against Remington's certification, potentially making him ineligible to serve as an officer in the state.

Remington's attorney called the move "preliminary" and said he would challenge any decision to revoke his client's ability to work as a cop.

AZPOST governs the training and certification of police, and routinely decertifies, suspends or makes consent agreementswith officers over misconduct or mistakes.

Remington was working on a "special duty assignment" on Nov. 29, 2021as a security guard when he responded to Walmart employees who said61-year-old Richard Lee Richards shoplifted a toolbox and threatened aworker with a knife. Body-worn camera footage, combined withsurveillance footage showed Remington followed Richards for severalminutes as they wound through the parking lot of several stores beforeRichards attempted to ride into a Lowe's store across the street. At onepoint, Remington warned fellow TPD Officer Stephanie Taylor that "he's got aknife in his other hand." Moments later, Remington fired his service pistol, hitting the man eight times in the back.

TPD quickly moved to fire Remington.

Last August, Remington was indicted for manslaughter, however his attorneys successfully challenged the indictment and inJanuary, a second grand jury handed up a "no bill," declining to find probable cause to charge the former officer with a crime.

During a hearing on Jan. 17, prosecutors agreedto dismiss the case, but asked the court to dismiss the case "withoutprejudice," reserving the right to file charges against him in thefuture.

79 days later, the case remains in limbo.

During the March 15 AZPOST hearing, compliance specialist Cathy Hawsepresented the case against Remington, and said the staff of the regulatory board recommended pursuing action against the former TPD officer. Aspart of this, Hawse showed video from Officer Taylor's body-worn camera.

As thevideo began, Taylor ran toward the scene and Remington told her "he'sgot a knife in his other hand."

Taylor responded and Remington told Richards, "You're not going into the store, sir." Taylorechoed this order, telling Richards to stop as she drew her own weapon. AsRichards continued into the store, Remington fired nine shots at closerange. He fired one fusillade, and then fired a single shot as emptyshells clattered to the ground. "Shots fired," Remington said in hisradio. As Taylor watched, Richards slumped over and rolled out of hischair onto the concrete.

Hawse told the board that the Pima CountyAttorney's Office hired John McMahon Associates, LLCa "use-of-force andtactical review consultancy"to produce an independent review andanalysis of the incident.

"The consultant concluded based onquote 'information and evidence submitted for this review establishedthat based on the totality of the circumstances Officer Remington usedunnecessary and unreasonable force in excess of what an officer withsimilar training and experience would have reasonably believed wasnecessary to control and detain Richards,'" Hawse told the board,reading a section of the report.

"'Additionally, the deadlyforce used by Officer Remington was disproportionate to the lack ofphysical resistance or perceived threat Richards offered. Prior to theshooting Remington did not fully deescalate or exhaust all less-lethaloptions that would have likely resulted in compliance or detention ofRichards," Hawse continued. "'Waiting for his resources to arrive anddeploy those resources would have been his best option.'"

Hawse told the board Remington was fired by TPD on last January and then charged with manslaughter.

"Based on the facts of this case, staff recommends that the board initiate proceedings (to remove certification)," she said.

AssistantAttorney General John Johnson, who was representing Arizona AttorneyGeneral Kris Mayes, recused himself from the decision. Mohave CountySheriff Doug Schuster moved to pursue action against Remington, secondedby Col. Jeffrey Glover, the head of Arizona Department Public Safety. The motion passed unanimously.

After the shooting death, Remington was immediately dismissed byformer Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus, who said the four-year TPD veteranviolated "multiple aspects" of the department's use-of-force policy andthat he was "deeply disturbed and troubled" by Remington's actions.Magnus was later tapped to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection, andcurrent TPD Chief Chad Kasmar completed the process of terminatingRemington from the force in January 2021.

After TPD moved to fire Remington, the Pima County Attorney's Office began a "deliberative review" of the case, said PimaCounty Attorney Laura Conover. After nine months, Conover announced her office would seek manslaughter charges for the fatal shooting. "Because thegravity of this case requires handling by a talented, veteran team, ourmost senior prosecutors and legal staff have been assigned to thiscomplex matter," Conover said .

Remington pleaded not guilty during ahearing last September, and weeks later, his attorneys Mike Storie andNatasha Wrae challenged the indictment, arguing prosecutors presented areport to the grand jury that unintentionally included misleadingstatements.

Superior Court Judge Danelle Liwskigranted that request and sent the case back to another grand jury. Aweek later, the jury handed up a "no bill," declining to find probablecause to charge the former police officer with a crime in the fatalshooting.

