凍結 天然氣 火車 Frozen Gas Train

Phoenix cops troll internet pretending to be horny 14 year old girls who want to have sex with older men

And why on earth are these Phoenix cops arresting a man in Virginia which is 2,000 miles away from Arizona.

Jesus, don't these pigs have any real criminals to hunt down???

I find it amazing that the government is paying cops to sit around all day and troll the internet pretending to be horny underage girls who want to have sex with older men.

I know that both the Tempe and Phoenix police departments have internet units where cop just sit around all day and troll the internet pretending to be horny, hot, sexy 14 year girls who want to have sex with old men.

I believe the Arizona DPS also has an internet sex crime unit where DPS cops also sit around all day and troll the internet pretending to be horny, hot, sexy 14 year girls who want to have sex with old men.

I wonder how many other Arizona police forces are paying their cops to sit around all day trolling the internet pretending to be 14 year old girls who want to have sex with older men.

Source

Virginia man arrested in Arizona luring case

by Haley Madden - Jun. 22, 2012 09:49 PM

The Arizona Republic-12 New Breaking News Team

A 43-year-old Virginia man was booked in a Maricopa County jail Thursday on suspicion of engaging in an online relationship with who he believed was a 14-year-old girl, police said Friday.

Beginning in August 2011, Phoenix police detectives from the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force conducted an investigation that led them to Daniel Courtney of Chantilly, Va., said Tommy Thompson, a Phoenix police spokesman.

During the investigation, Courtney began an online relationship with a member of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force who was posing as a 14-year-old girl in Phoenix, Thompson said.

He sent her explicit, sexual language, exposed himself and propositioned her for sex, police said.

Detectives traveled to Virginia to interview Courtney where he admitted to engaging in those activities, police said.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office worked to have Courtney arrested in Virginia, and he was extradited to Phoenix with the help of U.S. Marshal Service, Thompson said.

Courtney was charged with numerous counts of luring and aggravated luring of a minor for sexual exploitation, which are Class 2 felonies, and dangerous crimes against children, according to police.

Activists protest SB 1070, Tent City Jail in Phoenix

Activists protest SB 1070, Tent City Jail in Phoenix

by Philip Haldiman - Jun. 23, 2012 07:45 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Even before a protest against alleged civil rights violations by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had begun Saturday night, dozens of activists had gathered with signs and loud voices.

Officials with the Unitarian Universalist Association organized the nighttime protest to bring attention to Senate Bill 1070 and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Tent City, which they say, violate human rights.

Monday is the next day the Supreme Court could issue a ruling on the controversial immigration bill signed into law two years ago by Gov. Jan Brewer.

About 1,000 to 4,000 activists were expected at Tent City Jail near 29th Avenue and Durango Road in Phoenix, officials said.

Arpaio said that no matter what the Supreme Court decides about SB 1070, he will continue the practices he has long been practicing.

"We've had the Rev. Al Sharpton here protesting and Linda Ronstadt. They wanted us to close Tent City, too. But that will never happen," Arpaio said.

The sheriff's office shut down all six of its jails Saturday in anticipation of the protest. Because of the shutdown, family and friends were not allowed to visit inmates at the jails for the day.

The Saturday night protest also included a candle light vigil and a tour of Tent City given to a four-member delegation of inter-faith leaders.

Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, said SB 1070 is clear discrimination of a class of people.

"It promotes profiling, breaks up families and is fundamentally contrary to American Values," he said.

Morales was charged with a misdemeanor count of failure to obey an order after dozens of protesters took to Phoenix streets on July 29, 2010, when SB 1070 was set to take effect.

He said social justice is core to the organization, which was instrumental in a movement to legalize same sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004.

"This not a deviation from what we do," Morales said.

The protest is part of a four-day convention at the Phoenix Convention Center for thousands of interfaith and social justice advocates from around the world.

Officials said the convention was booked at least four or five years ago.

An association spokeswoman, Rachel Walden, said the group books its national annual conventions at least four or five years in advance. In 2010, when the controversial Arizona bill became law, members nationwide said they opposed holding the 2012 conference at the Phoenix Convention Center.

"We took a majority vote then, and we decided to come to Phoenix in order to shine a light on some of these immigration issues," Walden said.

On Friday, the unitarian group met and mingled at Civic Space Park in downtown Phoenix with immigrant-rights groups Barrios Defense Committees, Promise Arizona, Puente and Somos America.

Tempe Fire Department covers up arson committed by Tempe Fireman???

Report: Tempe fire officials erred in case

Tempe fire chief, assistant leave department

by Laurie Merrill - Jun. 23, 2012 08:21 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Tempe's fire chief and assistant fire chief retired from their posts last month after an independent investigation found they had committed serious errors during a suspicious fire at the home of a firefighter in their department, according to city officials and documents obtained by The Arizona Republic.

The report ended the careers of Assistant Fire Chief Marc Scott, a 34-year veteran, and Fire Chief Mark Simmons, a 31-year veteran. They retired in May after the city manager confronted them with the findings of the investigation.

The firefighter, Michael Keene, was fired in May, but wants his job back. Last December, he was indicted on four felonies accusing him of assaulting Scott and starting a fire at a former home that caused more than $100,000 in damage.

The fire occurred on Aug. 11, 2011, in the 1900 block of East Del Rio Drive in Tempe, at the residence of Keene and his wife, Jessica.

According to the report by Scottsdale, which was asked to conduct an independent investigation to avoid a possible conflict, Scott and Simmons were more concerned about avoiding a media event than in obtaining justice.

"Scott explained he did not want to get the police involved because he feared that the media would find out if he did," the investigative report says.

Tempe fire officials waited one day to inform Tempe police about the assault allegation. Although Keene was indicted Dec. 6, the reporting delay prevented his arrest on Aug. 11, the report says.

Tempe police did not learn until eight days later that the fire was suspicious, making it impossible to charge Keene with arson, the report says. When Keene was indicted, he was charged with criminal damage, which accuses him of starting the fire unintentionally.

Because Keene was a Tempe firefighter, the usual steps were not taken, the report said. Keene treated differently

"Keene was treated that evening differently than a citizen because he was a firefighter," the report states. "His house would have been searched completely, he wouldn't have been allowed access into the house and he would have been arrested immediately after the assault on Scott."

Tempe fire inspector Michael Reichling was told not to search the bulk of the house, a deviation from common practice, as was losing control of the scene, which occurred because the Keenes and Simmons were in and out, the report says.

"The chain of evidence was broken once Keene was allowed on the scene," Tempe City Manager Charlie Meyer told The Republic in an interview.

When Reichling asked Scott for the third time to call police, the report says, Scott snapped at him.

"You just do your goddamned job," Scott said, according to the report. "Get in there and do your job."

Simmons agreed with Scott's decision to delay calling police and said they would discuss options the next morning, the report says.

"There were two separate issues requiring police attention on Aug. 11, 2011: Keene's assault on Scott and the suspicious origin of the fire," the report says. "Scott wanted to avoid media involvement ... Since police were not called, with the exception of the photographs taken by Reichling, evidence was not collected or impounded, the scene was not documented to the degree necessary in a criminal investigation, and arson detectives did not have the opportunity to question Michael and Jessica Keene."

Reichling labeled the fire "undetermined" because of the unusual limits imposed, the report says.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which reviewed Scott's and Simmons' actions at the request of Tempe police, said they did not rise to the criminal level of hindrance or obstruction of justice. Signs of a set fire

According to the Scottsdale report, and police and fire reports obtained by The Republic, suspicious aspects of the blaze include:

The fire began in a master bedroom closet containing only Jessica Keene's garments.

The blaze began in the center of the closet about 3 feet off the floor, where clothes might have been hanging.

There was no natural or electrical cause of the fire.

Michael Keene gave inconsistent accounts of how the fire started. He first said it started when a candle was knocked over. Then he said a cat knocked it over. Later, he said he knocked it over while swatting at things after Jessica rejected his romantic overtures. At first, Michael Keene said it was a big candle that must have started the fire, and then said it was a small candle.

There was no wax residue found in the area where the fire originated.

"In my expert opinion the fire was set," Reichling told investigators, according to the report.

While firefighters were at the fire scene, Michael Keene flew into a rage, kicked Scott and used obscenities when told he could not search for his wife's wedding gown, the report says. The gown was later found unharmed in a hall closet.

Reichling stopped the fight by standing between Keene and Scott, the report said, and two other firefighters escorted Keene across the street.

Michael and Jessica Keene had been drinking and arguing throughout the evening, starting with margaritas at a Scottsdale eatery and continuing with wine after returning home, the report says.

Michael Keene admitted he was intoxicated in a letter of apology, in which he said he regretted "lashing out" at Scott. He also said he was in Alcoholics Anonymous, which Jessica refuted, according to the report.

Around Thanksgiving, Meyer, the city manager, asked Scottsdale to conduct the investigation.

"I wanted a clear understanding of what happened that night. We weren't out to get anybody," said Meyer. "I wanted to know about the actions of all the players."

Meyer said he received the "very thorough" report in March, which drew no conclusions but spelled out the actions of Keene, Scott, Simmons, Reichling and several other firefighters at the house.

Meyer said he confronted Simmons in his office.

"I said, 'I have the report, and there is information of great concern in the report. I would like you to review it and then I would like to talk to you about it after you are done,' " Meyer said.

Simmons, who had recently entered the city's five-year retirement deferment program, studied the document over a weekend, Meyer said.

"He met with me," Meyer said, "and he told me he had decided to retire."

Scott followed suit.

Under his retirement package, Simmons receives $7,818 a month as well as $260 a month in insurance subsidies until he dies, according to Bonnie Bell, retired members' manager of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.

Simmons also received a lump sum of $79,500, Bell said. The Arizona State Retirement System did not respond to The Republic's request about the retirement of Scott, who, unlike Simmons, was a civilian.

Keene's attorney, Bob Storrs, said his client wants his job back. "He wants to be a firefighter again," said Storrs.

Although Reichling told Scottsdale police that Keene could have faced an arson charge, Storrs said: "This really was in my opinion an accident. He didn't do it intentionally."

Outgoing Mayor Hugh Hallman called the Scottsdale report "very disappointing" and added that he expects nothing short of "superlative" performance from the Tempe Fire Department.

Child Protective Services wants you to snitch on your neighbors.

Source

Spotting child abuse: What to do to help

by Lindsey Erdody - Jun. 23, 2012 09:24 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

It's unknown how many cases of child abuse or neglect aren't reported every year, but experts know cases are underreported. More often than not, somebody saw or heard something suspicious but didn't do anything about it.

Most child abuse and neglect happens behind closed doors, so the signs aren't always obvious and often fall into a gray area. You may see a child with multiple unexplained bruises. Maybe it's a little boy wandering around your neighborhood alone. Or maybe you see a stranger lose their cool at the grocery store, and she smacks her kid.

What would you do?

Would you recognize the signs of child abuse? Would you know who to call?

Suzanne Schunk, director of family-support services for Southwest Human Development, said there's usually a history of abuse when a child dies from maltreatment.

"It doesn't start out one day that everything is fine, and the next day the child is dead," Schunk said.

Of the 70 children who died from maltreatment in 2010, Child Protective Services only had prior involvement with 18, according to statistics from the Arizona Department of Health Services.

The law requires certain people to report potential child abuse or neglect. This includes health professionals, church leaders, child guardians, school personnel or anyone else responsible for the care of the child. But neighbors and the general public also have an obligation to keep children safe.

Schunk said most cases go unreported because people are scared to get involved.

She said people tend to think it's none of their business, and that they shouldn't interfere with other families. Other reasons: They're in denial that anything wrong is happening. They fear they will be dragged into court. They worry they will break up a family.

Even so, she said it's better to do something than to do nothing at all.

"We have too many cases in the papers where the neighbors or even family members knew the child was being hurt or being beaten or that they heard screams, and they did nothing. And that's tragic," Schunk said. "It's better that we make a phone call, whether it be to CPS or the police, and everything's OK than that we do nothing and things get worse and children get seriously injured or die."

As part of The Arizona Republic's yearlong series on the child-welfare system, we explore some of the most common questions about how and when people should get involved when they suspect child abuse or neglect. No obvious abuse

Scenario: Someone you know has become aggressive with their child, and it's clear things aren't quite right even if there's no obvious abuse yet.

What to do immediately: Schunk said it's acceptable to step in. She suggests making a comment like: "Parenting is a tough job." Or using humor to let the parent know you've been there: "Kids can really act up, can't they?"

Deidre Calcoate, adoption program and resource home development manager for the Arizona Department of Economic Security.said making a quick comment can calm the parent down.

"A lot of times we believe we're the only ones going through things," Calcoate said. "Sometimes just the little things help."

What you shouldn't do: Don't criticize. "The cardinal rule is don't criticize the parent, because you will immediately antagonize the parent," Schunk said.

