|
Policing for Revenue???? The article that follows is about how Sheriff Joe is charging people to visit inmates in his Tent City Gulag. They will be charging people $39 an hour to visit people that are jailed in Sheriff Joe's gulag. Currently Sheriff Joe is screwing people with the bargain basement price of only $15 an hour to visit their friends. Sherrif Joe says it's a good deal. F*ck Sheriff Joe!!!! Here is the URL that Sheriff Joe put up on the web about electronic visits to his gulag: http://visitfromhome.net/maricopa One other outrageous rip off run in jails and prisons are the mini Circle K's run by the government that sell junk food and items like toothpaste and soap to the inmates. 10 years ago when a friend was in Sheriff Joe's gulag he told me they were charging $1 for a pack of ramen noodles that you normally buy at Frys or Bashas for 10 cents a pack. I tried to get a copy of the entire list of items and prices sold by Sheriff Joe, but the Maricopa County Sheriff's office jerked me around so much I gave up with my request for public records. Here are a couple of links to price lists from commissaries in Maricopa County Jail, Arizona State Prison and a Federal Prison in Arizona http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/asp_commissary_list.html And here is a list from a Federal prison Laro Nicol was in: http://free-kevin-walsh.tripod.com/letters/fci-safford.html http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/11/06/mcso-launches-video-visitation-platform/18618403/ Video chats replace in-person visits at county jails Paulina Pineda, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:06 p.m. MST November 6, 2014 Face-to-face visitation has a new meaning for inmates at Maricopa County jails now that in-person visits have been swapped for Skype-like video chats. On Thursday, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office launched a Web-based video-visitation platform that eliminates in-person visitations and expands visitation hours. The system, developed by Texas-based Securus Technologies, allows people from all over the world to talk to any of the 8,500 inmates in the county's six jails via video, as long as they have a high-speed Internet connection and a webcam. The Sheriff's Office is offering a promotional price of $5 for a 20-minute conversation, but that price will increase to $12.95 for 20 minutes after Jan. 1. Securus is paying $2.3 million to provide 600 video stations to the six jails at no expense to the taxpayers, according to Securus CEO Rick Smith. The system, which Securus says is the largest in the country, is expected to generate thousands of dollars for the Sheriff's Office while increasing jail security by eliminating the potential for contraband smuggling, an issue during the more than 20,000 in-person visitations each month, according to sheriff's officials. Sheriff Joe Arpaio said it will also allow friends and family members to schedule visits without having to miss work or drive down to a facility. "It's a win for everyone involved," Arpaio said. Remote visitations can be scheduled seven days a week between 7 a.m. and 9:30 p.m at visitfromhome.net/maricopa. Visits must be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance. Inmates can receive one free on-site visit per week, but they will be held through the video platform at either the Fourth Avenue or Lower Buckeye jails. On-site visitation hours at those jails have expanded to seven days a week between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., up from a single visit on Sunday or Monday. Sheriff's officials say on-site visits will no longer be conducted at the Durango, Estrella, Tent City or Towers jails, but inmates there have access to video chats. Securus will receive 100 percent of the revenue until the number of calls reaches 8,000 per month. Ten percent of the excess revenue will then go to MCSO, and that will increase to 20 percent once the company's initial investment is recovered. Money generated from the system will go toward the Sheriff's Office Inmate Services Fund for education. The Sheriff's Office will store video calls for 60 days and will monitor calls for criminal or sexual activity.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2014/11/05/airplane-wi-fi-can-spotty-pick-tasks-carefully/18565699/ Airplane Wi-Fi can be spotty, so pick your tasks carefully 6:32 p.m. MST November 5, 2014 Question: How good are Wi-Fi connections on airplanes and are they worth paying for? Answer: It wasn't long ago that having an Internet connection while on a flight was a bit of a novelty, but today, it's an essential tool for many road-warriors. Internet speeds on airplanes have never been very fast, and lots of variables can affect performance, one big one being that you're sharing it with lots of others. To preserve bandwidth, streaming services such as Netflix, Skype and Pandora are often blocked, so sticking to e-mail and other less-bandwidth-heavy tasks will provide the best results. The industry is working on newer technologies that will greatly improve the speeds, but don't expect it to be as fast as your home or office connection any time soon. How you connect to the Internet (your browser settings) and what you are trying to access will play a big factor in just how fast the information you seek can be downloaded. The following tips are helpful for all kinds of slower shared Internet connections such as those in hotels, airports, coffee shops, if you live in a rural area or, heaven forbid, end up on a dial-up connection. The first thing to do is setup a browser that is optimized for slower speed connections. Every browser has settings that can be changed to optimize for slow connections, but I prefer to have an alternate browser permanently setup for when I travel. This eliminates the need to remember to change back the settings or to use a different user profile in your primary browser. My travel browser of choice is Opera (www.opera.com) primarily because of a feature called Opera Turbo. The Turbo feature optimizes web sites for slow connections by compressing the information on Opera's servers before delivering the content to your computers. It also automatically blocks Flash elements on a page until you click them, so you download them one at a time and only if you want to see them. This can result in pixelated images or other minor visual oddities from time to time, but by reducing the load, you'll get to your desired content much quicker. If you don't want to install Opera, look for ad- and Flash- blocking features that are built into most browsers, or find extensions such as AdBlock and FlashBlock to add to your browser of choice. You can also go the Settings menu of your browser and turn on the "Do Not Show Any Images" option, which will strip out logos, banner ads and other non-essential images from the page. Another more drastic approach is to install a "user agent switcher" extension to your browser, which can make your computer look like a mobile device. Websites automatically detect the type of device you're using and send reduced versions to mobile devices. You can make your laptop look like it's a tablet to the website, which will result in faster downloads, but formatted as if you were on a tablet. If productivity is your goal, airplane Wi-Fi is generally worthwhile, but if entertainment is what you seek, you'll probably be very disappointed. Ken Colburn is founder/CEO of Data Doctors. Send questions to azcentral@DataDoctors.com.