During January's hearing, prosecutor Christopher Ward said the "state isinclined to move to dismiss the case without prejudice, and we arecontinuing to review the matter," he said. "We would simply move todismiss, without prejudice today, to allow the time for the state toreview the case going forwards."

Superior Court Judge Casey F. McGinley accepted the dismissal, despite an objection from Victoria Richards, the sister of the man who was killed.

"When the chief of police came out and fired him the next day, I justthought 'Hallelujah' this is going to go the way it's supposed to.Justice is going to happen," Richards said after the hearing. "And I feel like a littletechnical glitch in a grand jury presentation has blown everything. And Idon't understand how you could get off from committing a crime becauseof a technicality."

Richards said her brother suffered grievous injuries in 1995 when heworked as a wildland firefighter while serving in the state prisonsystem and fell from a 50-foot cliff, crushing the right side of hisbody. She said she felt Remington "snapped."

"My brother can be very belligerent. I know that. Maybe he said somethingto him that made him angry when they were walking I don't know, but hedidn't have a right to shoot him like that," she said.

Remington's attorney Mike Storie called board's vote a "preliminary move" that would involve multiple steps. While AZPOST could choose to revoke Remington's certification, the board could also choose to suspend him, or the 11-member board could instead return his certification, Storie said.

Matt Giordano, AZPOST's executive director, said officers are entitled to "full due process if the board moves to sanction their certification."

Remington, he said, requested a hearing with an administrative law judge, though said there is "no timeline for when that hearing will take place."

During such a hearing, the judge decides if AZPOST met the burden of proof that the involved peace officer violated AZPOST rules, Giordano said. "The matter is then brought back to the board for them to review the judge's decision and render a final sanction."

Remington was one of several officers who faced some form of sanctionduring the March 15 meeting. The board accepted the voluntaryrelinquishment or denial of certifications for four officers and agreedto suspend three officers and dismiss a fourth. They also opened eightnew cases against Arizona police officers, including Remington.

In a similar process, AZPOST ultimately signed consent agreements with three former TPD officersSamuel Routledge, Ryan Starbuck and Jonathan Jacksonfor their role in the death of Carlos Adrian Ingram-Lopez in June 2020. The officers were fired by Magnus for holding down the 27-year-old as he begged for water and told them he couldn't breathe.

Storie has launched a fierce campaign for Remington, attacking Magnus and Tucson Mayor Regina Romero for their early statements about the case. And, he told reporters not only will he seek to defend Remington against legal jeopardy, he will attempt to return the former officer to TPD through the service commission.

AZPOST's process will take months, Storie said, adding he will appeal any decision to revoke Remington's certification.

Storie also dismissed the report from McMahon, arguing the report was flawed and contained "serious mistakes" of fact. Prosecutors read the report to the first grand jury, and it was these "misstatements of fact" that Storie and fellow attorney Natasha Wrae used to challenge the indictment, arguing prosecutors presented a report to the grand jury that unintentionally included misleading statements.

The Tucson Sentinel requested a copy of the report from PCAO.

Storie also said they're waiting to see if PCAO will again seek to indict Remington for the November slaying.

"Litigation is pending on the matter of a grand jury presentation in this case, and thus we will not comment further at this time," Conover said in a statement.

Following Remington's indictment, Richards' family filed a lawsuit, arguing the former officer's actions were "excessive, unjustifiable, and unnecessary."

The 18-page suit named Remington and the city of Tucson as defendants, and argued Remington violated Richards' right to be "free from unreasonable seizure." It also alleges Richards was discriminated against because of his disability.

"That Remington fired the first eight shots at the back of Richards as he sat there confined in his wheelchair was unconscionable and disturbing," wrote John Bradley, an attorney for the family. "But the pause after the eighth shot, followed by the ninth shot, evidences Remingtons depraved state of mind and ought to shock the conscience of all human beings."

"This lawsuit seeks to achieve a measure of justice for Richard Lee Richards and his survivors by establishing the obvious: An officer cannot shoot in the back and kill a slow-moving shoplifting suspect in a wheelchair, without warning, when no one is in imminent danger," Bradley wrote.

Attorneys for the city moved to dismiss the suit earlier this year, arguing that courts have not agreed that cities may be liable under the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act when a police officer arrests or engages in the use of force. And, they said the plaintiffs did not show the city of Tucson's "failure to make a policy accommodation was the moving force behind the alleged violation."