Next steps: Turn the attention to the child, so you can talk about what's best for him or her. Mention resources, such as support groups or churches, and ask how you can help, perhaps by watching the child for a few hours.

The stressful moment you witnessed usually isn't a one-time thing, so don't reach out once and just let it go, Schunk said. If the problems continue people need to call CPS.

"If it makes you uncomfortable, go with your gut and call CPS," Schunk said. "Let CPS decide what's going on."

Obvious signs of abuse

Scenario: You don't have an established relationship with the potential abuser -- as in the case of a neighbor, for example -- and you hear or see abuse next door.

What to do immediately: Call 911 or CPS at 1-888-SOS-CHILD.

Schunk said a common misconception is that calling CPS will result in the state removing the child from the family, which is not true. Sometimes it just helps get some services available to the family. If you feel threatened or worried about repercussions, you can provide information anonymously.

What you shouldn't do: Don't investigate the situation on your own. Let CPS handle it because you don't want to put yourself in danger or escalate the situation.

"I would caution people never to put themselves in harm's way," Calcoate said.

Next steps: If the situation persists and no one has responded, call again. Experts advise against getting personally involved.

Making a scene in public

Scenario: The child is screaming, and the parent "loses" it as she walks through the grocery store, but there is no physical harm to the child.

What to do immediately: Make a quick comment and try to calm the parent down.

Even when it's a stranger, Schunk said all it takes in a situation like this is to smile at the parent and say, "Gosh, it's hard. It is so hard. I remember when I was there."

Schunk said it's more likely for a parent that feels embarrassed to take her anger out on the child. If the parent knows other people understand what she's going through, then she will probably calm down.

What you shouldn't do: Don't criticize. Again, that will only anger the parent more.

Next steps: If the situation continues to escalate, and the parent physically harms the child, call the police and try to get a license plate number. Don't intervene personally because you could put yourself in danger.

Potential neglect

Scenario: You see a young child wandering the streets or any public place alone.

What to do immediately: If you can find the parent, make a joke and get their attention. If you're in a store, help the child find the parent.

"The parent's just not supervising and keeping that child safe," Schunk said.

What you shouldn't do: Don't criticize the parent. Don't discipline the child personally. Don't walk away and ignore it.

Next steps: If you can't find the parents, call the police or CPS. Warning signs that a child is being abused or neglected:

The child is unhappy or hungry frequently

There are unexplained bruises, burns or sores on the child

The child wears dirty or ill-fitting clothes on a regular basis

The child misses a lot of school

There are unsupervised children outside or being left home alone

The child talks about family violence

The parent or child is harming animals or pets.

The child is expressing fear of something or someone

The child has trouble falling asleep, staying asleep or is having nightmares.

Sources: Suzanne Schunk, director of family-support services for Southwest Human Development; American Humane Association

Numbers to call:

911, if the abuse is happening in public or needs police attention

1-888-SOS-CHILD, Child Protective Services Hotline Want more?

Do you have another scenario you'd like us to explore? Call reporter Lindsey Erdody at 602-444-4977 or lindsey.erdody@arizonarepublic.com.

Arizona Police Pensions!!!!

Source

Pension funds in Arizona facing bleak future

by Craig Harris - Jun. 23, 2012 10:27 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

Taxpayers next week will start paying more to prop up four of Arizona's ailing public retirement plans, which continue to suffer such heavy market losses that their values are far below what they owe pensioners over the long term.

The pension system for Arizona's police officers and firefighters is in the worst shape and has little hope for a quick turnaround, its top administrator says.

"The picture is not good," said Jim Hacking of the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. "And there is not much of anything we can do about it. We can only hope the financial markets start improving."

State pension administrators had forecast an increase in contributions by public employers to their trust funds during the coming fiscal year because of stock-market declines dating to 2008. But an overall market decline in the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, means even more money than anticipated likely will be needed over the next few years to help stabilize the public-safety-personnel fund as well as the Elected Officials' Retirement Plan, the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan and the Arizona State Retirement System, officials say.

The bleak outlook comes as the Pew Center on the States, a national organization that seeks ways to make government more effective, last week released a study saying Arizona's state pension systems remain underfunded. Arizona is among 34 states facing that problem.

But the Pew Center said Arizona's management of its long-term liabilities for public pensions was cause for "serious concern." The Pew Center said Arizona's four statewide systems as of fiscal 2010 faced a $12 billion funding gap. The funding gap is the difference between assets on hand and the amount needed to pay for retirement obligations of those enrolled in the system.

As funding levels drop, additional contributions are needed from public employers and employees to keep the gap from widening. The increase in public-employer contributions forces governments to cut elsewhere or raise taxes.

Ideally, a public-pension trust is 100 percent funded, meaning the current value of assets in the trust is equal to the pension cost calculated for all current and future retirees. Pensions funded at 80 percent or higher are considered healthy by industry standards.

All of Arizona's pension funds were below that benchmark in 2010, and fell further in 2011, according to records obtained by The Arizona Republic.

The largest system, the Arizona State Retirement System, whose members include teachers and government employees, had the highest funding level at nearly 76 percent as of June 30, 2011. That system is the healthiest because its members historically have paid the same amount into the trust as their employers, and it has not given cost-of-living raises to retirees since 2005 because there were not adequate funds.

Kil Huh, Pew's research director, said the Arizona Legislature in 2011 tried to tackle the funding problem by increasing employee contributions and tweaking some benefits for retirees to cut pension costs. But he noted that court decisions this year struck down changes such as having Arizona State Retirement System employees pay more for their pensions and limiting cost-of-living raises for elected officials.

Arizona has some of the strongest protections for public pensions in the country because its Constitution says public retirements cannot be diminished, which courts have interpreted as meaning that pension benefits cannot be reduced.

"Moving forward, they are going to have to think of a funding strategy," Huh said. Public-safety fund worst off

Public agencies and their workers fund the state's four pension plans through contributions based on each worker's gross wages.

Municipal employers of public-safety officers, Corrections workers and elected officials pay into the retirement funds at higher rates than their employees, according to rates set in state law. But Arizona State Retirement System employees and employers pay the same rate.

Pension-fund managers invest those trust funds in securities, real estate or bonds. If the economy is booming and a pension fund reaps large earnings, then the funding ratio improves and fewer contributions are needed to keep the fund healthy.

In Arizona, the least-healthy system is that serving public-safety personnel.

As of June 30, the funding ratio for the public-safety officers' trust was 61.9 percent -- meaning current assets would cover less than two-thirds of liabilities. Administrator Hacking believes the ratio would drop below 60 percent by the end of this fiscal year, June 30. In fiscal 2010, the funding level was at 65.8 percent.

Records show that funding levels for pension trusts for elected officials and Corrections officers also have dropped since 2005.

The elected officials' trust had a funding ratio of 62.1 percent as of June 30, down from 66.7 percent the previous year. The pension fund for Corrections officers had a funding ratio of 73 percent as of June 30, down from 80.3 percent the prior year.

Hacking said negative earnings caused by poor stock-market performances in 2008, 2009 and likely again this year have hurt all three funds.

The public-safety-personnel fund has paid cost-of-living increases to retirees even when investment earnings were low, and a special deferred-retirement program has added liabilities. Employers in the public-safety-personnel fund pay an amount equal to 22.68 percent of each worker's salary into the trust. On July 1, the rate increases to 27.18 percent, a cost that, ultimately, will be borne by taxpayers.

While all statewide systems will increase rates for employers July 1, the increase of 4.5 percent for public-safety-personnel employers such as cities and counties is the largest hike among all four statewide systems, records show. For a police officer earning $50,000, the employer's annual contribution for the upcoming fiscal year will increase by $2,250, to $13,590.

Officers will contribute 9.55 percent of their salaries starting July 1, up from the current 8.65 percent. An officer earning $50,000 will pay $450 more per year, or $4,775 annually, toward retirement in the new fiscal year. Facing officers' lawsuits

Along with its financing problems, Hacking said, the public-safety-personnel fund is facing lawsuits from current and retired police officers who are challenging a 2011 state pension-reform law. The law requires public-safety officers to contribute more toward their pensions and places restrictions on cost-of-living increases for pensioners.

Those suits have not gone to trial. But Hacking said that if the fund loses, then more contributions will be needed from employers.

So far, the courts have sided with public employees in related pension cases.

In May, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that the state Legislature violated the Arizona Constitution and effectively breached a contract when it passed the 2011 reform law that placed restrictions on cost-of-living raises for elected officials. Hacking said that ruling will be appealed.

David Leibowitz, a spokesman for the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona and the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, said public-safety officers are concerned about the cost to taxpayers to fund public pensions, and they want to work with the Legislature to find solutions.

Huh from the Pew Center said, "States can't invest their way out of the challenges they created for themselves."

In 2010, The Arizona Republic published a series that found the cost for local governments and the state to run six pension systems, including systems in Phoenix and Tucson, grew 448 percent over the past decade, to $1.39 billion.

Byron Schlomach, an economist with the conservative Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, said the public still is absorbing a much higher cost to fund public pensions than it was 10 years ago.

"We have made unaffordable promises to government employees," Schlomach said. "We have to at least slow down the bleeding."

State Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, who pushed through the pension-reform bill in 2011, said lawmakers need to take another shot at making changes in 2013.

"Some of our efforts have not been fruitful, and some others are still out there looking at litigation," Yarbrough said. "I don't know what the answer is going to be. ... There are things we still need to take a hard look at, but we will have to see how the litigation shakes out."

Most (but not all) of SB 1070 declared unconstitutional.

But the Supremes said that SB 1070 can require "an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally"

And as any defense attorney will tell you that you should always take the 5th and refuse to answer any police questions. And if you don't answer police questions it will make it much harder for them to prove you are in Arizona illegally.

Source

Arizona immigration law: Supreme Court upholds key portion of Senate Bill 1070

Three other parts of controversial immigration law ruled unconstitutional

by Alia Beard Rau - Jun. 25, 2012 11:15 AM

The Republic | azcentral.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that one key part of the Arizona immigration law, known as Senate Bill 1070, is constitutional, paving the way for it to go into effect. Three other portions were deemed unconstitutional in a 5-3 opinion.

The part ruled constitutional is among the most controversial of the law's provisions. It requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally.

The three parts ruled unconstitutional make it a state crime for an immigrant not to be carrying papers, allow for warrant-less arrest in some situations and forbid an illegal immigrant from working in Arizona.

The long-awaited decision was a partial victory for Gov. Jan Brewer and for President Barack Obama, who sued the state of Arizona to keep the law from taking effect. By striking down the portions they did, justices said states could not overstep the federal government's immigration-enforcement authority. But by upholding the portion it did, the court said it was proper for states to partner with the federal government in immigration enforcement.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the injunction blocking the provision from taking effect is still in place. The case now goes back to the lower courts. Authorities cannot begin enforcing the provision upheld by the Supreme Court until U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton lifts the injunction she issued in 2010. It is unclear how long that process could take.

Once it does take effect, the federal government will not automatically accept for deportation every person arrested under SB 1070 in Arizona, federal immigration officials said Monday.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it will not take action when receiving calls from local police unless the person arrested meet priorities for deportation. ICE's priorities include illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes and those who pose a threat to national security.

"ICE will not issue detainers unless they meet priorities," a Department of Homeland Security senior official said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He said it was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2, which requires law enforcement to check immigration status, "without some showing that (the section's) enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives."

"The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme," he wrote. "The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter."

However, Kennedy's opinion does set the state up for future possible lawsuits. He wrote that if an individual is detained under SB 1070 for longer than they would have been before just to check their legal status, that would be a constitutional problem.

"This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect," he wrote.

Justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed opinions partly agreeing and partly disagreeing.

Thomas and Scalia in their dissents opined that all of SB 1070 should be permitted to go into effect.

"What I do fear -- and what Arizona and the States that support it fear -- is that 'federal policies' of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration," Scalia wrote. "Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so."

Alito split with both groups, arguing that the majority was correct to allow the portion requiring law enforcement to check immigration status and to not allow the portion requiring that individuals show paperwork. But he said the portions forbidding illegal immigrants from working in Arizona and allowing for warrantless arrests in some cases should be allowed to go into effect.

The ruling, which comes little more than a week after Obama's administration modified its immigration-enforcement policy, is the culmination of a two-year battle.

The Arizona Legislature passed the measure and Brewer signed it into law in 2010, setting off an international political firestorm.

As they reacted to the divided opinion Monday morning, those on both sides of the issue claimed victory.

Brewer on Monday called the opinion "a victory for the rule of law."

"It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens," Brewer said in a news release. "After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

She added that law enforcement will be held accountable should the law "be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights."

"We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves," she said.

Obama in a statement said he was pleased that the court struck down key provisions.

"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform," he said. "A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system - it's part of the problem."

Obama said he is concerned about the portion of the law the high court will allow to go into effect.

"No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like," he said in his statement. "Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes."

