WE MUST EXPOSE AND STOP THIS CORPORATE MACHINE AND REVERSE POLICIES SECRETLY INTRODUCED BY ALEC OPERATIVES! 

JOIN US ON JULY 22 through the 27th at the SAN DIEGO GRAND HYATT, KETTNER AT HARBOR DR. PLEASE WATCH FOR UPDATES — 

For more information, please contact  info@CitizensOversight.org 

WHAT IS ALEC? the American Legislative Exchange Council

 It operates as a lobbying machine for corporate interests and profiteering , but says it is a 501(c)3 “Charity” so everything is tax-deductible.

 It targets state legislatures and provides “model legislation” drafted by corporations, pushed through states at greater than 20% success rate.

 Financed by more than 200 corporate & business members who pay $7,000 to $25,000 base dues, but some like AT&T, Pfizer, and Reynolds American (tobacco) contributed $130K to nearly $400K each.

 Leaders include: Bank of America, Altria, Exxon Mobile, Koch, UPS, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Verizon, Microsoft, Pfizer and Connections Education.

 ALEC gives state legislators “scholarships” for junkets to posh resorts to learn what the corporations want, then go back to their jobs ready to recite the slogans and push through legislation designed by the corporate sponsors — all in secret.

 The organization’s rules give corporations equal votes as legislators to approve model legislation. If corporations don’t like it, it does not move forward.

WHAT DOES ALEC DO?

 reinforce corporate power, benefiting the top 0.01% at the expense of the 99.99%

 push GUN USE: in stand-your-ground shootings (remember Trayvon Martin?) and eased concealed carry laws.

 Push for Racial Profiling: mandated local law enforcement of federal immigration laws (remember SB1070?)

 Increase Pollution: by prohibiting disclosure of fracking chemicals, and declaring lack of benefit of reducing carbon emissions, and denying climate science.

 Allow dangerous products: by gutting product liability standards

 Prison for Profit: increase prison populations through three-strikes and similar laws.

 Reduce Voting: through voter-ID and other laws to limit democratic participation.

 Block Minimum Wage Increases: ALEC says higher wages actually hurts wage-earners.

 Gut Union Power: by making it hard to start and fund unions, or make them illegal.

WHO IS ALEC? Alumni of ALEC include Jan Brewer, Lindsay Graham, James Inhofe, Jesse Helms, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, Tom Ridge, Nikki Haley, and Scott Walker. All but one of 104 leadership positions within the organization were filled by Republicans.

More information ALEC Exposed  http://www.alecexposed.org/ The Center for Media and Democracy ‑ ALEC Exposed Ongoing investigation includes FAQ, members, goals, activities, legislation and finances.

Facebook links Protest the Corrections Corporation of America

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/will-israels-whiff-hell-weapon-be-used-crush-us-protests

http://www.cbs8.com/story/29302973/policing-the-police
“SAN DIEGO (CBS 8) – The San Diego Police Department has had its share of scandals, and on Thursday, there was push to change the way San Diego’s officers are held accountable.
Some concerned citizens would like to see changes come to the SDPD, and who the police gets policed.

The call for change came Thursday at the City Council’s Charter Review Committee meeting was a push for the Citizens Review Board to have more independence and more power in investigating complaints against San Diego Police Officers, pointing to the county’s system as a more transparent model.

During the meeting, the way San Diego Police are currently held accountable to the public came under attack.

“We believe there is a crisis of confidence in our institutions,” said Stephanie Jennings.

“There is no oversight. There is no transparency,” said Mary Frances.

Currently, the Citizens Review Board on Police Practices, a member volunteer panel appointed by the mayor, investigates citizens’ complaints against SDPD officers. Those complaints range from alleged discrimination to questionable use of force.

A Coalition of Critics, who presented a united front at the City Council’s Charter Review Committee called for change.

“Quite frankly, we need to put the fear of God into those rogue cops that taint the entire police department,” said Frances.

Critics of the current system are pushing for the Citizen’s review board to use its own independent investigators, instead of working with the SDPD’s internal Affairs Investigators, and to be granted subpoena powers to force officers to provide testimony. Powers the San Diego County’s version of the CRB already has.

While the executive director of the Citizens Review Board defended its efficacy, critics said progress in effectively policing the police requires systemic change.

San Diego Police Chief Shelly Zimmerman said in a statement that her department will comply with whatever voters approve. She added the SDPD follows the CRB guidelines put in place by the City Charter and will continue to do so if any changes are made.”