Only a 40 percent voter turnout in the last election "Turnout in Tuesday's election, meanwhile, was relatively low: 37 percent ... That figure will increase to more than 40 percent as early and provisional ballots are counted" http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/11/05/arizona-election-tight-races-uncounted-ballots/18540351/ Tight races could be swung by more than 300K uncounted ballots Rob O'Dell, Pat Flannery and Craig Harris, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:27 p.m. MST November 5, 2014 More than 300,000 early and provisional Arizona ballots remained to be counted Wednesday, likely affecting at least two undecided contests: the race for the 2nd Congressional District and state superintendent of public instruction. Republican Martha McSally held a slim lead — 1,300 votes as of 6:15 p.m. Wednesday — over incumbent Democratic Rep. Ron Barber in the race for the southern Arizona district. Meanwhile, more than 3,200 ballots had to be tallied in Cochise County and nearly 47,000 in Pima County. Republicans hold a registration edge in Cochise County, while Democrats have the edge in Pima County. In the superintendent race, Republican Diane Douglas was leading Democrat David Garcia by about 27,000 votes. Turnout in Tuesday's election, meanwhile, was relatively low: 37 percent, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's office. That figure will increase to more than 40 percent as early and provisional ballots are counted. In the 2010 mid-term election, Arizona's turnout was 55.7 percent. In Maricopa County, elections officials reported a 34.3 percent turnout, down significantly from their prediction that 50 percent of the county's registered voters would cast ballots. The votes that have yet to be counted are early and provisional ballots. Pima County elections officials said 36,728 early ballots and 10,131 provisional ballots remained to be counted there. Cochise County estimated it still had to tally 2,081 early ballots dropped off at polling places, and 1,141 provisional ballots. Because of technical problems Tuesday night, early ballots were sent to Graham County to be counted, said interim election director Jim Vlahovich. In Maricopa County, 210,000 votes still must be counted. That includes 170,000 early ballots and 40,000 provisionals. "We have to verify signatures on every (early) ballot affidavit and make sure it matches the voter-registration cards. It will take some time to verify them," Daniel Ruiz, a Maricopa County elections spokesman, said. Maricopa County hopes to have the process finished by the end of next week, he added. Ruiz said voters dropped off at least 30,000 more early ballots than the county had projected. With so many ballots still outstanding, the uncounted votes also could influence the races for attorney general and secretary of state. Though Republicans Mark Brnovich and Michele Reagan respectively held solid leads in those races and were projected to win, their rivals, Democrats Felecia Rotellini and Terry Goddard, continued Wednesday to await a final count before conceding. A ballot is considered provisional if: A person goes to a polling site, but does not have his or her name on the voting rolls. The person is allowed to vote, and election officials then check to see if the person registered to vote by the Oct. 6 deadline. If the person met the deadline, the vote is counted. If the person registered after the deadline, the vote is not counted. A person is registered to vote, but has moved. If the person produces identification to show the new address and votes at the right precinct, the vote is then counted after election officials confirm only one ballot was cast. A person was mailed an early ballot, but shows up at the polls. A ballot is cast, but it only would count after officials confirm the mail-in ballot was not cast. A registered voter shows up to vote with no identification. The person can vote a conditional ballot, and then has five business days to present valid identification, such as a driver's license, at the county Recorder's Office or a city Clerk's Office. The ballot then is counted. If the person does not present identification, the vote is not counted. Cochise County had problems counting ballots for the second straight election. In the August primary, the county sent erroneous results to the Secretary of State. They later had to be pulled down from the state's website and restated after the votes were flown by helicopter to Graham County and double-checked. On Tuesday, Cochise County noticed a discrepancy of 85 ballots between the election machine's tally and a hand count by staff to double-check the result. Cochise election officials, accompanied by members of the the local Sheriff's Office, took the ballots to Graham County again, Vlahovich said, to have the ballots read by Graham County's machine. "We quickly determined that our machine was correct," Vlahovich said, adding "We haven't quite figured out what happened" to cause the hand count to be off by 85 votes. Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl contributed to this story.