In a written statement, Senate Minority Leader David Schapira, D-Tempe, said the ruling sent two messages: "(T)hat states cannot pass policies that undermine federal law and that Congress must act on comprehensive reform in order to address this issue and avoid these kinds of legal conflicts."

"We cannot begin to honestly solve the issue of illegal immigration until those in Congress are willing to have meaningful discussions on comprehensive reform," he said.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, who along with former Sen. Russell Pearce sponsored the bill in the Legislature, said he was elated that the law's key provision was found to be constitutional.

He acknowledged the section is open to future legal challenge. But that doesn't signal the section will be struck down, he said.

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, has been one of the law's most vocal opponents.

"When it comes right down to it, I think the Supreme Court has really sent us a mixed messages," he said. "The big question now is law enforcement. This is not the last time 1070 will be before the Supreme Court."

U.S. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, both Republicans, issued a joint statement on the opinion.

"The Arizona law was born out of the state's frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress," according to the statement. "We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom."

U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., called the ruling a victory.

"The federal government has failed my state with its inability to properly enforce immigration law," he said in a written statement. "Now Arizona, with the core of SB 1070, can implement what Washington has failed to do."

In the days prior to the law's passage and the weeks after its signing, hundreds of supporters and opponents rallied at the state Capitol.

Opponents called for a a boycott of Arizona that resulted in canceled conferences and music concerts. Supporters sent Brewer millions of dollars to help fund the law's legal defense. At one point, the governor and President Barack Obama sat down for an Oval Office chat to discuss their differences on immigration and border security. The two were not able to reach an agreement, however, and their relationship has been frosty since.

The federal government eventually sued Arizona over the immigration law.

Brewer has criticized Obama's new immigration policy as a preemptive strike against SB 1070. The policy, announced June 15, allows certain illegal immigrants under age 30 to apply to stay in the United States without fear of deportation for two years. They also could apply for a work permit. The policy, which mirrors portions of the Dream Act, does not grant legal status to undocumented immigrants.

Legal experts say the policy protects qualifying individuals who may be arrested or detained under SB 1070 by making it clear that federal officials will not pursue deportation.

Lawmakers in dozens of other states proposed -- and in five states passed -- copycat immigration-enforcement legislation.

Now, the court's decision is expected to reignite passions over immigration and affect political contests from coast to coast, from the presidential race down to local legislative districts.

The U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit was one of seven challenging Senate Bill 1070. Three are still working their way through the courts.

Bolton issued a preliminary injunction in that case, preventing four parts of the law from ever going into effect. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld her ruling and Brewer appealed the injunction to the high court.

The law, among other things, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest to, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally. It's written goal is to deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona through a policy of "attrition through enforcement."

Bolton ruled that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government, not individual states. As part of the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit, she issued an injunction stopping four parts of the law: requiring a law-enforcement officer to check a person's immigration status in certain situations; making it a crime to not carry "alien-registration papers;" allowing for a warrantless arrest if there is cause to believe a person committed a crime that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work.

The key argument before the Supreme Court in April was whether Arizona has the right to enforce federal immigration laws the way it chooses.

The U.S. Department of Justice in its lawsuit argued that immigration is an issue that only the federal government can address. The state argued that SB 1070 mirrors federal law and assists the federal government in enforcement.

The Supreme Court ruling determines the future of immigration enforcement nationwide and affects laws in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah. It will also likely reignite passions over immigration and affect political contests from coast to coast, from the presidential race down to local legislative districts.

This is also not the end of the SB 1070 lawsuits in Arizona.

The underlying lawsuit the federal government filed challenging SB 1070, as well two other lawsuits filed against the measure, are all still awaiting trial before Bolton. Bolton will have to base future decisions in those cases on this ruling.

The high court's decision does not directly affect a separate injunction Bolton issued in one of the other lawsuits. That injunction halted the part of the law limiting day-labor activities.

Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl contributed to this article

If I get any more articles about SB 1070 I will put the articles here.

Ex-cop pleads guilty in traffic stops of female motorists

Ex-cop pleads guilty in traffic stops of female motorists

By Francis McCabe AND Antonio Planas

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Posted: Jun. 25, 2012 | 10:21 a.m.

A former Las Vegas police officer accused of stopping female drivers while on duty and coercing them into exposing their breasts pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors Monday.

John Norman, who resigned earlier this month from the Metropolitan Police Department, told Judge Melisa De La Garza he was guilty of oppression under the color of office and open or gross lewdness.

A sentencing hearing was set for Oct. 30 before Judge Abbi Silver. Norman faces probation or up to two years in jail. He will be required to register as a sex offender.

As part of a deal, prosecutors dropped six other counts against Norman. Also, if Norman successfully completes the sentencing obligations, the open and gross lewdness charge would be dismissed and replaced with another count of oppression under the color of office, and his sex offender registration would be expunged.

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said Norman appeared to have gotten a "sweetheart deal." Lichtenstein questioned the part of Norman's plea that would enable him to have his status as a sex offender expunged if he completes his sentencing obligations.

"It certainly raises questions whether a police officer was given a break," Lichtenstein said. "One could argue because of the power we give police officers, they should be held to a higher standard. ... It sounds like a sweetheart deal for him."

Bill Sousa, a criminal justice professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said that nationally, cases such as Norman's are uncommon. He said when those kind of allegations are made against officers, they tend to grab headlines.

"It's the type of thing that is very sensational," Sousa said. "Misconduct comes in all sorts of forms. But that specific type of activity is extremely rare."

Authorities said Norman in 2011 pulled over two women in separate traffic stops and compelled them to show their breasts. He also is accused of fondling one of the women.

Allegations of misconduct also were made against Norman by two other women. Those allegations were investigated but did not rise to the level of crimes, police said.

According to Norman's arrest report, a woman on Dec. 28 reported to police that she had been pulled over and groped during a traffic stop.

Police said the stop occurred Dec. 11 near Tropicana and Eastern avenues.

Norman told her to pull into the back of a church parking lot so he could conduct some tests.

The report said that during the traffic stop, the woman told Norman that she had a prior arrest for driving under the influence and that during the arrest marijuana was found.

Norman told the woman he stopped her because she didn't have license plate lights.

The report said Norman asked to "physically search" her.

The woman consented. Norman asked whether she would be more comfortable if a female officer conducted the search. Norman then told the woman he needed to search her bra "because women put things in their bra or sew things into their bra," the report said.

Norman then asked the woman to lift her shirt. At one point, she took off her bra on his order, and he groped her, the report said.

Norman told the woman he was not going to cite her because of her cooperation. He let her go without performing a field sobriety test.

On Jan. 1, a second woman came forward and told investigators of an incident involving Norman.

He blocked her vehicle as it entered an apartment complex near Flamingo and Paradise roads.

Norman told the driver he didn't have a reason to stop her but said they were in a high-crime area.

One of the women in the vehicle admitted to Norman that she had warrants for traffic offenses, the report said.

Norman told her he was going to arrest her for the warrants.

While patting her down, Norman asked her to put her fingers under her bra and shake it to make sure nothing was in the bra. The report said Norman searched her twice before putting her in the back of his patrol car. He then drove around the corner.

Norman told the woman it was her lucky day because he had to go out on a "hot call" so she wasn't going to be arrested. When he removed her handcuffs, he repeatedly ask whether she had anything hidden in her bra.

Norman also said she wasn't doing what he asked correctly. After asking her a third time to shake out her bra, he said: "My, aren't we bashful today," the report said.

The woman sensed that Norman wanted to see her breasts. She then pulled down her shirt and bra and exposed her right breast, the report said.

Norman then let her go, the report said.

TSA moron spills urn that contains cremated body ashes.

Source

Man says TSA spilled grandfather's ashes

by Douglas Stanglin - Jun. 26, 2012 09:23 AM

USA Today

An Indiana man says a TSA agent at Orlando International Airport opened a jar carrying his grandfather's ashes and accidentally spilled about a third of them on the floor while using her finger to sift through the material, RTV6 reports.

John Gross says he is asking for an apology from TSA officials and the worker over the recent incident, the Indianapolis TV station reports.

RTV6 says Gross was carrying home the remains of his grandfather, Mario Mark Marcaletti, a Sicilian immigrant from central Indiana, in a tightly sealed jar marked "Human Remains."

Gross says he explained to the agent what it was, but that she opened the jar and began sifting through the ashes, eventually spilling about a third of the contents onto the floor.

"She didn't apologize," Gross tells RTV6. "She started laughing. I was on my hands and knees picking up bone fragments. I couldn't pick up all, everything that was lost. I mean, there was a long line behind me."

TSA procedures, the TV station notes, call for using X-ray equipment in such cases and that under "no circumstances" are human remains to be opened

Las Vegas police sued for harassing bikers

Biker groups sue Las Vegas police, saying civil rights violated

By John M. Glionna

June 26, 2012, 2:05 p.m.

LAS VEGAS – They have names such as the Mongols, Stray Cats, Vagos and Bandidos, and they’re fighting mad.

Several biker groups have sued Las Vegas and North Las Vegas police in federal court over civil rights violations, alleging systematic harassment by police.

The lawsuit was filed one day after members of the Mongols motorcycle group wrapped up a three-day national meeting in suburban Boulder City that brought police out in force to keep the peace.

In papers filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, an attorney representing members of the Mongols and other clubs allege that law enforcement pressured bars and hotels in Las Vegas to cancel events with members of the Mongols and the Vagos.

Police also improperly detained a member of the Stray Cats group; defamed a member of the Bandidos biker group who was fired from his job as a paramedic; and falsely arrested another Bandidos member, the lawsuit alleges.

Stephen Stubbs, a Las Vegas tax attorney who represents members of several biker clubs, told the Los Angeles Times last week prior to the Mongols meeting in Boulder City that the Mongols are not a gang and that they deserve to be left in peace to hold their meeting.

"It's going to be like a family reunion, with brothers who haven't seen each other in a long time getting together and then going home. An enormous police presence just isn't necessary," he said, adding, “The Mongols motorcycle club is not a criminal organization – it is not a gang."

Las Vegas police said they can't comment on pending litigation, but authorities say the Mongols and Hells Angels have a history of violence in southern Nevada.

In 2002, three bikers were killed in a Mongols-Hells Angels clash inside a casino in nearby Laughlin. Six years later, the gangs brawled in a Las Vegas wedding chapel and two bikers were stabbed. Both lived.

Stubbs told the Associated Press on Tuesday: “These motorcyclists have the same constitutional rights as anyone else.... If the police aren't going to honor those rights, where is this country going?”

Stubbs said the lawsuit was not a response to the police actions in Boulder City. There, officers issued numerous jaywalking and driving summonses, and Boulder City Police Chief Tom Finn reported several misdemeanor arrests.

The suit, filed on behalf of a group called the Southern Nevada Confederation of Clubs and 78 individual plaintiffs, seeks nearly $12 million in damages from the two police departments, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie and 15 Las Vegas Metropolitan and North Las Vegas police officers.

Who needs SB 1070 to violate the rights of brown skinned folks???

Source

Rude or Polite, City’s Officers Leave Raw Feelings in Stops

By WENDY RUDERMAN

Published: June 26, 2012 Comment

Most of the time, the officers swoop in, hornetlike, with a command to stop: “Yo! You, come here. Get against the wall.”

They batter away with questions, sometimes laced with profanity, racial slurs and insults: “Where’s the weed?” “Where’s the guns?”

The officers tell those who ask why they have been stopped to shut up, using names like immigrant, old man or “bro.”

Next comes the frisk, the rummaging through pockets and backpacks. Then they are gone.

Other times, the officers are polite, their introductions almost gentle. “Hey, how’s it going?” “Can you step over here, sir?” “We’d like to talk to you.”

The questions are probing, authoritative, but less accusatory. “What are you doing here?” “Do you live here?” “Can I see some identification, please?” During the pat-down, they ask, “Do you have anything on you?” They nudge further: “You don’t mind if I search you, do you?” They explain that someone of a matching description robbed a store a few days ago, or that the stop is a random one, part of a program in a high-crime area. Then they apologize for the stop and say the person is free to go.

In interviews with 100 people who said they had been stopped by the New York police in neighborhoods where the practice is most common, many said the experience left them feeling intruded upon and humiliated. And even when officers extended niceties, like “Have a nice night,” or called them “sir” and “ma’am,” people said they questioned whether the officer was being genuine.

Michael Delgado, 18, said he was last stopped on Grant Street in East New York, Brooklyn. “I was walking, and a cop said, ‘Where’s the weed?’ ” he recalled. “In my mind, I’m like, ‘Yo, this guy’s a racist.’ He started frisking me, his hands were in my pockets, but I didn’t say anything because my mom always tells me: ‘No altercations. Let him do his thing.’ ”

When the stop-and-frisk was done, Mr. Delgado said, the officer left him with a casual aside to stay safe.

“Stay safe?” Mr. Delgado said. “After he just did all that?”