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Activists-Call-for-Stronger-Citizen-Police-Watchdogs-307118891.html
“Activists Call for Stronger Citizen Police Watchdogs”
By Candice Nguyen

Activists are calling for more police accountability in San Diego. Critics say widespread officer misconduct has been largely ignored by San Diego’s Citizens Review Board. NBC 7’s Candice Nguyen reports on June 11, 2015. (Published Friday, Jun 12, 2015)

A proposal to give more power to a San Diego police oversight committee will soon go before San Diego’s Public Safety & Livable Neighborhoods Committee. Dozens of civil rights activists and community members addressed city council members Thursday evening saying the city’s current Citizens’ Review Board is ineffective and too often sides with SDPD Internal Affairs findings.
“Regardless of whether they receive a complaint, they’re mandated to investigate every officer-involved shooting and with rare exceptions, they agree with the police department. They rely completely on the Internal Affairs investigation,” said Martha Sullivan with Women Occupy San Diego, a group spearheading the effort.
Manhunt Murder Suspect “Wanted to Surrender”: PD
The Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) on Police Practices was created by charter amendments that went in effect nine years ago.
On the city’s website, it states the board’s purpose is to: empower and independent citizens group to assure the public that complaints against San Diego police officers are investigated thoroughly, completely and fairly; and to recommend and advocate for policies which promote fair and humane policing of the city.

Critics say the review board turned a blind eye towards officer involved shootings and high-profile sexual misconduct cases involving police officers where taxpayers shelled out millions of dollars for settlements and damages.
“I live in Southeastern San Diego and the fear I have is one day one bad cop can instantly convert Southeast San Diego to a Ferguson or Baltimore,” said Barry Pollard.

On Thursday, Women Occupy San Diego presented a proposal to city council members. They recommended the city adopt a model much like the county’s review board, which includes independent investigators and subpoena power.
Sharmaine Moseley is the executive director of the Citizens Review Board. She was at the city council meeting and spoke before the city council.
“More things can be addressed and can be done. It’s a work in progress,” she said. “I hear Ferguson. San Diego is not a Ferguson.”
NBC 7 asked Moseley for an on camera interview, but she declined the request. She did acknowledge transparency is an issue and that she is looking into what information her board is able to release to the public without compromising officer privacy.”

Today
Community Coalition Calls for Independent SDPD Review Board

WHAT:   Present Proposal to Strengthen the San Diego Citizens Review Board on Police Practices to the City Council Charter Review Committee, Item 4

WHEN:   THURSDAY, 6pm

WHERE:  City Hall, 202 “C” Street, 12th Floor Council Chambers

Over 25 years ago, City voters passed two ballot measures to establish a Citizens Review Board on Police Practices in the City Charter, with the measure lacking independent investigators and subpoena power receiving 800 more votes and therefore implemented. More than 25 years later, shootings (police perpetrated murders), assaults and misconduct by SDPD officers are media fare and taxpayers have paid over $7 million in claims.

PRESS RELEASE PressRelCRBReformtoCRC.doc
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aq4ohpkf0lr7c98/PressRelCRBReformtoCRC.doc?dl=0