Ex-NFL cheerleader charged with sex with teen Don't these pigs have any REAL criminals to hunt down???? http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/05/cheerleader-sex-boy-ravens/18528699/ Ex-NFL cheerleader charged with sex with teen Associated Press 10:53 a.m. MST November 5, 2014 GEORGETOWN, Del. — A former Baltimore Ravens cheerleader and the estranged wife of a prominent Maryland energy executive has been indicted and arrested on charges of having sex with a 15-year-old boy, police announced Wednesday. Molly Shattuck, 47, was indicted Monday on two counts of third-degree rape, four counts of unlawful sexual contact and three counts of providing alcohol to minors, Delaware State Police Sgt. Paul Shavack said. She was released on $84,000 bond after an arraignment Wednesday in Sussex County Superior Court in Georgetown, Delaware. Shattuck's attorney did not immediately return a call for comment Wednesday and Shattuck's Baltimore home phone rang unanswered. On Sept. 26, a 15-year-old boy reported that Shattuck began an inappropriate relationship with him near Baltimore and that it culminated with sexual activity at a vacation rental home in Bethany Beach, Delaware, over Labor Day weekend, Shavack said. Police executed a search warrant on Shattuck's home Oct. 1 and seized items but Shavack declined to specify what they were. Shattuck is separated from Mayo Shattuck, 60, the former CEO of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Nuclear Group and the current chairman of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., also an energy provider. Exelon, which has electric and gas utilities in Maryland, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, now owns Constellation. In 2005, Molly Shattuck became the oldest NFL cheerleader in history up to that time when the Ravens selected her for the squad on her first tryout. She cheered for two years and was a part-time coach for six more years. Shattuck also is a fitness consultant and advocate, and published a book in February called "Vibrant Living." Her website, which is in "maintenance mode" Wednesday morning, says she has implemented a 21-day plan for health and improved living with people, companies and groups across the U.S. for the past several years. A cached version of her biography on the site says she is an ambassador for the American Diabetes Association and works with the American Heart Association and United Way of Central Maryland's Access to Healthy Food Initiative. She's a trustee of the United Way of Central Maryland, and a member of boards for the Baltimore School for the Arts, the Johns Hopkins Children's Center and the National Children's Museum. In 2008, Shattuck appeared on an episode of the ABC-TV reality show "Secret Millionaire" and gave away $190,000 to people helping the poor. Her website says she has three children, including a 15-year-old son. According to online Maryland court records, Molly and Mayo Shattuck filed for divorce Sept. 29 in Baltimore County. The Baltimore Sun reported in March that the couple had separated, although Molly Shattuck demurred to the newspaper about when the breakup occurred, saying, "It's been awhile."