Last year, city police officers stopped nearly 686,000 people, 84 percent of them black or Latino. The vast majority — 88 percent of the stops — led to neither an arrest nor a summons, although officers said they had enough reasonable suspicion to conduct a frisk in roughly half of the total stops, according to statistics provided by the New York Police Department and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Behind each number is a singular and salient interaction between the officers and the person they have stopped. In conducting the interviews, The New York Times sought to explore the simple architecture of the stops — the officers’ words and gestures, actions, explanations, tones of voice and demeanors.

What seems clear is that there is no script for the encounters, or that if there is one, it is not being followed. Under the law, officers must have a reasonable suspicion — a belief that a crime is afoot — to stop, question and frisk people. One thing an officer cannot do is stop someone based solely on skin color. Yet many of those interviewed said they believed that officers had stopped them because of race — and race alone.

Al Blount, a minister at a Harlem church, said he had been pulled over. “They’ll ask, ‘Where are you headed?’ When you’re African-American, you have to have a definite destination. Everyone else can just say, ‘Mind your own business.’ ”

Last month, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk tactics systematically violated the constitutional rights of blacks and Latinos, who say they are singled out for stops.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg contend that the stop-and-frisk tactic has reduced crime; nonetheless, they have said they are taking steps to ensure that stops are conducted lawfully. Those measures, they said, are expected to drive down the number of stops, while increasing their quality. The mayor has acknowledged that officers are not always respectful during stops, and said that efforts would be made to improve interactions.

The informal street survey, conducted over the past two weeks, sought to get at the root of an angry groundswell against the police among residents in predominately minority and poor neighborhoods.

The interviews consisted of five questions: When and where were you stopped? What was the first thing the police officer said to you? How did the officer address you? Did the officer ever explain why he or she had stopped you? What was the last thing the officer said to you?

The answers offered a glimpse into the experience and why it often leaves such a bitter taste in the mouths of so many who have been stopped, and raised questions about whether the Police Department’s new emphasis on courtesy and respect would help mend relationships in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

While the encounter is often brief, the impression can be long-lasting.

“I understand that they might need to be aggressive with some people, but you just feel it,” said Christopher A. Chadwick, 20, a college student from Brooklyn. “They talk to you like you’re ignorant, like you’re an animal.” Mr. Chadwick described a stop that began when an officer said: “You, come here. Show me your ID.”

Cruz Calixto, 48, said the foot-patrol officers who approached him last summer as he walked down Rockaway Boulevard in Queens were mild-mannered. “ ‘Can you step over here sir? We’d like to talk to you,’ ” Mr. Calixto recounted. Still, the encounter was degrading. “It makes you feel belittled,” he said.

In April, the Police Department began a stop-and-frisk training course with a new component, “The Nobility of Policing,” meant to reduce animosity through professionalism and respect. The course centers on the notion that people want to be asked, and not told, what to do.

Instructors at the department’s training facility at Rodman’s Neck in the Bronx teach officers the importance of “shelving or ramping down one’s ego,” while underscoring that tone, body language, words and actions can dictate whether a stop will go badly for both the officer and the citizen, said Detective James Shanahan, a Police Academy instructor.

The department recently distributed thousands of wallet-size cards — labeled “What Is A Stop, Question and Frisk Encounter?” — to precincts across the city. Officers have been encouraged to give the cards to people they have stopped; at the bottom of the card is essentially a one-sentence, conditional apology: “If you have been stopped and were not involved in any criminal activity, the N.Y.P.D. regrets any inconvenience.”

Of the people interviewed, only one, Derrick Smith, said that officers had provided the card — in an exchange witnessed by The Times.

Mr. Smith, 47, had been stopped as he emerged from the subway in East New York. He said the officers told him they had seen a suspicious bulge in his shirt.

“I had to lift my shirt; I was coming home from work,” Mr. Smith said. “It was just my cellphone.”

As Mr. Smith spoke with reporters, the officers returned to hand him one of the cards.

Many of those interviewed said that they resented being stopped, but that the officers’ demeanor made the experience far worse.

On an evening about a month ago, while walking with friends on Northern Boulevard near 78th Street, in Queens, Louis Morales, 15, and Alex Mejia, 16, found themselves swarmed by plainclothes narcotics officers. They shoved the teenagers’ palms onto an unmarked police car and searched them. Spewing expletives, the officers repeatedly ordered them to “shut up,” the teenagers said.

One of the officers, Mr. Morales said, warned: “Say one word and I’m going to make your parents pick you up at the jail. You guys are a bunch of immigrants.”

“Yep, that’s what they said, ‘You guys are immigrants,’ ” Mr. Mejia interjected. “We can’t say anything to them. They curse at us. They treat us like we killed somebody.”

Mr. Morales said he and other neighborhood teenagers had become so bitter that even if they had information about a crime, they would not share it with the police. “I’m not going to help them,” he said. “They are not helping me by disrespecting me.”

Most of those interviewed said they could not remember the exact date and time when they were stopped and only six or seven said they knew the name of the officers involved. The sentiment, however, was clearer.

On a recent early evening in Brownsville, Brooklyn, Eric Togar said, he was on his way to meet his wife and her younger brother in front of the Langston Hughes Houses, where a cream-colored stretch limousine was on its way to take Mr. Togar’s teenage brother-in-law to a prom. The police cruiser pulled up, with lights activated, and two officers jumped out.

The officers asked if he was wanted on a warrant, said Mr. Togar, 45, a computer technician. They asked to see identification and what was inside the red backpack slung over his shoulder. “Computers and tablets,” he told them. Mr. Togar said they patted him down, offering no explanation, then told him he could go. Mr. Togar almost missed the prom send-off.

“They’re supposed to serve and protect, but all they do is patrol and control,” Mr. Togar said. “Walking down the street doesn’t make you a criminal.”

Texas sued because prisons don't have AC

Two Lawsuits Challenge the Lack of Air-Conditioning in Texas Prisons

By MANNY FERNANDEZ

Published: June 26, 2012

AUSTIN, Tex. — In the brutal heat of summer, many Texans flee to shopping malls, movie theaters and other air-conditioned havens to keep cool. But for one segment of the population, there is literally no escape from triple-digit temperatures: state prison inmates.

Only 21 of the 111 prisons overseen by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the state prison agency, are fully air-conditioned. Many of the prisons that do have air-conditioning in areas where medical services or educational programs are provided to inmates do not offer it in the sections where they live.

Inmates and their families have complained for years about the heat and lack of air-conditioning in the summertime, but the issue has taken on a new urgency. An appeal is pending in a lawsuit initially filed in 2008 by a former inmate claiming that 54 prisoners were exposed to Death Valley-like conditions at a South Texas prison where the heat index exceeded 126 degrees for 10 days indoors. And several inmates at other prisons died of heat-related causes last summer; a lawsuit was filed Tuesday in one of those deaths.

Texas has long had a reputation for running some of the toughest prisons in the country, but inmates and their advocates say the overheated conditions violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They accuse prison officials of failing to supply enough fans, ventilation and water and refusing to follow local and national prison standards.

A Texas law requires county jails to maintain temperature levels between 65 and 85 degrees, but the law does not apply to state prisons. The American Correctional Association recommends that temperature and humidity be mechanically raised or lowered to acceptable levels.

“The Constitution doesn’t require a comfortable prison, but it requires a safe and humane prison,” said Scott Medlock, director of the prisoners’ rights program at the Texas Civil Rights Project, which is representing the former South Texas inmate who sued prison officials. “Housing prisoners in these temperatures is brutal.”

A prison agency spokesman, Jason Clark, said that many prison units were built before air-conditioning was commonly installed, and that many others built later in the 1980s and 1990s did not include air-conditioning because of the additional construction, maintenance and utility costs. Retrofitting prisons with air-conditioning would be extremely expensive, he said.

As a result, the agency takes a number of steps to assist inmates, Mr. Clark said, and he disputed the criticisms of inmates and their lawyers about inadequate fans, water and ventilation. On hot summer days, he said, prison officials restrict outside activity, provide frequent water breaks, allow additional showers, permit inmates to wear shorts and increase airflow by using blowers normally used to move warm air in the winter.

“The agency is committed to making sure that all are safe during the extreme heat,” Mr. Clark said in a statement.

Despite those measures, four inmates — Larry Gene McCollum, 58; Alexander Togonidze, 44; Michael David Martone, 57; and Kenneth Wayne James, 52 — died last summer from heat stroke or hyperthermia, according to autopsy reports and the authorities. Advocates for inmate rights believe that at least five others died from heat-related causes last summer.

On Tuesday, the Texas Civil Rights Project and an Austin lawyer filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Mr. McCollum’s wife, son and daughter. They accused prison officials of causing his death by keeping him in the sweltering Hutchins State Jail outside Dallas, where he had a seizure around 2 a.m. on July 22 and fell from his bunk bed.

When Mr. McCollum, who weighed 345 pounds and had hypertension, arrived at a Dallas hospital, his body temperature was 109.4 degrees. He died six days later. The cause of death was hyperthermia, the autopsy report said. Mr. McCollum was “in a hot environment without air-conditioning, and he may have been further predisposed to developing hyperthermia due to morbid obesity” and use of a diuretic for hypertension, the report noted.

“For this to happen to any human being is beyond my belief,” said Mr. McCollum’s son, Stephen, 30, at a news conference in Austin announcing the lawsuit. “There’s pets in pounds that have better conditions.”

Nearly two weeks after Mr. McCollum died, Mr. Togonidze and Mr. Martone died of hyperthermia on the same August day in different prisons. Five days later, Mr. James was found unresponsive at 3 a.m. at a prison near the East Texas town of Palestine. His body temperature was 108 degrees, and the cause of death was “most likely environmental hyperthermia-related classic heat stroke,” according to the autopsy report. Like Mr. McCollum, Mr. James had hypertension.

Mr. Clark, the prison agency spokesman, said it was unknown whether the lack of air-conditioning was a factor in the deaths. The agency does not comment on pending litigation, he said.

Eugene Blackmon, 67, the former South Texas inmate who sued, said the conditions inside the C-8 dormitory at the Garza East prison caused him to have headaches, blurred vision and nausea. Mr. Blackmon was an inmate there in the summer of 2008 for a parole violation on a stolen-goods charge.

After he filed his lawsuit, his lawyers hired an expert who took measurements inside the dorm in 2010 and retroactively calculated the indoor temperatures for the summer of 2008. The heat index inside reached a high of 134, the expert determined.

“It felt like an oven,” said Mr. Blackmon, whose lawsuit was denied by a lower court and now awaits a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. “These bodies are throwing off heat. We would take a wet towel sometimes and put it over us to try to keep cool. The water we drank was from the sinks. If you had a cup, you drank with the cup. If not, you drank with your hand.”

In court documents, the state attorney general’s office, which is representing the prison officials, denied Mr. Blackmon’s accusations, saying that he made no complaints of a heat-related illness or vision problems at the time and that his blood pressure readings improved rather than worsened over time. An air handler ventilating the dormitory, an industrial fan and a rooftop purge fan — in addition to extra shower privileges and ice water three times a day — increased the level of comfort in the C-8 dorm, the state’s lawyers argued.

State Senator John Whitmire, a Democrat from Houston and chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said he was concerned about the inmate deaths but wanted to examine the circumstances of each. He said he was not sympathetic to complaints about a lack of air-conditioning, partly out of concern about the costs, but also out of principle.

“Texans are not motivated to air-condition inmates,” he said. “These people are sex offenders, rapists, murderers. And we’re going to pay for their air-conditioning when I can’t go down the street and provide air-conditioning to hard-working, taxpaying citizens?”

Wow pigs are sure well paid!!!!

Officer Joe Zizi tickets a motorist he says he saw pressing a cellphone to his ear. A 53-year-old CHP officer with 26 years service and an annual salary of $140,000 is entitled to retirement benefits valued at $2.2 million. An FBI agent's benefits are valued at $1.6 million. (Los Angeles Times / July 1, 2008)

Put pension reform in California to the vote

As the June 28 deadline approaches for the Legislature to place a measure on the November ballot, taxpayers should know what's at stake and what's necessary to fix the state's pension crisis.

By Marcia Fritz

June 26, 2012

As the June 28 deadline approaches for the Legislature to place a pension reform measure on the November ballot, taxpayers should know what's at stake and what's necessary to fix California's pension crisis.

For all the angst in the debate on this issue, the fix is easier than you might think. The Legislature should ask the voters to amend the state Constitution this fall, enacting once and for all the three most important features of Gov. Jerry Brown's 12-point pension reform plan: requiring all public employees to pay half the cost of their retirement plans; requiring future employees to share the risks associated with their plans with taxpayers; and tying state and local retirement ages to federal retirement ages.

According to Stanford's Institute for Economic Policy Research, even if it's assumed that pension fund investments perform reasonably well, the unfunded liabilities of California's largest state and local pension systems stand at about $500 billion. One intrepid reporter did the math: that amount of pension debt amounts to $30,500 for every household in the state.