http://legalupdate.com/
CASE LAW:
Residential Entries; The Emergency Aid Doctrine
Use of Deadly Force
The Americans with Disabilities Act
City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan (May 18, 2015) __ U.S.__ [2015 U.S. LEXIS 3200]
Rule: Law enforcement officers may enter a residence without a warrant to check the welfare of a mentally ill and potentially violent occupant. Whether or not a second warrantless entry may be made without waiting for additional assistance is (and remains) an undecided issue, entitling officers to qualified immunity from civil liability. Once entry is made, however, the use of deadly force against a knife-wielding and threatening occupant is justifiable.
Facts: Teresa Sheehan, a woman in her mid-50’s and suffering from a mental illness (a “schizoaffective disorder”), lived in a San Francisco group home for persons dealing with mental illness. Her social worker, Heath Hodge, became concerned when she quit taking her medications and her condition started to deteriorate. He therefore did a welfare check on her in her room, entering without permission. She flipped out and threatened to kill him with a knife she claimed to have but did not exhibit. Hodge left the room and cleared the building of other residents. Believing Sheehan to be “gravely disabled” and a “danger to others,” Hodge called police for assistance in moving her to a mental health facility for a 72-hour W&I § 5150 involuntary commitment for evaluation. San Francisco Police Sergeant Kimberly Reynolds and Officer Katherine Holder responded to the call. Hodge met the officers outside and explained to them the situation. He also told them that the only way out of her second-floor room was the door to the hallway. A window in her apartment couldn’t be used without a ladder although it was not discussed whether a fire escape led to that window. Although Hodge indicated to the officers that he believed Sheehan was gravely disabled and a danger to others, he did not tell them that she might be suicidal or a danger to herself. The officers decided to enter Sheehan’s room to confirm the social worker’s assessment and to take her into custody. Accompanied by Hodge, they knocked on the door and announced that they were police officers. When she didn’t respond, they used a key to open the door. Once inside, the officers saw Sheehan lying on her bed. Sheehan got up and picked up a large knife with a 5-inch blade from a table, approaching the officers in an aggressive, threatening manner. She demanded that the officers get out while threatening to kill them. She shoved the knife out in front of her with blade pointed towards them, making “jabbing motion(s).” The officers retreated and Sheehan closed the door. The officers called for backup. But rather than waiting for help to arrive, they decided to forcibly reenter Sheehan’s room because with the door closed, it was unknown whether she might try to escape or retrieve other weapons. With their firearms drawn and pepper spray in hand, Officer Holder used her feet and shoulder in an attempt to gain entry. Once they got the door open, Sheehan emerged from the room brandishing her knife while advancing towards the officers. Sgt. Reynolds pepper sprayed Sheehan, but without effect. As Sheehan continued to advance on the officers, getting within two to four feet (“so close that Holder was forced to fire from the hip to prevent Sheehan from cutting her arm”), Officer Holder, and then Sgt. Reynolds, began shooting, hitting Sheehan five or six times. The evidence was in dispute as to whether Sgt. Reynolds may have shot Sheehan one extra time after Sheehan was on the floor. But even though Sheehan fell to the ground, she continued to swing the knife at the officers until a backup officer who had just arrived kicked the knife from her hand. Sheehan survived the shooting, later filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action in federal court against the officers and the city. In her suit, she asserted violations of her rights under the Fourth Amendment as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U. S. C. §§ 12101 et seq.), alleging that the officers subdued her in a manner that did not reasonably accommodate her disability. The federal trial court judge granted the police officer defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the lawsuit. Sheehan appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, holding that because the ADA covers public “services, programs, or activities” (§ 12132), the ADA’s accommodation requirement should be read to to encompass “anything a public entity does.” The Ninth Circuit agreed “that exigent circumstances inform the reasonableness analysis under the ADA,” but concluded that it was for a jury to decide whether San Francisco should have accommodated Sheehan by, for instance, “respect[ing] her comfort zone, engag[ing] in non-threatening communications and us[ing] the passage of time to defuse the situation rather than precipitating a deadly confrontation.” As for the officers’ use of force, the panel held that their initial entry into Sheehan’s room was lawful under the so-called “emergency aid doctrine” and that, after the officers opened the door for the second time, they reasonably used their firearms when the pepper spray failed to stop Sheehan’s threatening advance. Nonetheless, the panel also held that a jury could find that the officers “provoked” Sheehan by needlessly forcing that second confrontation. The Ninth Circuit (with one justice dissenting) further found that it was clearly established in the law that an officer cannot “forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill subject who had been acting irrationally and had threatened anyone who entered when there was no objective need for immediate entry,” and that they were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Held: The United States Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part. As to the question of whether or not, and if so, how the ADA might apply to an arrest-related situation of a mentally ill individual, as well as the related issue of whether a public entity can be held civilly liable for damages under the ADA for an arrest made by its police officers, the Court declined to decide these issues, describing their decision to grant certiorari on this “important question” as “improvidently granted.” In so doing, it was