Doesn't Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery have any REAL criminals to hunt down??? Maybe he should start with the cops that initially arrested Shanesha Taylor on these bogus charges. One question I have is does Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, any of the prosecutors involved, or any of the police agencies involved get a cut of the money they are demanding Shanesha Taylor to put in a trust??? Sadly the criminal injustice system usually isn't about justice, but about money!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2014/11/05/montgomery-shanesha-taylor-prosecution-abrk/18542615/ Montgomery: Shanesha Taylor has one shot to avoid prosecution Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says Taylor is mistaken if she plans to drag out case any longer. Tyler Fingert, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:24 p.m. MST November 5, 2014 The mom who left her kids in the car has failed to set up trust funds for the kids Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said the job-seeking mother who left her kids in a car when she interviewed at a Scottsdale insurance company would have one more chance to comply with an agreement that requires her to set aside thousands of dollars for her children. But if Shanesha Taylor fails to comply, Montgomery said at a news conference on Wednesday, prosecutors are prepared to move forward with a child-abuse case against her. Taylor received more than $114,000 from donors after a tearful mugshot stemming from her March arrest hit the Internet. Montgomery's office agreed in July to defer prosecuting Taylor on child-abuse allegations if she would set aside $60,000 in funds for her three children and also take parenting classes and undergo substance-abuse counseling. But Taylor told a judge last month that she was unable to fund the trusts, in part because the media coverage that helped her raise more than $100,000 also made it difficult for her to find work. "My patience has reached its limit," Montgomery said on Wednesday. "She will either comply with setting aside the money previously agreed upon or we will move forward with prosecution and that entire avenue of resolution will be off the table." At a hearing last month, Taylor's defense attorney, Benjamin Taylor, no relation, said that his client has met most of the conditions but that she wanted to put $35,000 into trust funds. He argued that the amount was justified since his client has paid for child care through April 2015 and is still looking for a job. Montgomery said Wednesday Taylor cannot drag the issue out any longer. "She's exercising the same lack of judgment as she did when she left her children in the car to begin with," Montgomery said. Jerry Cobb, a county attorney spokesman, said Montgomery now wants Taylor to set aside $40,000, with $10,000 to be deposited for each child's education and $10,000 going into a child-care trust. Last week, Montgomery's office requested to reinstate prosecution against Taylor in Maricopa County Superior Court, and it was granted by Judge Joseph Welty, court records show. Taylor is scheduled to be in court again today for a status conference and hearing on a possible plea change. Police said Taylor, 35, left her children in the car for 45 minutes while she interviewed with a Scottsdale insurance company in March. She told police that she was without child care that day and had been occasionally homeless. Taylor told authorities that she left her children in a car while she was in a job interview because she couldn't find day care. Her story went viral and about 4,000 donors came forward to help.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/2014/11/06/ultralight-marijuana-arizona-border/18584875/ Marijuana linked to ultralight that crossed border AP 7:54 a.m. MST November 6, 2014 TUCSON — The Border Patrol says it has seized nearly 185 pounds of marijuana in 10 bundles after an ultralight aircraft flew from Mexico into southeastern Arizona. Two people were arrested Wednesday morning near where the marijuana was found in the vicinity of Sunsites, a small community located about 40 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. According to the Border Patrol, camera operators from the agency's Douglas station observed the ultralight fly north over the border at approximately 3 a.m. It then was seen traveling south back into Mexico at approximately 4:45 a.m. The Border Patrol says use of the ultralight is an example of criminal organizations using alternative methods to smuggle their cargo and of the agency using technology to prevent illegal activity along the border. Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead totaled his Porsche when he was drunk????Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead totaled his Porsche when he was drunk???? Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead didn't get special treatment when he rolled his Porsche on State Route 87 in Happy Jack. Honest, swear to God. Well at least that's what the cops tell us!!! Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead wasn't drunk either!!! Swear to God. Well at least that's what the cops want us to believe. Looking for answers in Mesa police chief's 2011 wreck 12 News investigation into Mesa Police Chief’s rollover crash in Coconino County. Wendy Halloran, 12 News | azcentral.com 10:35 p.m. MST November 5, 2014 This report is the result of a months-long 12 News investigation Documents and expert opinion show there may be more to a single-vehicle wreck involving Mesa's police chief than he's ever disclosed. The dispatch log from the incident is missing nearly 40 pages and the official report includes no photographs, nor any record of any eyewitness account despite evidence of at least one witness coming forward. Now some are asking whether information may have been deliberately omitted. The wreck State Route 87 north of Payson in Happy Jack can be unforgiving. A two-lane road where the speed limit is 65 miles per hour twists and turns through the Mogollon Rim. That's where Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead rolled his expensive sports car in the summer of 2011. The 2007 Porsche Carrera 4S convertible he owned and was driving rolled at least twice, landing atop a pine tree. Very few details were known about the crash at the time, but there