Largely because of that debt, pension costs are the fastest-growing expenditure for city and county governments and will consume 17% of city budgets this year. Again according to Stanford, pension costs grew 11.4% a year between 1999 and 2010, twice the spending growth rate for education, public safety, parks, health and sanitation. While other services are cut, pension costs go nowhere but up.

Public employee unions are right to complain when their members are lumped together as pension gluttons. Research conducted last year showed that teachers earn retirement benefits that are only marginally more generous than those offered by California's largest companies, and they seem stingy when you consider that state prison guards and California Highway Patrol officers can retire seven years earlier than teachers with benefits that are 77% more valuable.

A study commissioned by the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility found that state public safety employees collect more in benefits than FBI agents. A 53-year-old CHP officer, for example, with 26 years service and an annual salary of $140,000 is entitled to retirement benefits valued at $2.2 million. An FBI agent's benefits are valued at $1.6 million.

The same study found that retirement benefits paid to local government employees are significantly higher than the benefits provided to teachers or to employees of large corporations. A city employee who begins a career at age 27 with a $45,000 starting salary and receives typical wage increases can retire at age 57 with retirement benefits valued at $1.2 million. A similarly compensated teacher will receive benefits valued at $500,000, and an employee of a large corporation less than $400,000.

Teachers and most state employees already pay close to half the cost of their retirement plans. The same cannot be said for many thousands of city and county employees who pay nothing. Local governments would save billions every year if employees split the cost of their retirement benefits with taxpayers.

Only 10% of employees in the private sector participate in a "defined benefit" retirement (pension) plan, compared to 87% of state and local government employees. Taxpayers assume 100% of the risk of defined benefit plans because in these plans, the benefit payments are guaranteed irrespective of the plan's investment performance. In a "defined contribution" plan, such as a 401(k), employees share the risk of their plan's investments. In a compromise hybrid plan, which is what a pension reform ballot measure should call for, employees may participate in a defined benefit plan, subject to limits, and augment their benefits with a defined contribution plan.

In November, the voters deserve a chance to enact a ballot measure that would once and for all reform the system so that all public employees split the cost of their retirement, share the risks rather than leave them entirely to taxpayers, and set retirement ages in line with federal rules.

But once the Legislature puts the measure on the ballot, it must also attend to passing laws to curb the system's worst abuses, such as spiking, in which compensation for things like vacation pay and uniform costs are used to inflate pension checks; double dipping, in which public employees retire, collect their pensions and return to work as "consultants"; and airtime, which allows employees to buy credit for service they didn't perform.

The Legislature should also repeal what is arguably the most expensive mistake in California history. In 1999, it passed SB 400, which gave retroactive benefit increases to employees and retirees and made it possible for public employees to retire with a higher income than they made while working. According to the Los Angeles Times, 4,000 retired Los Angeles County employees earn more in retirement than they did while working.

Public employees in California earn salaries similar to their counterparts in the private sector, but generous retirement benefits push their total compensation costs significantly higher. Those costs are crippling state and local government.

By putting a ballot measure before the voters in November to address the most crucial systemic pension issues, and by following that up with appropriate legislation to reform the worst pension abuses, the Legislature has the opportunity to solve one of California's most vexing problems and reassure a skeptical electorate that it can serve as a responsible steward of public resources. Let's get it done.

Marcia Fritz is president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility and a member of the Pension Committee of the Government Accounting Standards Board.

TSA fires Newark workers, says some slept on job

Source

TSA fires Newark workers, says some slept on job

By Bart Jansen, USA TODAY

The Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday it fired eight officers at Newark Liberty International Airport for allegedly sleeping on the job or violating other rules.

Some of the workers were caught on videotape in December napping in a checked-baggage room in Newark's terminal B, the TSA said. Other workers violated other standard operation procedures involving checked baggage, the agency said, and more workers could be disciplined as the investigation continues.

The dismissals are at least the third flurry of disciplinary action against TSA airport screeners this month.

Seven workers in Philadelphia were fired June 15 after another worker was convicted of bribery a week earlier for charging workers to pass certification tests.

Five workers were fired and 37 more, including the security director in Fort Myers, Fla., were suspended on June 1 for failing to conduct additional random screenings for hundreds of passengers.

The inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security currently is investigating the TSA, and the latest disciplinary actions are part of that review, according to TSA.

At Newark, the TSA said the eight workers who were fired had been suspended in January from screening passengers and placed on modified duties, while the inspector general reviewed the case to ensure that the workers didn't have an excuse such as being on break.

TSA Administrator John Pistole last year created an Office of Professional Responsibility to standardize work rules and streamline the adjudication of disciplinary action of cases such as this.

In a statement, TSA said the agency "holds all of its employees to the highest professional and ethical standards and has a zero tolerance for misconduct in the workplace."

"The decision to take disciplinary action, including the proposed immediate removal of eight individuals from the TSA reaffirms our strong commitment to ensure the safety of the traveling public and to hold all our employees to the highest standards of conduct and accountability," the agency said.

Representatives from the American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing TSA workers, didn't respond immediately to phone and email messages for comment

Mesa officer indicted on 2 felony assault counts

Source

Mesa officer indicted on 2 felony assault counts

by Jim Walsh - Jun. 29, 2012 07:35 AM

The Republic | azcentral.com

A Mesa police sergeant has been indicted on two felony counts of aggravated assault stemming from a road-rage incident in December in which he was first portrayed as the victim.

Sgt. Mike Duke, 42, a 19-year veteran scheduled to appear before a commissioner on Aug. 22, has applied for a medical retirement, and his application is pending before the city's retirement board, said Detective Steve Berry, a police spokesman.

Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead on May 25 said at a press conference that police believe Duke landed the first blow during a confrontation with brothers Randy and Jerry Smyers on Dec. 18, not the other way around as they first alleged. Police had arrested the Smyerses, but dropped the charges and asked Scottsdale police to investigate to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Milstead said Duke's conduct the day of the alleged assault "falls far below the standards of the police department and the community," but that any disciplinary action would depend on the outcome of an internal-affairs investigation and whether charges were filed.

"Mike Duke served the police department for 19 years," Milstead said. "What happened that day was very unfortunate, and it will probably change his life forever."

The department also released a 911 recording, during which Randy Smyers asks Duke repeatedly to identify himself as a police officer, and Duke responded with a string of profanities.

Duke was off-duty on a Sunday and driving to an urgent-care center in his minivan with his three sons when the alleged incident occurred in northeast Mesa.

Jerry Smyers told police that Randy was upset about Duke tailgating him and that he merely wanted Duke to pass him. The confrontation erupted after Randy Smyers stopped his pickup in the middle of the road.

But Alicia Duke, the officer's wife, said her husband was acting in self-defense by protecting himself and his three sons, who range in age from 8 to 13.

Alicia Duke said she was acting as a spokeswoman for her husband because he is not allowed to discuss the criminal charges and the internal investigation.

"Michael was just doing what he was trained to do and protecting his children, protecting anyone in the neighborhood," she said. "The investigation is not complete. Michael has been found guilty of nothing."

Alicia Duke conceded her husband's language on the 911 tape during the incident was poor, but she said he was suffering from a knee injury and was under a great deal of stress.

She said the police department never inquired about the safety of her children. She called Milstead's comments "not only hurtful, but inappropriate," and said her husband misses his job.

"Police work was everything to Mike," Alicia Duke said. "Law enforcement is and was Mike's life."

Marc Steadman, a deputy city attorney, said the city eventually settled a notice of claim by paying each of the Smyers brothers $62,500.

Former ICE agent gets prison for information leak

The drug war corrupts cops by letting them make huge sums of money to allow victimless drug war crimes to happen.

Of course the "drug war" cops say I am full of BS and that drug war crimes are not victimless and that the people that take drugs are the victims of their own crimes.

I think that logic is 100 percent BS. If it was true that means we should make steaks and ice cream illegal to prevent people from over eating getting fat. And of course throwing these same people in prison for getting "fat" from indulging in illegal fattening foods.

Source

Former ICE agent gets prison for information leak

by Daniel González - Jun. 29, 2012 10:00 PM

The Republic | azcentral

TUCSON -- A former Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent from the Nogales office was sentenced Friday to 3years in prison for using her work computer to access classified information without authorization and leaking it to a sister in Mexico who investigators say had ties to violent drug cartels.

Jovana Deas, 33, a former special agent with ICE Homeland Security Investigations, may have jeopardized national security and put at risk the lives of fellow agents and confidential government informants by leaking the information, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lacey said at the close of a two-day sentencing hearing.

Calling Deas a "spy in the U.S. camp," Lacey urged U.S. District Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson to exceed the guidelines and sentence Deas to 10years in prison to reflect the damage she had caused to ICE's operations and to deter other agents "from even thinking about" leaking confidential information.

Lacey said one of the people who Deas researched using her work computer as a favor for her sister was later assassinated in Juarez, Mexico, though Lacey could not link his death directly to a photo of the man Deas provided her sister, Dana Maria Samaniego Montes, 40, a former Mexico federal police officer.

"We are not saying she caused his murder. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't," Lacey said.

A copy of the photo was later discovered in the computer of Samaniego Montes's ex-husband, Miguel Angel Mendoza Estrada, when he was questioned by federal police in Sao Paulo, Brazil, as part of a drug-trafficking investigation, ICE investigators said during the hearing.

The former agent's actions seriously compromised ICE's operations in southern Arizona and exposed the country to the possibility of a terrorist threat, Lacey said.

"It only takes one person to come in," Lacey said.

In February, Deas pleaded guilty to a 21-count indictment.

On Friday, she apologized for her actions but denied knowing her sister or ex-brother-in-law had ties to drug cartels or that she was trying to help drug cartels.

She said that only in one instance, the one involving the photo, had she accessed confidential documents on her work computer as a favor for her sister. She said that in the other instances she was using tips provided by her sister to try and build cases against people possibly involved with drug cartels.

"I feel like I betrayed my country and the agency that gave me so many opportunities," Deas told Jorgenson. "But I would never do anything to jeopardize the lives of agents."

Jorgenson rejected Lacey's recommendation that Deas be sentenced to 10 years in prison. But she said that as a law-enforcement officer, Deas should be held to a higher standard. She also rejected Deas' request for a more lenient sentence and noted that the 3-year sentence was at the top end of the sentencing guidelines.

Samaniego Montes also was indicted as part of the scheme, but she remains a fugitive in Mexico.

10 years in prison for looking at dirty pictures???

Source

Tucson man sentenced in child pornography case

Published 03:06 p.m., Friday, June 29, 2012

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — A Tucson man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and lifetime probation after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.

Pima County prosecutors had sought a 17-year prison term plus lifetime probation for Rafael Paz at Friday's sentencing.

The 38-year-old Paz was arrested in March after Tucson police detectives from the Internet Crimes Against Children Unit say they found multiple child pornography files on his computer.

Paz pleaded guilty last month.

The Arizona Daily Star (http://bit.ly/MY1tjI) says a judge imposed the minimum sentence for Paz and he must serve every day of his prison term.

Source

Tucson man given 10 years in child-porn case

June 29, 2012 12:02 pm

Kim Smith, Arizona Daily Star

A 38-year-old Tucson man will spend the next 10 years in prison and a lifetime on probation after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.

Rafael Paz was arrested in March after Tucson police detectives from the Internet Crimes Against Children Unit found multiple child pornography files on his computer.

Paz pleaded guilty last month and was facing between 10 and 39 years in prison.

Deputy Pima County Attorney Ben Mendola asked Pima County Superior Court Judge Paul Tang to impose a 17-year prison term, plus lifetime probation.

Assistant Pima County Public Defender Michael Mussman asked for the minimum sentence. The defense attorney said he has had clients commit far worse crimes receive better plea offers.

Tang imposed the minimum sentence, noting Paz had never been arrested before, has a great deal of family support and is remorseful.

Paz must serve every day of his prison sentence.

Fake IDs cause identity theft??? What BS!!!!

Source

Teens take risk of identity theft when they order fake IDs from China

by Daniel Rasmussen - Jun. 28, 2012 01:44 PM

Special for The Republic

A fake driver's license made in China works as well as the real thing.

These IDs look perfect, they scan, and they have the correct holograms. Anyone with Google and the desire to drink can get one. They're every underage drinker's dream. But little do they know they may also be their worst nightmare.

When buyers submit personal information to China, they are sending it through a network of organized crime, putting their identity in the hands of some of the world's most sophisticated criminals, officials warn.

But some teens in the Southeast Valley don't see the problem if they can buy their friends alcohol, interviews show.

After hearing good reviews, one Arizona State University student, who asked not to be identified, got a couple of friends to join him on an order for IDs. Three weeks later, the IDs arrived inside the sole of a shoe, one of the methods used to get them past customs. Decks of cards, teacups and children's toys are also popular stash spots.