first noted that Title II of the ADA commands that “ no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity .” (42 U.S.C. § 12132) The Court originally granted certiorari under the belief that it was to decide whether this provision “requires law enforcement officers to provide ADA accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody:” I.e., does the ADA apply to the arrest of a violent mental patient? Instead, however, the parties (both sides) assumed that the ADA does in fact apply to arrests, but argued instead to the Supreme Court the separate issue of whether or not a person who poses a direct threat or significant risk to the safety of others is even qualified in the first place to the benefits of the ADA; an issue not raised (or even “hinted at”) at the Ninth Circuit level. Because this argument was not first brought before the lower court, as it should have been, the Supreme Court declined to answer it here. As to the rest of the Ninth Circuit’s decision—i.e., involving the Fourth Amendment’s applicability to the officers’ actions—the Court affirmed the lower court’s two conclusions that both the original entry into Sheehan’s room, and the eventual use of deadly force when Sheehan attacked the officers with a knife, were reasonable. The original entry into Sheehan’s room was necessary in order to check her welfare. “[L]aw enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” As to the second entry, the Court found that had Sheehan not been disabled , the officers would not have been prevented from opening her door the second time “because the two entries were part of a single, continuous search or seizure.” It was not necessary for the officers to have to justify a continuing emergency with respect to the second entry. In addition, Officers Reynolds and Holder knew that Sheehan had a weapon and had threatened to use it to kill three people. They also knew that any delay could have made the situation more dangerous. Police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments. The Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness, and it is reasonable for police to move quickly if delay would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others even if the officers make some mistakes in judgment along the way. Then, once inside, when attacked by a knife-wielding suspect, particularly after pepper spray failed to eliminate the danger, the use of deadly force by the officers was reasonable. “Nothing in the Fourth Amendment barred Reynolds and Holder from protecting themselves, even though it meant firing multiple rounds.” The ultimate issue, however, upon which the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, is whether, despite these dangerous circumstances, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when, knowing that Sheehan suffered from some mental issues , they decided to reopen her door rather than attempting to take it slower and accommodate her disability. Without deciding the actual legality of the second entry under the circumstances of this case— where the occupant was mentally disabled (it, again, not having been properly briefed at the Ninth Circuit level)—the Court merely determined that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in ruling that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this issue. Noting that the authority cited by the Ninth Circuit does not support the lower court’s conclusion that the issue is well-settled in the law, the Supreme Court found there to be no existing precedent clearly guiding the officers in what they were to do. Officers Reynolds and Holder could not know that reopening Sheehan’s door to prevent her from escaping or gathering more weapons would violate the Ninth Circuit’s test for reasonableness. Without that “fair notice,” an officer is, by law, entitled to qualified immunity. San Francisco apparently trains its officers when dealing with the mentally ill to “ensure that sufficient resources are brought to the scene,” “contain the subject,” “respect the suspect’s ‘comfort zone,” “use time to their advantage,” and “employ non-threatening verbal communication and open-ended questions to facilitate the subject’s participation in communication.” It is also San Francisco’s policy to use a hostage negotiator when dealing with a barricaded suspect. The fact that the officers may have ignored such training in this instance does not mean that they had any reason to understand that the Fourth Amendment might require such actions. To the contrary, “(c)onsidering the specific situation confronting Reynolds and Holder, they had sufficient reason to believe that their conduct was justified.” As such, they were entitled to qualified immunity under these circumstances.
Note: Well, darn : We were all hoping to get some idea whether we must take into account the Americans with Disabilities Act when arresting mentally ill (or other disabled) suspects. I, for one, would have liked to know how the ADA might be applied in such a situation. But because of the Government’s “bait and switch” appellate tactics (as it was referred to by one irate justice) in changing the specific issue mid-appeal, that question will have to await another day. It’s not a good idea to piss off the Supreme Court. Also, although told that the second entry would have been lawful had Sheehan not been mentally disabled, we aren’t told whether the officers actually violated the Fourth Amendment by forcing a second entry into Sheehan’s room rather than taking it slower and awaiting some expert help in dealing with an obviously violent mental patient. I listed San Francisco’s polices for such a situation above because, quite frankly, I tend to agree that that might have been the better route for Officers Reynolds and Holder to take, even if they’d been able to subdue Sheehan without shooting her. But despite declining to decide whether the second entry into Sheehan’s room was actually a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court seemed to hint very strongly that it was not. (“ Considering the specific situation confronting Reynolds and Holder, they had sufficient reason to believe that their conduct was justified. ”) And while I’m of the school of thought that it is sometimes better to take it slow and easy, as dictated by SFPD’s written policies, I also can’t say that, under the heat of the moment, the officers did anything wrong.”