were suspicions within his own rank and file as to what may have caused him to veer off the roadway. Crashing too many cars? Some would cast doubt on the investigation and whether Milstead received special treatment. Others would question if he had been drinking before he came dangerously close to death. The police report about the incident includes the observation that "the driver was under no apparent influence." The two agencies that responded and investigated raised further concerns for those who doubted Milstead's story. After all, it would be Chief Milstead who chastised his officers about crashing too many cars and not wearing their seatbelts in a video he made for the workforce late 2013. Statistics provided to 12 News by the Mesa Police Department seem to validate what Chief Milstead admonished his officers for. In 2012 Mesa police officers were involved in 88 accidents; of those, they were found to be at fault in 38.To put it into perspective, Detective Steve Berry provided 12 News with a spreadsheet that shows, for fiscal year 2014-2015, the Mesa Police Department put almost 6.5 million miles on its fleet. Milstead wrecks his Porsche in Happy Jack While the workforce was hearing its chief lecture them about crashing too many cars, many didn't know it at the time that Milstead had a wreck of his own. Records show Milstead rolled his Porsche on Aug. 19, 2011 around 3 p.m. Retired Mesa Police Officer Javier Cota disagrees with the original police report's version of events. During his tenure with the department, Cota began looking into the crash on his own time while serving as president of the Mesa Police Association. Among other things, in 2012, he says he was looking into two cases in which two officers were possibly going to be terminated by the Mesa Police Department for being arrested for driving under the influence. He felt such punishment was harsh and decided to learn what he could about the chief's own accident, even going to the scene and taking pictures, some of which show remnants of the crash near the pine tree. "There were indications that he had been involved in an accident and was possibly drinking before the collision occurred," said Cota. In a 2012 e-mail to the workforce, Milstead warned officers that he'd just reviewed two Internal Affairs reports involving two members of the department who were arrested for DUI. He goes on to say he upheld the chain of command recommendations for 200 hours of suspension for both officers. He further wrote, "Make no mistake, both officers were considered for termination and this is the third DUI arrest of a Mesa Police Officer in 18 months," calling it unacceptable. He finished the e-mail stating, "As of this Friday August 31, 2012, if you are arrested for operating a motor vehicle or watercraft while under the influence of any drug or alcohol, upon review the case is factually sufficient [sic], you will be subject to TERMINATION." He compounds it with, "A conviction has no bearing of [sic] the decision." Milstead's stance -- that even if an officer isn't convicted in a court of law, he or she could still be fired -- coupled with his own little-known wreck the year before prompted Cota to begin searching for answers. This photo of the tree Milstead's car hit was taken by retired Mesa officer Javier Cota, who looked into the wreck on his own during his tenure with Mesa PD.(Photo: Javier Cota) Questions about special treatment Official reports of the accident say nothing about an alcohol-related crash. But Cota says once he started asking about Chief Milstead's accident, people started to clam up. "They were no longer cooperative with me when I asked them that one question, had he been drinking?" Cota said. A photograph sent to 12 News anonymously was confirmed by our investigation to be of Milstead's wrecked Porsche. That photo is apparently the only one taken of the incident. Public records requests with the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Blue Ridge Fire District, the two agencies which responded, resulted in replies that no pictures had been taken. An expert weighs in "The photograph obviously was taken before the emergency responders got there, because there are no police cars, fire trucks, anything like that around there," said retired Traffic Sgt. Harry Ryon, who reviewed the accident investigation for 12 News. Ryon worked for the Los Angeles Police Department for 23 years, specializing in accident reconstruction. We asked Ryon to review the DPS report and other documents from the Milstead crash. The records show the Blue Ridge Fire District was the first to respond. The fire chief at the time, Chuck (C.E.) Buddle, has stated that he is a friend of Milstead's. Ryon says, judging by the damage to Milstead's car, he would safely assume that Milstead rolled over at least twice. Records from DPS reveal it took it took DPS Officer Jarrod Lampsa 36 minutes to get to the scene. Mobile data messages between Officer Lampsa and the dispatcher indicate he knew the crash involved Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead. However, 39 pages from the dispatch log are apparently missing. The log jumps from page 30 to page 70. In the report, Milstead tells DPS Officer Lampsa he saw a large truck pulling a trailer passing another vehicle. He hit the brakes and swerved to avoid a head-on collision with the truck. Milstead said it was raining hard at the time of the collision. According to the report, the truck was attempting to pass in a no-passing zone where the road is curved to the right. Mystery eyewitness? However, there are critical items missing from the report, according to Ryon, such as interviews with potential eyewitnesses. Evidently, there was at least one. The DPS Computer-Aided Dispatch report identifies an eyewitness named Beth who walked into the Blue Ridge Fire District and reported what she saw. "Beth who? Did Beth see the wreck? Did Beth have anything to say about it?" asked Ryon. "She was not interviewed for the police report either." In fact, there's no mention of a Beth in Officer Lampsa's report. Non-injury crash? The DPS report was closed out as a non-injury crash. While the report says Milstead, the only driver involved in the crash, was not hurt, Phoenix Assistant Police Chief Harry Markley confirms: "On Aug. 19, 2011, I was contacted by a personal friend, Frank Milstead