Universities have become a prime target for fake-ID companies. The IDs have become popular across the nation, with batches intercepted by customs officials in San Francisco, Chicago and New York.

In a 2010 study, University of Missouri Professor Julia Martinez concluded that 32 percent of all undergraduate students would own and use a fake ID by the end of their sophomore years.

In 2011, the Tempe Police Department said, police seized 2,247 fake IDs in the downtown district alone, up 8 percent from the previous year.

The IDs' sophistication means that more may be getting past doormen than are not. When tested at a popular Scottsdale bar, a fake ID scanned positively, meaning a barcode scanner verified the license as legitimate.

"To the naked eye, these look perfect," said Andrew Lebowitz, a former bouncer at American Junkie in Scottsdale. "Anyone could get in with one of these."

When the bouncers at five popular Scottsdale bars inspected the ID, they eventually found minor flaws, such as fuzzy printing and poor image quality, he said. However, inspections rarely get that far. "The truth is, on a busy Saturday night, no one would be suspicious about this ID. It's that good," Lebowitz said.

John Sileo, an identity-theft expert who has worked with the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Defense, says an identity can be stolen with as little as a phone number. By using Google, Facebook and public records, a skilled hacker can eventually gather the information to access a Social Security number.

By filling out the ID order form, you're just saving them the time.

"They're giving you a fake ID in the process, but they are essentially buying your data," Sileo said.

Janice Kephart, director of national-security policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, said there's nothing more valuable than an American identity in the black market.

She said the ID company could be a front for a multimillion-dollar identity-theft ring. "Building a large database of young American identities is extremely valuable in the smuggling world," she said.

Owen McShane, director of investigations at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, headed an operation that traced fake ID websites back to organized-crime groups in China.

"Your information is marketable and they will sell it faster than you can imagine," he said.

McShane said that when these websites first surfaced, China's technology was defeating every security feature in U.S. drivers' licenses. New York's license was one of the most widely counterfeited.

New York has since added new technologies to its license, including a radio-frequency identification chip that verifies personal information for border officials.

It's a technology China has yet to replicate. New York driver's licenses are no longer available on the fake-ID website.

The latest technology is costly, McShane said, and some states cannot afford to improve their licenses. These states' IDs, including Arizona's, are still being produced in China.

Texas DA accused of allowing killer to escape

Texas DA accused of allowing killer to escape

by CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN - Jul. 1, 2012 10:29 AM

Associated Press

BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- Shortly after her daughter was shot to death by a former lover, Hermila Garcia remembers hearing these comforting words from the local Texas prosecutor: "I am the state. I am the law. I am going to represent and defend your daughter."

Cameron County District Attorney Armando Villalobos' office did secure a murder conviction and 23-year prison term against Amit Livingston, but federal prosecutors allege he also orchestrated a scheme to line his own pockets that allowed Livingston to escape. Five years later, the killer remains at large.

A dozen people, half lawyers, have been indicted as part of a federal probe into what some observers call the most widespread case of judicial corruption they've ever seen. The saga has gripped the community in this southernmost tip of Texas.

Besides Villalobos, two others charged were present the day Livingston dodged prison: Abel Limas, the judge who presided over the murder trial, and Eduardo "Eddie" Lucio, a lawyer who represented the victim's children in a civil case.

"I don't know what is stronger, the pain of losing my daughter or the courage that those who mocked us have given me," Garcia said.

While Lucio and Villalobos are scheduled for trial next month, it was the case against Limas -- who was convicted and awaits sentencing -- that showed how deep the alleged crimes go. His indictment outlines the bribes and kickbacks exchanged for judicial discretions prosecutors say turned his courtroom into a criminal enterprise and earned him at least $257,000.

A cascade of indictments followed implicating a former state legislator, a former investigator from the prosecutor's office and most recently Villalobos. Federal wiretaps on Limas' phones intercepted some 40,000 calls, some of which have provided an ugly glimpse of justice behind closed doors where friendships and bribes among lawyers and judge sometimes tipped the scales against the legal process.

"It's been building steadily ever since the first charges came out," said Anthony Knopp, professor emeritus of history at the University of Texas-Brownsville. "I think people are even more horrified with each new accusation and revelation. It seems to be so extensive within the legal community."

Villalobos' attorney Joel Androphy declined to answer questions about the case before trial, which is set for Aug. 30, saying only "somebody has got some things wrong." Lucio also declined to comment when asked recently in the federal courthouse where he and Villalobos watched Limas testify against another lawyer.

But many observers consider the Livingston case to be the most egregious of all. Federal prosecutors allege that Villalobos conspired with Limas and Lucio, a long-time friend and former law partner, to game the system at the expense of justice.

Limas and Villalobos were well acquainted. Villalobos was the first prosecutor assigned to his court in 2001 and later worked as his court's public defender until running for district attorney.

For their scheme to work, federal prosecutors said, it involved a conspiracy among key players both in Livingston's criminal trial and the civil case against him on behalf of the three children of the murder victim, 31-year-old Hermila Hernandez. They say Villalobos set Lucio up to represent the three children, and the criminal and civil cases both landed in Limas' courtroom.

The trio's target was the $500,000 bond put up for Livingston's release before trial. To get it, they convinced Limas to convict and sentence Livingston on the same day, thereby freeing up the bond to be used as the settlement in the lawsuit.

But Limas also agreed that day to Livingston's request that he have 60 days to get his affairs in order before reporting to prison. That meant putting Livingston on the street without any bond -- highly unusual for a convicted killer already sentenced to decades in prison.

Houston attorney Greg Gladden, who represented Livingston in the criminal and civil cases, said the negotiations over his client's murder plea seemed to proceed normally until Limas agreed, at Villalobos' insistence, to sentence Livingston on the same day he pleaded guilty.

"We're in chambers and the judge said, 'That's fine we'll just do the plea and we'll reset it for sentencing,'" Gladden said. "Villalobos says, 'Well, no judge, we don't care if you want to let him turn himself in later but the family is here, the press is here, we want to get it all done now. We want you to sentence him now, and if you want to let him voluntarily surrender, we don't care about that.'"

Gladden was stunned. Livingston would be let loose for 60 days without bond on a promise he'd return to serve his sentence.

"I walked out of the courthouse wondering, you know that means the sheriff is going to have to release the bond money once the civil case is resolved and I just wonder how much of that money Villalobos is getting," Gladden said.

The answer, according to the federal indictment: $80,000. That came out of the $200,000 Lucio received in attorney's fees on the wrongful death suit. Together they kicked about $10,000 to Limas to keep him quiet, according to the indictment.

"I felt humiliated, mocked," Garcia said in Spanish recently at her home in San Juan. "Why did they mock us? Why? (Villalobos) is a cynic."

When Garcia heard Limas had pleaded guilty to racketeering last year, she and another daughter went to the FBI office in Brownsville. They had complained to the FBI in McAllen in 2007 after Livingston disappeared, but didn't have any proof.

At the Brownsville office last year, the agent who greeted them said, "We've been waiting awhile for you, Mrs. Garcia."

Moises Salas Jr., president of the Cameron County Bar Association, said repairing the system's image will take years.

"Down here, I think the perception has always been that the lawyers are crooked, the judges are crooked and they're all kind of watching each other's back, you know greasing the skids for each other," Salas said. "And this comes out and I think for the general public, I hear people saying, 'Well, that just confirms what we always believed.'"

DNA analysis on juveniles accused of crime not allowed, Arizona court says

Source

DNA analysis on juveniles accused of crime not allowed, Arizona court says

Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 5:22 pm

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Analyzing the DNA samples of youngsters who have not been found guilty of any crime is an unconstitutional warrantless search, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled.

In a unanimous decision Wednesday, the justices said the state is free to force juveniles accused of certain serious offenses to provide a DNA sample. Justice Andrew Hurwitz, writing for the court, said that is little difference than fingerprints or mug shots.

But Hurwitz said that legal parallel ceases to exist once the state submits that sample for processing by the Department of Public Safety crime laboratory. He said that processing results in the state obtaining “uniquely identifying information about individual genetics.’’

What it also means, Hurwitz said, is that DNA profile is placed into both state and national databases so police agencies can use it to see if a youngster is linked to any unsolved crimes. The justices said that, absent a juvenile actually being adjudicated delinquent, there is no reason for the government to have that information.

“Having a DNA profile before adjudication may conceivably speed such investigations,’’ he wrote.

“But one accused of a crime, although having diminished expectations of privacy in some respects, does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections with respect to other offenses not charged absent either probable cause or reasonable suspicion,’’ Hurwitz continued. “An arrest for vehicular homicide, for example, cannot alone justify a warrantless search of an arrestee’s financial records to see if he is also an embezzler.’’

Wednesday’s ruling could have broader implications.

Christina Phillis, director of Maricopa County’s Office of Public Advocate, noted that other Arizona laws require similar testing of DNA samples taken from adults at the time of arrest. To date, though, Phillis said no adult who has not yet been convicted has mounted a similar challenge to this one.

This case -- and the logic behind it espoused by Hurwitz -- could provide the framework for the court to consider the issue.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, whose office had defended the DNA testing, said in a prepared statement he was pleased the court will allow samples to still be taken. But he disagreed with the conclusion that actually processing the sample amounted to any sort of invasion of privacy.

“We’re not analyzing the DNA to determine peculiar biological conditions or propensities for disease or anything else of that sort,’’ Montgomery said. And he said that those who are ultimately acquitted of any charges can petition to have the information removed from the databases.

“Nonetheless, we will adapt accordingly,’’ he said.

The case involves seven juveniles charged with various offenses which lawmakers said require a DNA sample before release.

Hurwitz said there have been no allegations by prosecutors that DNA samples are related to the crimes for which the youngsters are charged. And he said there is no suggestion that any of the juveniles committed another offense for which the DNA profile might provide an investigative lead.

The court also rebuffed claims that pre-adjudication testing is necessary if the youngster does not show up for a court hearing. Hurwitz pointed out that the state will have the sample which could then be processed.

“The swab remains available for processing thereafter, and no exigency exists warranting an earlier suspicionless search,’’ Hurwitz wrote.

Watchdog disputes LAPD rationale for rise in police shootings

Watchdog disputes LAPD rationale for rise in police shootings

By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times

July 2, 2012

Last year, as the number of police shootings soared, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck repeatedly gave his bosses and the public an explanation: Officers were discharging their weapons more because they were coming under attack more. He bolstered his assertion with LAPD statistics that showed an increase in the number of assaults on officers.

But an independent LAPD watchdog now contends there was no link between the dramatic rise in officer-involved shootings and assaults on officers.

Alex Bustamante, the inspector general for the Los Angeles Police Commission, which oversees the LAPD, scrutinized the 2011 assault and shooting figures in a report he will present to the commission Tuesday. In the report, he challenged the way the LAPD tallies assaults on officers, suggesting it is misleading.

Los Angeles police fired their weapons in 63 incidents last year, a total which marked a roughly 50% increase over the shootings in any of the previous four years, according to the report. Beck has explained the increase by pointing to what the LAPD said was a 22% increase in assaults on officers from 2010 to 2011. Police officials counted 193 such incidents in 2011, which were recorded as assaults with a deadly weapon or attempted murders, according to the report.

"Officer involved shootings are also up — largely in response to these kind of attacks," Beck told the Police Commission in November.

But the inspector general found several reasons why he said this cause-and-effect relationship wasn't accurate. For one, from 2007 to last year, the number of assaults on officers fluctuated dramatically from one year to the next. The number of officer-involved shootings, however, remained relatively flat until last year, when they jumped. If there had been a connection between the two, the year-to-year totals should have climbed and dropped in sync, according to the report.

The way the department tracks shootings and assaults on officers also muddied matters, Bustamante found. Attacks on officers are tallied based on the number of officers present when assaults occur. By contrast, the department counts an officer-involved shooting as a single event regardless of how many officers open fire. In an incident in April 2011, for example, in which a suspect shot at police from inside a house, the LAPD counted 16 assaults on officers and one officer-involved shooting, despite the fact that 15 officers fired their weapons.

When Bustamante recalculated last year's assault total to count the number of incidents instead of officers, he counted 106 attacks — a 45% drop from the department's total. And, instead of a double-digit increase that Beck had contended, Bustamante said the number of assaults was actually about even from 2010 to 2011.

Finally, the report examined the department's Southeast and 77th Street divisions, both of which experienced large increases in officer-involved shootings in 2011. It showed that while attacks on officers rose in 77th Street, they fell in Southeast.

"As such, there does not appear to be a clear correlation" between attacks and shootings, the report concluded. Bustamante's report did not offer any possible explanations for the increase in officer shootings.

It was not clear from the report what kind of danger the officers faced in each attack. Other than briefly mentioning the April incident, in which one officer was shot in the jaw and the others traded fire with the suspect, Bustamante did not discuss the details of any attack.