http://cironline.org/reports/facial-recognition-once-battlefield-tool-lands-san-diego-county-5502

On a residential street in San Diego County, Calif., Chula Vista police had just arrested a young woman, still in her pajamas, for possession of narcotics. Before taking her away, Officer Rob Halverson paused in the front yard, held a Samsung Galaxy tablet up to the woman’s face and snapped a photo.

Halverson fiddled with the tablet with his index finger a few times, and – without needing to ask the woman’s name or check her identification – her mug shot from a previous arrest, address, criminal history and other personal information appeared on the screen.

Halverson had run the woman’s photograph through the Tactical Identification System, a new mobile facial recognition technology now in the hands of San Diego-area law enforcement. In an instant, the system matches images taken in the field with databases of about 348,000 San Diego County arrestees. The system itself has nearly 1.4 million booking photos because many people have multiple mug shots on record.

The little-known program could become the largest expansion of facial recognition technology by U.S. law enforcement. Amid an international debate over collecting and sharing huge amounts of data on the public, this pilot program is putting that metadata to use in the field in real time.

The use of this technology was rolled out without any public hearings or notice. In turn, the secrecy of the program has alarmed privacy experts and raised questions about whether San Diego is the leading edge of an alarming future – one in which few people escape cataloging in a government database.

Twenty-five local, state and federal law enforcement agencies – including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Border Patrol, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and San Diego State University – participate in the system. The project is coordinated by the San Diego Association of Governments and relies on a vast data-sharing program called the Automated Regional Justice Information System.

For some, the use of biometric technology by police represents a radical milestone in the militarization of American law enforcement.

For years, technology that was developed on the battlefield has been migrating into domestic police agencies. Since 9/11, America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have sped up that transfer. Facial recognition technology, which has been widely used by the military, is the next frontier.

“What we’re seeing now is much more surveillance oriented, and it’s in the guise of preventative policing,” said Kevin Keenan, former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “It’s really this aspiration of prevention and social control through the monitoring of everyone’s every action and storage in perpetuity.”

San Diego’s program, if considered successful, easily could expand beyond the county’s borders.

The system’s mug shots are pulled from the statewide Cal-Photo law enforcement database, which also has access to 32 million driver’s license photos. And, according to a report by the Automated Regional Justice Information System, the county is looking at using mug shots from statewide gang and parolee databases, as well as information stored by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Facial recognition graphic thumbClick for larger image
Click to view the full graphic.
The legality of law enforcement using facial recognition technology has not been tested in the courts. But a Privacy Impact Assessment, which the Automated Regional Justice Information System helped write, claims that photos of everyday people can be taken during “traditional police-civilian encounters.”

San Diego law enforcement agencies have used the facial recognition system since the beginning of this year, when 133 Galaxy tablets and smartphones were distributed to 25 law enforcement agencies around the region, according to documents obtained through a public records request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco nonprofit that studies surveillance and privacy issues.

Compared with the number of arrests throughout the San Diego region, which has about 3.2 million residents, the system is rolling out with relatively modest numbers. In the first 10 months of 2013, officers ran 5,629 queries through the database.

The sheriff’s department and San Diego Police Department have the most devices, with 64 and 27 devices, respectively, and they have made nearly 2,000 queries into the system combined. The most active single user is an SDSU police officer who used a device 224 times from January to Oct. 30, according to the documents.

Officials with the sheriff’s department and San Diego Association of Governments declined requests for comment.

Law enforcement officials said the pilot program is a valuable tool to help them identify people who refuse to give their names or use fake identification. Immigration officials said they have used the system to help them when they encounter immigrants who don’t have authorization to be in the U.S.

“Photographs are neutral – you can’t say it’s racist when a camera is taking a neutral picture of someone,” said Halverson, the Chula Vista officer. “It’s hitting on certain points of contact. It’s doing a neutral analysis of a person.”

The software works by capturing a freeze frame of a live video feed, which then focuses on the face and uses the distance between the eyes as a baseline. An algorithm then analyzes unique textures and patterns on the face, cross-referencing the freeze frame at the rate of a million comparisons per second against the police mug-shot database that also has been processed by the software.

Halverson said he has used the system to identify injured people who were unresponsive and had no identifying documents. Other officers have been overwhelmingly positive, according to the Automated Regional Justice Information System.

One Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who provided a testimonial said he used the device during a warrant sweep in Oceanside. While on the sweep, the agent wrote, his “ ‘spidy senses’ were tingling” about the immigration status of a neighbor of the person he was pursuing.

He decided to run the man’s picture through the facial recognition software. The agent discovered the man was in the country illegally and had a 2003 DUI conviction in San Diego.

“I whipped out the Droid (smartphone) and snapped a quick photo and submitted for search,” the immigration agent wrote in his testimonial for the Automated Regional Justice Information System. “The subject looked inquisitively at me not knowing the truth was only 8 seconds away. I received a match of 99.96 percent. This revealed several prior arrests and convictions and provided me an FBI #. When I showed him his booking photo, his jaw dropped.”

Law enforcement officials said the facial recognition software has built-in privacy safeguards. After an image taken in the field is run through the system, it is discarded by the central database, they said. They say it does not create a database of photos of people who are stopped by police and questioned.

“If you’re not in a criminal database, you have nothing to hide,” Halverson said.

However, during field tests with Chula Vista police, images taken by field officers were stored within individual tablets. It’s up to police to delete those photos on their own.

Officers who have used the system in San Diego rave about its precision in identifying people. But facial recognition technology remains imperfect. Documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington nonprofit, show that the FBI’s facial recognition program could fail to identify the right person in 1 out of 5 encounters – potentially ensnaring innocent people in investigations.