to pick him up at the scene of a single-vehicle collision. We both have cabins in northern Arizona in close proximity to each other and he had no other family members in town to pick him up. When I arrived at the location, in a personally owned vehicle, law enforcement and medical professionals were on scene. Once their work was complete, I drove Frank to my cabin in order to monitor him as he had sustained a head injury during the collision." Javier Cota says he saw Milstead a few days after the wreck and noted he had discolored and swollen eyes. According to DPS records, on Aug. 9, 2013, Cota called DPS and asked to speak with DPS Director Robert Halliday about Milstead's 2011 crash. Director Halliday called Cota back and Cota expressed concern about the accuracy of the collision report completed by Officer Jarrod Lampsa. Cota files citizen complaint As a result, Cota filed a citizen's complaint against Officer Lampsa alleging the collision report and evidence at the scene were inconsistent. That same day, the DPS launched an inquiry into Cota's concerns with its Professional Standards Bureau. Cota's complaint alleged the DPS crash report indicated the Porsche rolled side over side off the roadway after swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle and came to a rest against a tree facing the roadway. Cota told DPS evidence at the scene indicated the Porsche would have rolled end over end at a much higher speed than the report indicated. He also stated the Porsche should have left evidence on the roadway of braking or evasive action if it rolled side over side and none was present at the scene. He also alleged Officer Lampsa confided to a Mesa Police sergeant that Milstead was drunk, and that someone told Officer Lampsa to write the report differently. Cota characterized the DPS crash report as blatantly missing information that would allow anyone to reconstruct what happened. Family connection to DPS Milstead's father, Ralph Milstead, was the former director of DPS. He retired in 1990. "It smacks of collusion, if you will," Ryon said. Halliday ordered the DPS Professional Standards Unit to investigate Officer Lampsa. Ten days after the Cota's complaint was lodged, DPS determined it was "without merit." DPS issued the following statement: "Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead NEVER called Arizona Department of Public Safety Director Robert Halliday following the collision three years ago. However, because there were questions raised, Director Halliday ordered the DPS Professional Standards Unit (PSU) to investigate. PSU found the investigation of the collision involving Chief Milstead was done in accordance with DPS training and procedures. We stand behind our investigation, I have complete confidence in the professionalism of our investigating officer." Ryon believes DPS Officer Lampsa should have contacted a supervisor once he knew the accident involved the police chief. "If it involved a police chief, I would want a deeper investigation, but not just to indict him but also to clear him if there was no misconduct involved," Ryon said. "You want a complete investigation so that everything is done right." When asked if that was the case in the Milstead crash, Ryon said, "No." Ax to grind? Cota retired in 2012 after Milstead demoted him from sergeant to officer, stemming from an arrest in San Diego for public intoxication and interfering with a police investigation. Cota was detained but was not charged. He is suing the City of San Diego, its police chief, assistant chief, two officers who detained him and four other officers in federal court for various alleged civil-rights violations. The case is still pending. Chief Milstead won't talk about wreck Chief Milstead declined to speak with us after repeated requests for an interview. Mesa Police spokesman Det. Steve Berry sent an e-mail which said, "Nothing that you are asking is Mesa Police business. The events happened off duty in a personal vehicle. Chief Milstead nor any other city employee would be required in this case to answer your questions. This is your television piece, not a criminal proceeding were [sic] someone is compelled by law to answer."
If it's easier to get drugs in prison then it is on the streets, that's a sign the "war on drugs" is a dismal failure!!!! "a large proportion of the illegal trafficking is carried out by uniformed guards and civilian employees" It's time to end the insane, unconstitutional "war on drugs" and re-legalize ALL drugs, like they were before 1914 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/nyregion/rikers-island-undercover-investigator-contraband-inquiry.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Posing as Rikers Guard, Investigator Smuggled in Contraband, Inquiry Finds By MICHAEL WINERIP and MICHAEL SCHWIRTZNOV. 6, 2014 Despite repeated promises by the Correction Department to tighten security at Rikers Island, a city investigator posing as a guard last month was able to smuggle in heroin, pills, marijuana, vodka and a razor blade, an inquiry by the Department of Investigation found. The city investigator carried the contraband — valued at over $22,000 — through six different security checkpoints used by jail employees, hiding the drugs in his cargo pants and holding a water bottle filled with vodka, the Department of Investigation said in a report released on Thursday. The revelations once again raised questions about the city’s ability to address the widespread corruption and brutality at Rikers detailed in several critical reports by federal and local authorities as well as the news media. The Department of Investigation has been urging the Correction Department for years to improve screening of jail employees but to no avail. “Weapons and narcotics remain easily available to any inmate with funds to pay for them,” the report said. The report called on the Correction Department to take steps to bolster screening, including starting to routinely use drug-sniffing dogs at employee entrances. Though the powerful correction officers union has long opposed such searches, the correction commissioner, Joseph Ponte, told investigators that he would comply. Investigators say that while visitors to city jails bring in some contraband, a large proportion of the illegal trafficking is carried out by uniformed guards and civilian employees. The