From information released by the LAPD when attacks occur, it is known that in a few of the cases officers were stabbed or shot. In one such incident in October, two officers came under fire and were hit by small pellets resembling bird shot when they came upon a shooting. Under California law, however, someone can be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon whether or not they injure another person. For example, someone who brandishes a knife while being confronted by police, but does not stab anyone, is likely to be accused of assaults on each officer.

Through a spokesperson Beck issued to The Times a written response to the inspector general's report. He stood by the idea that "there is a relationship between some types of attacks on police officers and officer involved shootings." And he said people accused of assaulting LAPD officers last year were armed with guns and knives — as opposed to less threatening weapons — at a higher rate than in previous years, which Beck said helped explain why more shootings occurred. So far this year, officer-involved shootings have fallen about 25% compared with 2011 but remain above the levels of previous years during the same period.

Questions about the accuracy of the assault numbers has broader implications. Beck has pointed to the supposed increase in attacks on officers as evidence that falling crime rates in the city have freed up officers to more quickly confront violent suspects. The attacks, he said at a September news conference, "are a result of effective policing. You know, the more contacts you have with violent criminals the more likely there is to be an assault on a police officer. The Los Angeles Police Department, due to its reduced work load, is getting to calls faster, confronting more violent suspects."

joel.rubin@latimes.com

If you do it, it's extortion, if a lawyer does it, it's an out of court settlement

If I don't like you and say lies in court in an attempt to get a jury to convict you of a crime you didn't commit it's called perjury.

On the other hand if the police don't like you and pay people to lie and help convict you of a crime you didn't commit it's called good police work.

Felipe Calderon's to flee from Mexico???

Source

Calderon reportedly plans to leave Mexico

President worries that cartels may go after him

Jul. 2, 2012 12:00 AM

Washington Post

MEXICO CITY - In meetings, President Felipe Calderon has been telling guests that he and his family are likely to leave Mexico to live abroad after his term expires in December. It will be too dangerous to remain, he warns in private conversation, because powerful drug mafias might come after him.

For the commander in chief of Mexico's U.S.-backed drug war to suggest he has not provided enough security to live in his country is a stunning revelation -- and may be seen as either an admission of failure or evidence of just how hard he has fought and how far Mexico needs to go.

Limited to a single six-year term, Calderon remains personally popular, with his ratings hovering around 50 percent. Yet two of every three Mexicans recently surveyed say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The toll of Calderon's drug war -- the sensational violence, the 60,000 dead, major cities occupied by masked soldiers -- appears also to have exhausted the patience of Mexican voters.

While an overwhelming majority of Mexicans, some 80 percent, back the continued deployment of the military in the drug war, almost the same number describe violence and human-rights violations by the army as their major concerns.

Less than half think Calderon is making progress against the cartels, according to the Pew Research Center's most recent survey in Mexico.

Last week, in a ceremony attended by the U.S. ambassador and Calderon's top drug warriors, Calderon pleaded with the next administration to continue his fight against organized crime.

"We cannot throw away everything that has been done," he warned.

It's not about justice, it's about money!!!!

Poor Land in Jail as Companies Add Huge Fees for Probation

By ETHAN BRONNER

Published: July 2, 2012 626 Comments

CHILDERSBURG, Ala. — Three years ago, Gina Ray, who is now 31 and unemployed, was fined $179 for speeding. She failed to show up at court (she says the ticket bore the wrong date), so her license was revoked.

When she was next pulled over, she was, of course, driving without a license. By then her fees added up to more than $1,500. Unable to pay, she was handed over to a private probation company and jailed — charged an additional fee for each day behind bars.

For that driving offense, Ms. Ray has been locked up three times for a total of 40 days and owes $3,170, much of it to the probation company. Her story, in hardscrabble, rural Alabama, where Krispy Kreme promises that “two can dine for $5.99,” is not about innocence.

It is, rather, about the mushrooming of fines and fees levied by money-starved towns across the country and the for-profit businesses that administer the system. The result is that growing numbers of poor people, like Ms. Ray, are ending up jailed and in debt for minor infractions.

“With so many towns economically strapped, there is growing pressure on the courts to bring in money rather than mete out justice,” said Lisa W. Borden, a partner in Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, a large law firm in Birmingham, Ala., who has spent a great deal of time on the issue. “The companies they hire are aggressive. Those arrested are not told about the right to counsel or asked whether they are indigent or offered an alternative to fines and jail. There are real constitutional issues at stake.”

Half a century ago in a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that those accused of crimes had to be provided a lawyer if they could not afford one. But in misdemeanors, the right to counsel is rarely brought up, even though defendants can run the risk of jail. The probation companies promise revenue to the towns, while saying they also help offenders, and the defendants often end up lost in a legal Twilight Zone.

Here in Childersburg, where there is no public transportation, Ms. Ray has plenty of company in her plight. Richard Garrett has spent a total of 24 months in jail and owes $10,000, all for traffic and license violations that began a decade ago. A onetime employee of United States Steel, Mr. Garrett is suffering from health difficulties and is without work. William M. Dawson, a Birmingham lawyer and Democratic Party activist, has filed a lawsuit for Mr. Garrett and others against the local authorities and the probation company, Judicial Correction Services, which is based in Georgia.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that it is unconstitutional to jail people just because they can’t pay a fine,” Mr. Dawson said in an interview.

In Georgia, three dozen for-profit probation companies operate in hundreds of courts, and there have been similar lawsuits. In one, Randy Miller, 39, an Iraq war veteran who had lost his job, was jailed after failing to make child support payments of $860 a month. In another, Hills McGee, with a monthly income of $243 in veterans benefits, was charged with public drunkenness, assessed $270 by a court and put on probation through a private company. The company added a $15 enrollment fee and $39 in monthly fees. That put his total for a year above $700, which Mr. McGee, 53, struggled to meet before being jailed for failing to pay it all.

“These companies are bill collectors, but they are given the authority to say to someone that if he doesn’t pay, he is going to jail,” said John B. Long, a lawyer in Augusta, Ga., who is taking the issue to a federal appeals court this fall. “There are things like garbage collection where private companies are O.K. No one’s liberty is affected. The closer you get to locking someone up, the closer you get to a constitutional issue.”

The issue of using the courts to produce income has caught the attention of the country’s legal establishment. A recent study by the nonpartisan Conference of State Court Administrators, “Courts Are Not Revenue Centers,” said that in traffic violations, “court leaders face the greatest challenge in ensuring that fines, fees and surcharges are not simply an alternate form of taxation.”

J. Scott Vowell, the presiding judge of Alabama’s 10th Judicial Circuit, said in an interview that his state’s Legislature, like many across the country, was pressuring courts to produce revenue, and that some legislators even believed courts should be financially self-sufficient.

In a 2010 study, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law examined the fee structure in the 15 states — including California, Florida and Texas — with the largest prison populations. It asserted: “Many states are imposing new and often onerous ‘user fees’ on individuals with criminal convictions. Yet far from being easy money, these fees impose severe — and often hidden — costs on communities, taxpayers and indigent people convicted of crimes. They create new paths to prison for those unable to pay their debts and make it harder to find employment and housing as well as to meet child support obligations.”

Most of those fees are for felonies and do not involve private probation companies, which have so far been limited to chasing those guilty of misdemeanors. A decade or two ago, many states abandoned pursuing misdemeanor fees because it was time-consuming and costly. Companies like Judicial Correction Services saw an opportunity. They charge public authorities nothing and make their money by adding fees onto the bills of the defendants.

Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, who teaches at Yale Law School, said courts were increasingly using fees “for such things as the retirement funds for various court officials, law enforcement functions such as police training and crime laboratories, victim assistance programs and even the court’s computer system.” He added, “In one county in Pennsylvania, 26 different fees totaling $2,500 are assessed in addition to the fine.”

Mr. Dawson’s Alabama lawsuit alleges that Judicial Correction Services does not discuss alternatives to fines or jail and that its training manual “is devoid of any discussion of indigency or waiver of fees.”

In a joint telephone interview, two senior officials of Judicial Correction Services, Robert H. McMichael, its chief executive, and Kevin Egan, its chief marketing officer, rejected the lawsuit’s accusations. They said that the company does try to help those in need, but that the authority to determine who is indigent rests with the court, not the company.

“We hear a lot of ‘I can’t pay the fee,’ ” Mr. Egan said. “It is not our job to figure that out. Only the judge can make that determination.” Mr. Egan said his company had doubled the number of completed sentences where it is employed to more than two-thirds, from about one-third, and that this serves the company, the towns and the defendant. “Our job is to keep people out of jail,” he said. “We have a financial interest in getting them to comply. If they don’t pay, we don’t get paid.”

Mr. Bright, of the Southern Center for Human Rights, said that with the private companies seeking a profit, with courts in need of income and with the most vulnerable caught up in the system, “we end up balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in society.”

Phoenix City Council members work for the Police, not the taxpayers?

Source

Goldwater Institute seeks 2nd injunction to stop Phoenix from paying for union work

by Dustin Gardiner - Jul. 3, 2012 12:20 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

The Goldwater Institute is seeking another preliminary injunction to halt Phoenix's use of city money to pay for union officers' activity while a lawsuit challenging the practice is fought in court.

Last month, a judge declared that using city money for that purpose may violate the state constitution. The conservative think-tank is suing the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the labor group representing rank-and-file police officers, and the city to end the "release-time" practice.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper granted Goldwater's request for an injunction against the union's 2010-12 agreement with the city. Her ruling did not include the union's 2012-14 agreement, which took effect Sunday.

Now, Goldwater is trying to prevent the city from paying for PLEA officers' release time under the new agreement by seeking another injunction. No court date has been set for the second injunction request.

City officials have said they have no intention of ending the practice despite the judge's opinion.

Instead, Phoenix hopes to renegotiate with its labor groups to better define the benefits the city receives from release time and develop clearer accountability systems to track union officers' activities, said city Labor Relations Administrator Lori Steward.

Steward said the city is still meeting with six of the city's seven unions to amend two-year labor contracts that took effect this week. A new contract with the local Laborers' International Union of North America, which represents city employees in areas such as public works, streets and parks, will be considered by the City Council later today.

In June, Cooper ruled that Phoenix's practice of allowing police officers to work full time for PLEA violates the gift clause of the Arizona Constitution.

The gift clause requires that public entities receive substantial benefit from any public funds they spend. Cooper said the taxpayer money that pays the officers' salaries was not used for a public purpose because PLEA officers often lobbied or did other activities that directly benefited the private interests of the labor association and not the city.

Union and Phoenix officials have maintained that the city benefits from the practice: PLEA officers use release time to represent employees during administrative investigations; serve on Police Department task forces and committees; and facilitate communication between city management and employees.

"The Phoenix community benefits from harmonious and cooperative relationships between the city and its employees," the most recent labor agreement states about the release-time practice.

Republic reporter Lynh Bui contributed to this article.

Ex-FBI employee claims she saw angels at Flight 93

Ex-FBI employee claims she saw angels at Flight 93

Jul. 3, 2012 11:05 AM

Associated Press

PITTSBURGH -- A former police officer who retired from the FBI due to post-traumatic stress disorder linked to her role in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks has written a book about seeing legions of angels guarding the Pennsylvania site where a hijacked airliner crashed.

Lillie Leonardi served as a liaison between law enforcement and the families of the passengers and crew members killed in the United Airlines Flight 93 crash. She arrived on the scene about three hours after the crash.

Although Leonardi's book, "In the Shadow of a Badge: A Spiritual Memoir," centers on her vision of angels, she argues her life has been changed more by what she didn't see that day.

"The biggest thing for me is that that there were no bodies," she said.

Leonardi, 56, remembers the burning pine and jet fuel stinging her nostrils. She said she also remembers a smoldering crater littered with debris too small to associate with the jetliner or 40 passengers and crew on board.

"I'm used to crime scenes but this one blew me out of the water. It just looked like the ground had swallowed up" the plane, Leonardi said.

"That's when I started seeing like shimmery lights ... and it was kind of misty and that's when I first saw, like, the angels there," Leonardi said. "And I didn't say anything to the guys because you can imagine if I would have said, 'I just saw angels on the crash site,' they'd have called the office and they'd have said, 'She lost her mind and tell her to go home.'"

Instead, Leonardi kept it to herself for the better part of two years. As emotional and physical ailments surfaced that she would later learn were post-traumatic stress disorder-related, she began telling a close circle of friends and colleagues what she saw, including Kenneth McCabe, her former supervisor.

McCabe, 59, now retired near Cocoa Beach, Fla., was chief of the FBI's operational response section, which sent laboratory teams to gather evidence from each of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror sites. A year or so later, he became the special agent in charge of the FBI's Pittsburgh Field Office, making him Leonardi's boss until he retired from the bureau in 2004.

"I believe her. I read the whole book," McCabe told The Associated Press. "I know she believes 100 percent that's what she saw. I know she's a sane person so I'm not going to discount what she says she saw."

McCabe said he also understands why the Flight 93 crash site was different than the other attack scenes.