"The city is also entitled to dismissal because adopting a separate policy regarding the use of force or apprehension of individuals with a disability would fundamentally alter the nature of the task and because a recalcitrant subject with a knife is a direct threat (even if he is not an imminent threat)," they wrote.

However, U.S. District Judge Jennifer K. Zipps rejected their motion, writing their arguments were "not persuasive."

Zipps wrote the lawsuit hinges in part on a statement Remington apparently that he used his firearm rather than his Taser "because of the wheelchair."

The city could be "vicariously responsible" because Remington was required to make an "individualized assessment' and "employ reasonable judgment" and "reasonable modifications" of policies "when determining whether a person is a direct threat," Zipps said, quoting federal law.

"These requirements, however, are not an extra burden on officers facing life-threatening situations," she said, adding the ADA and RA require the same reasonableness from officers as does the Fourth Amendment. "Plaintiffs constitutional claim and ADA and RA claims thus all turn on whether Remingtons conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, which include Richardss disability."

"In sum, Plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to establish facially plausible ADA and RA claims," she wrote.

"Plaintiff alleges that Richards was disabled and confined to a wheelchair; Richards was evasive and non-threatening; and Remington decided to use his gun and kill Richards, rather than deploy a less-lethal use of force, because Richards used a wheelchair. Accepting these allegations as true, Plaintiff states a claim that Remington failed to reasonably accommodate Richards and caused him to suffer a greater injury than other arrestees would have suffered because he was disabled," the judge wrote.

See the article here:
Az state board moves toward pulling certification of ex-cop for ... - TucsonSentinel.com

Trump is speaking up and taking no prisoners. The former President walked onto the podium to the chants of USA, USA! to address the nation after his arrest. We have to save our country, Trump thundered from his home at Mar-a-Lago, his voice ringing out across the assembled crowd. I never thought that anything like this could happen in America, he lamented.

The crime he was accused of? Nothing more than protecting the country from those who would seek to destroy it, he explained.

Trump spoke of the FBI and DOJ working in collusion with Twitter and Facebook to silence anyone who dared to speak out against the Hunter Biden laptop, which he claimed exposed the Biden family as criminals. It would have made a 17-point difference in the election result, according to the pollsters, he bellowed.

Our country is going to hell, Trump declared citing fifty former intelligence officers who had confirmed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. The President was speaking up and taking no prisoners, fully aware that he had nothing left to lose.

Even those who werent his biggest fans had acknowledged, Trump pointed out, that this was not the right thing to do. Its an insult to our country, he said, his voice dripping with contempt for those who had sought to bring him down.

In a fiery political rally speech, Trump warned that we were not far away from a nuclear war. He accused the Democrats of stepping up their efforts by indicting him, the 45th President of the United States, who had received 75 million votes more than any sitting President in history.

Trump spoke at length about the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago that had taken his passports and medical records. I immediately thought of the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable search and seizure, he explained. But they did it anyway because our justice system has become lawless. Theyre using it now.

He spoke about everything he went through, including the investigation through the Espionage Act of 1917, where the penalty is death. Referring to the classified documents saga, he claimed that as President, he has the right to declassify documents. If I take them with me, its automatic, he said.

But it was the civil investigation that had been launched against him by Letitia James that really seemed to irk the former President. This is a persecution, not an investigation, he fumed. Shes put our family through hell, he said. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to defend, said Trump, but we hold our heads high.

Despite the prospect of a potential settlement, Trump made it clear that he wanted no part of it. His family had gone through too much already. He spoke with a vulnerability and raw emotion that would raise grave concern among the ideologically non-infested part of America and that group constitutes a substantial segment of the country.

I have a Trump-hating judge with the Trump-hating wife and family whose daughter worked for Kamala Harris, said Trump of Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan.

As he addressed the nation, Trump was resolute in his conviction that the American economy was spiraling downwards and inflation was skyrocketing.

Our economy is crashing, inflation is out of control, he said.

Russia has joined with China. Can you believe that? Saudi Arabia has joined with Iran. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have formed together as a menacing and destructive coalition. This would have never happened if I were your President he added.

Trump bluntly declared that the current Biden administration had wreaked more havoc on the country than the collective damage caused by the five worst Presidents in American history.

If you took the five worst presidents in the history of the United States and added them up, they would not have done near the destruction to our country as Joe Biden and the Biden administration have done, Trump declared.

Clocking in at a succinct twenty-five minutes, the speech was comparatively different from Trumps typical habit of going off-script and delivering long-winded speeches. Nonetheless, his legal woes persist.

See the original post here:
Trump Speaks Out: Our country is going to hell - The Pavlovic Today