report described the arrests of six correction officers and a nurse for contraband over the last year and a half. “Given the extent of smuggling that we know goes on and given what we know about what’s coming in from visitors, a lot of stuff has to be coming in from guards and employees because this stuff doesn’t magically appear,” said Mark Peters, the Department of Investigation commissioner. On Sept. 1, the Correction Department imposed what it described at the time as heightened security measures — including searching guards’ lunch containers — intended to target smuggling by employees. “It turns out these steps were not sufficient,” Mr. Peters said. Last month, the undercover investigator, an employee with the Department of Investigation, was able to sneak contraband into all six of the Rikers jails that he tried to enter. The pockets of his cargo pants, according to the report, were bulging with 250 packets of heroin; 24 strips of Suboxone, a pain killer; and a half pound of marijuana. “Any kind of serious search by trained professionals should have caught this every time,” Mr. Peters said. At one facility, the undercover guard set off the metal detector twice. When a security officer asked the undercover guard to empty his pockets, “the undercover responded that he already had emptied them,” the report said. The security officer “accepted his answer without further inspection of his pockets.” Mr. Peters said that correction officers and civilian staff members often do not sell the drugs directly to inmates. Rather they serve as couriers, shuttling contraband between people on the outside and the inmates for a fee that can range from $500 to $1,000. Photo The contraband — valued at over $22,000 — that an investigator was able to carry through six different security checkpoints. Credit NYC Department of Investigation Mr. Ponte, in a statement, said that he agreed with the Department of Investigation’s assessment that screening needed to be improved. “I have zero tolerance for anyone, including staff, bringing contraband into D.O.C. facilities,” he said. “As part of D.O.C.'s ongoing systemwide reforms, we are working on significant new steps to improve our methods for searching for contraband.” In addition to the dogs, Mr. Ponte said that special operations officers would be posted at each entrance to inspect employees, replacing the rank-and-file guards who have typically carried out the searches. There is also a plan to upgrade screening techniques to conform to federal airport security standards. The Department of Investigation said that the drug-sniffing dogs and new security teams should be put in place within six months. Mr. Peters said he expected that the dogs would be used for random searches at each of the 10 jails at Rikers several times a week, though he said Mr. Ponte would have the final say about the deployment of the canine units. The success of the new security measures could depend in large part on the response from the correction officers’ union and its president, Norman Seabrook. In an interview last week, Mr. Seabrook said even agreeing to the modest changes in September, including checking the lunches, caused friction with the rank-and-file. “I took some heat for it,” he said. For the report, the Department of Investigation observed 15 shift changes and reviewed 50 hours of surveillance video from June through October, monitoring the entry of more than 2,500 employees. Even after the heightened security measures were imposed in September, the report said that some officers still refused to have their food X-rayed or were allowed to place their lunch containers on top of the X-ray machines without having it scanned. Security officers also permitted some people to enter even though they had set off the metal detectors, the report said. “Having observed screening procedures for six weeks,” the report said, “it is clear to D.O.I. that such compliance will not be achieved absent additional drastic interventions.”
You can always trust the government??? Well as much as you can trust a mafia hit man!!!! And of course your chances of getting a fair trial are about the same as going to Las Vegas and willing a million bucks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-agent-in-misconduct-case-may-have-tampered-with-drugs-guns-documents-say/2014/11/05/b77fd50e-6440-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html?hpid=z4 FBI agent in misconduct case may have tampered with drugs, guns, documents say By Peter Hermann November 5 at 11:00 PM Federal prosecutors said Wednesday they will dismiss indictments against 28 defendants in District drug cases amid an investigation of an FBI agent accused of tampering with evidence, including narcotics and guns, according to newly unsealed court documents. Fourteen of those defendants have already pleaded guilty and were serving sentences — one was a year into a 10-year term — and prosecutors said they can withdraw their guilty pleas and the charges would be dropped. A hearing is scheduled Friday in U.S. District Court for many of the defendants. The stunning action by the U.S. attorney’s office came as authorities continue to scrutinize cases that the agent, assigned to a D.C. police task force in the FBI’s Washington Field Office, may have been involved with. The agent, who has not been charged criminally, has been suspended in what officials describe as a misconduct investigation. One drug case that is unraveling involves an alleged gang that authorities said had imported heroin and cocaine from California into the District, Maryland and Virginia. Police said that they raided 26 homes and seized 11 pounds of drugs and that they listened in to thousands of hours of secretly recorded telephone conversations. The alleged gang leader, 62-year-old Lester Pryor, and 13 others were indicted. Now, the government has indicated charges would be dropped against all of them. “It was a very substantial drug case,” said Robert Jenkins, who represents defendant Anthony McDuffie, who had pleaded guilty to drug charges in the case and is awaiting sentencing. “I can only imagine the scope of the misconduct that occurred that led to something like this.” The FBI and U.S. attorney’s office have confirmed that the investigation into the agent began the week of Sept. 29 and that authorities are still culling through cases