"I was there one day when they brought a busload of family members to overlook the site ... and I teared up," McCabe said. "Just because these people had the thousand-yard stare. They didn't have any closure. They didn't have any bodies to look at. They didn't have anything to look at. At least in New York and Washington, there was the devastation (of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) but here, except for seeing someone off in the distance, in the woods, looking for things, there was nothing."

Leonardi has befriended some Flight 93 family members, though none consented to be interviewed for this story. Asked about the book, the spokeswoman for the Families of Flight 93, Lisa Linden, issued a statement lauding the "extraordinary work" done by the FBI that also said, "The crash site and sacred ground -- now central to the Flight 93 National Memorial -- is a place that elicits powerful reactions from those who work at the site and who visit."

Leonardi's story has caught the attention of WQED, Pittsburgh's public television station, which featured a segment on her book in a March episode of "Pittsburgh 360," a public affairs and current events show.

The Rev. Ron Lengwin, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, counts Leonardi a personal friend and also interviewed her on his weekly radio show, Amplify.

"I have no reason to believe that she did not see angels," Lengwin said. "I think it's not surprising to me that God could choose to say that he was present there to give comfort to people, and to give comfort to the people who were there to give comfort to other people."

Leonardi still lives in Arnold, a tiny city about 20 miles northeast of Pittsburgh where she began her law enforcement career in 1984 as the town's first -- and, so far, only -- female police officer.

She said her primary reason for deciding to go public with her story after years of soul-searching is to heal and to bring comfort and healing to others affected either by the attack or post-traumatic stress disorder.

"The purpose of the book is to tell the story of the angels being there so that other people understand that God was there," said Leonardi, who said she was raised a "devout Catholic" but now practices what she calls "spiritualism."

Leonardi, who was a teen mother and wife, said she has no doubt about what she saw, but wonders why she was allowed to see it.

"You get pregnant and married at 16, that's not exactly, you know, holy material," said Leonardi, now a divorced grandmother.

"To this day I know I saw those angels, I've never doubted that. What I doubted was, why me?"

Santa Ana councilman faces sex assault charges

Santa Ana councilman faces sex assault charges

By Nicole Santa Cruz, Los Angeles Times

July 4, 2012, 12:27 a.m.

A Santa Ana city councilman abused his power as a high-ranking county official by targeting and luring at least seven female employees to his office and other locations to hug, kiss and touch them inappropriately over a period of eight years, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Carlos Bustamante, a former administration manager at the Orange County public works department, has been charged with a dozen felonies, including attempted sexual battery, stalking, fraud and six counts of false imprisonment.

"Each of the victims was afraid that, if they reported the sexual assault, they would be committing career suicide," said Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas.

Prosecutors say that Bustamante, 47, who was arrested Monday, targeted women of similar ages and backgrounds and would "groom" them by making sexual comments and advances.

During business hours, he would call or e-mail the women — all county employees who were his subordinates — and ask to speak with them in his office. He allegedly cornered them, hugged and kissed them on the mouth and neck, and then proceeded to touch them inappropriately. Sometimes, he exposed himself and masturbated during the encounters, which also occurred in parking lots, elevators and cars, Rackauckas said.

Bustamante could not be reached for comment.

"Many of his victims believed that Bustamante's office was sound-proofed and that if they screamed, nobody would hear them anyway," Rackauckas said.

The accusers pointed to Bustamante's connections within the county and city. One said he seemed "untouchable," Rackauckas said. He allegedly stalked one woman after she attempted to distance herself from him.

Though Bustamante was charged in the sexual assaults of seven women dating back to 2003, Rackauckas said there were at least 12 other accusers. Bustamante will not be charged in those cases because of the statute of limitations, but they will be used as evidence at trial, prosecutors said.

Bustamante, a Santa Ana native who was elected to the City Council in 2004, was seen by insiders as a fresh Republican face who could appeal to the burgeoning Latino population in the county. In 2008, he resigned from two state commission appointments after he joked to a Los Angeles Times reporter about breast implants. He denied making the comment.

The current charges were sparked by an anonymous letter sent to the Board of Supervisors last fall detailing impropriety in the public works department. An internal auditor began an investigation along with a separate inquiry by counsel hired by the county.

In October, Bustamante resigned from his county post amid the allegations. In March, his supervisor, Jess Carbajal, was placed on paid administrative leave. That same month, the Board of Supervisors asked prosecutors to investigate, said Supervisor John Moorlach.

"It would have been nice if the district attorney said it was all a hoax," Moorlach said. "It turned out that the investigation by the district attorney's office confirmed our worst fears."

Supervisor Shawn Nelson said he hoped further investigation would reveal if anyone else at the executive level knew about the allegations.

"The conduct that was occurring on the job was over-the-top outrageous," Nelson said.

More than 50 witnesses were interviewed during the investigation, but many were afraid to get involved, Rackauckas said. He said he believes the investigation has just "scratched the surface."

"We want to know how this wolf was kept in charge of his prey for so long," Rackauckas said. "How he was able to get away with a perverse abuse of power and position for the last eight years."

Though the charged offenses appear to be limited to Bustamante's work with the county, investigators are interested in speaking with any others who came into contact with him through his work.

Bustamante also faces a felony count of grand theft by false pretense for allegedly receiving a $3,100 county reimbursement for attending a professional program. If convicted on all charges, he faces up to 26 years in prison.

Bustamante, who is married with three children, is free on $100,000 bail. He is due in court Thursday.

nicole.santacruz@latimes.com

Off-duty officer sued after his pit bull kills Pomeranian

Off-duty officer sued after his pit bull kills Pomeranian

By Naomi Nix Tribune reporter

6:29 a.m. CDT, July 4, 2012

A Steger woman has filed a lawsuit alleging a Chicago police officer failed to restrain his pit bull from viciously attacking and killing her Pomeranian.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court claims that Chicago police Officer Matthew Bracken failed to take responsibility for the attack on March 17 and ignored her requests for information about his identity. Only Bracken, who was off-duty at the time, is named as a defendant.

Following the attack, Bracken was relieved of his police powers while the department investigated. His current status was not immediately known.

Plaintiffs Audrey Fisher and her daughter were playing fetch with their Pomeranian dog named Willy at the Montrose Dog Beach when a pit bull approached them unaccompanied and began to hover over the dog aggressively, according to the lawsuit.

Fisher tried to distract the pit bull by screaming, but the dog attacked Willy by clamping down on his stomach, and “violently shaking” the dog back and forth, the lawsuit says.

Seeing the attack, a bystander tried to intervene by hitting the pit bull on his head, but Bracken rushed toward the bystander and asked, “Why are you punching my (expletive) dog?,” the lawsuit alleges. The bystander responded by asking Bracken if he saw that his pit bull was attacking a small dog, according to the lawsuit. Fisher told the Tribune after the attack that Bracken did pry his dog off hers

Once Willy was freed, Fisher’s brother wrapped him up in a coat and rushed to the car to take him to a veterinary office.

As they were leaving, Fisher approached Bracken to ask for his name and phone number, but he refused to give it. Another bystander asked Bracken if he was a police officer, but he denied it, according to the lawsuit. The bystander explained to the plaintiff that he asked the question because Bracken was wearing a kind of sun glasses he commonly saw on police officers, the lawsuit says.

Family members rushed Willy to a veterinary office. Upon Fisher’s request, Bracken told her he would meet them at the office, but he never showed up, according to the lawsuit.

Willy died three days later as a result of his injuries. Medical bills amounted to $5,800, according to the lawsuit.

Soon after the attack, the plaintiff spent $200 printing up more than 300 fliers with a picture of Bracken that someone had taken on a cell phone hoping someone might be able to identify him, the lawsuit says. She also reached out to the press and received word from a local television station that Bracken had turned himself in, the lawsuit says.

Fisher and her 12-year-old daughter owned Willy for about 2 1/2 years and say that he was “part of the family”, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says the attack and Willy’s loss have caused the plaintiffs “emotional distress and pain and suffering.”

Fisher and her daughter are seeking more than $275,000 in damages.

Bracken could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

nnix@tribune.com

Do talking urinals prevent drunk driving

When you are spending other peoples money, it is pretty easy to waste it.

Source

Michigan deploys talking urinal cakes to stop drunken driving

Associated Press

Posted: 07/02/2012 03:44:26 PM PDT

DETROIT -- Michigan hopes to keep drunks off the road with the help from a special message in men's bathrooms featuring an attention-getting woman's voice.

Talking urinal-deodorizer cakes have been distributed to Michigan Licensed Beverage Association members in Wayne County, including Detroit, state officials announced. A recorded message will play reminding men who step up to the urinals to call a cab or a friend, if needed, to get home safely.

"Not only do we want to turn some heads and get people talking, we hope everyone takes the message to heart," Michael L. Prince, director of the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, said in a statement.

Bay, Ottawa and Delta counties also are getting them. The motion-activated messages are part of a statewide Fourth of July education and enforcement effort. The federally funded drunken driving crackdown runs through Sunday. It also includes stepped up patrols in 26 counties involving a number of agencies.

"At first it may be seen as humorous, but the seriousness of the message will stand out and encourage patrons to find a safe ride home," said Michigan Licensed Beverage Association Executive Director Scott T. Ellis.

Talking urinal cakes have been used in other states for similar efforts.

Emperor Obama wants 6 more years of "drug wars" in Mexico!!!!

Source

U.S. must boost drug-war aid to stop the cartels

by Robert Weiner and George Clingan - Jul. 3, 2012 12:00 AM

Our Turn

With the Mexican presidential election concluded Sunday and the ruling party's candidate coming in third, the country finds itself at a crossroads against the drug cartels. New President Enrique Peña Nieto will choose whether to continue the fight or make the more popular decision to strike a deal.

Peña Nieto's decision will bear significant consequences for the United States. The Mexican drug cartels are not just gangs that can be easily sacked; they are sophisticated, transnational criminal organizations that threaten Mexican sovereignty and U.S. security.

The cartels control 980 local governments in Mexico and have distribution networks in 230 U.S. cities, according to the Department of Justice National Intelligence Center. There are seven Mexican supercartels that dominate supply, trafficking and distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States

Arizona in particular is increasingly threatened. Phoenix and Tucson are major distribution centers for the United States. Half of all marijuana seized at the border goes through Arizona. Last November, in one bust, Arizona and federal border agents cracked the Sinaloa cartel's Arizona arm, which had moved nearly $2 billion of marijuana, cocaine and heroin into the United States over a five-year span.

A White House report of President Barack Obama's call to Peña Nieto on Monday cites a discussion of "common goals, including democracy, economic prosperity and security," but does not mention fighting drugs.

It is critical that we reaffirm our commitment to weaken the supercartels by sending a strong message to the new Mexican president, whose position on the drug war has been vague. Peña Nieto wants "better regulation of the military" and stated that Mexico "should not subordinate to the strategies of other countries."

Mexico receives too little credit for fighting this war. The drug kingpins have caused 55,000 deaths in Mexico since 2006. "Mexico has eradicated more drugs than any nation on Earth," former U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey says.

Calderon reformed government institutions that had been unreliable and corrupted by the cartels. After indicting over 20 percent of federal police (their FBI) for corruption, Calderon disbanded the force in favor of a new 35,000-officer force with anti-corruption training and standards.

The United States would do well by doubling anti-drug aid to Mexico, but contingent on Peña Nieto's continued efforts to win the drug war. However, we don't even give them what we promise. Of $1.4 billion authorized since 2008 under the Merida Initiative, we shorted Mexico by a third in real dollars. The least we should do is "fully fund" our cooperation. Mexican officials assailed our "slow deliveries while the bodies kept building up in Mexico."

Mexico itself has spent $35 billion on the drug war while we've given them less than $2 billion to solve our main crime and social problem. More than two-thirds of U.S. arrestees test positive for illegal drugs.

Still, President Felipe Calderon made remarkable inroads by intercepting cartel communications, disrupting distribution networks and targeting leadership. Mexico killed or incarcerated 40 cartel leaders in the past three years.

However, Mexico's top cop, Genaro Garcia Luna, estimated that the cartels invest $100 million to bribe state and municipal police officers each month -- $1.2 billion every year. The Mexican army will need to remain on the streets until the government is actually in control.

Since 9/11, the U.S., understandably at first, has dropped the ball. We have given Mexico drones as requested by the government for drug surveillance and intelligence. But, unlike Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we target al-Qaida for kills, the drones are not taking out the mass-murdering cartel leaders.

The U.S. should give a far more realistic dollar support level to Mexico's anti-drug efforts and far more focus to the effort. It will take the combined efforts of Mexico and the United States to deal a fatal blow to these too-big-to-fail cartels who threaten us daily.

Robert Weiner was the spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Policy and the U.S. House Committee on Narcotics. George Clingan is Latin American policy analyst at Robert Weiner Associates.

Check out these previous articles on the police.

More articles on the police.