that the agent may have been involved with. The Washington Post is not naming the agent because he has not been charged and neither he nor an attorney could be reached. He is being investigated by the inspector general’s office at the Justice Department. Sometime in late September, the agent was found slumped over the wheel of his unmarked FBI vehicle near the Navy Yard, according to two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case. Empty bags thought to have contained drugs were found in the car, the officials said. The disruption to drug cases had been cloaked in secrecy, with many documents filed under seal that gave no hint anything was amiss. But U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered the new information unsealed after The Post reported on the case Saturday. The judge said access to criminal proceedings “serves an important function of monitoring misconduct.” Prosecutors said they were already in the process of making the documents public. In another of the affected cases, prosecutors filed court papers saying they would drop charges against 10 defendants accused of selling heroin and cocaine in the city. They also said that they would dismiss a 2013 case against four men who had been accused of selling heroin in D.C. neighborhoods. Information about the investigation of the agent leaked after a judge last month ordered the release from jail and prison of more than a dozen felons and others with pending charges. Some of those cases are among those that prosecutors say will be dismissed, while others remain in limbo. Officials say another case that could be affected involves a purported drug organization allegedly led by Juan Floyd. Thirty-three people were indicted in the case; none have been released. Authorities have not described in detail how the agent’s alleged misconduct may have compromised the cases. Defense attorneys said that they have not been given many specifics and described their clients as being in a holding pattern. But in the Floyd case, newly unsealed documents indicate that potential problems may stem from a search conducted Nov. 20 on a house and vehicle in Deale, Md., about 20 miles south of Annapolis. One of the defendants in the alleged Floyd drug conspiracy was in court Wednesday, a routine bond hearing that revealed the complexities surrounding the investigation into the agent and its impact on pending court cases. It involved the 20-year-old daughter of the alleged kingpin, who is pending trial. Brittany Floyd of Northeast Washington was arrested in a raid last year and charged with conspiracy to distribute drugs. Authorities said that they found heroin and scales used for weighing drugs in her bedroom; her attorney said that the drugs belonged to her father but that she was willing to plead guilty to a felony charge so that prosecutors would offer her father a plea deal. Brittany Floyd had been released from custody as the drug case proceeded but had violated the terms of her release several times, including an arrest on charges of assaulting a police officer. Her attorney, Jonathan Zucker, argued in court that prosectors had agreed to sentence her to probation on the drug case but that the investigation of the FBI agent was delaying an expedited hearing. He noted that prosecutors had agreed to drop the assault charge. Zucker said that his client is a student and that it was unfair to keep her in jail because of what he called a “quagmire” involving the FBI agent. Brittany Floyd’s mother, Tracey Luther, 49, said outside court that her daughter “is only being held because the FBI needs to clean up its own mess.” Adam Goldman and Cheryl W. Thompson contributed to this report.
Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana http://www.adn.com/article/20141104/alaskans-vote-legalize-marijuana Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana Suzanna Caldwell,Laurel Andrews November 4, 2014 After years of debate -- and decades of semi-legal status -- Alaskans will finally be able to light up legally. On Tuesday, voters approved Ballot Measure 2, an initiative legalizing recreational marijuana in Alaska, by about 52 percent in favor to 48 percent opposed, with 100 percent of the state's precincts reporting. With the vote, Alaska joins Washington, Colorado and Oregon -- the latter of which also approved a similar initiative Tuesday -- as the first states in the country to legalize pot. Washington and Colorado approved their own initiatives in 2012. The initiative will not become law until 90 days after the election is certified, which is expected to be in late November. Per the law, the state can then create a marijuana control board -- expected to be housed under the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. That group will then have nine months to craft regulations dealing with how marijuana businesses will operate. The initiative was years in the making. Alaska voters considered similar measures in 2000 and 2004. Both failed, though each indicated a measure of support for legalization. Measure 5 in 2000 took 40.9 percent of the vote; Ballot Measure 2 in 2004 gained a few more points, with 44 percent of the electorate voting in favor of it. Supporters expressed relief Tuesday as results streamed in. “It looks good for us, but there are still a lot of votes to be counted” said Taylor Bickford, spokesman for the pro-legalization Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska, as the results ticked up to 44 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday evening. But by 2 a.m. Wednesday, with all precincts reporting, the pro-legalization crowd was declaring victory. "Now that the campaign is over, it’s time to establish a robust regulatory system that sets an example for other states," Bickford said in a prepared statement. "A regulated marijuana market will generate millions of dollars in tax revenue and create good jobs for Alaskans. Law enforcement will be able to spend their time addressing serious crimes instead of enforcing failed marijuana prohibition laws." What had seemed like an easy win earlier in the year appeared to slip in the weeks leading up to the election. Polls showed support for the measure at over 50 percent earlier in the year, but that appeared to decline over the summer and into fall. Dueling polls commissioned by both sides of the campaign showed striking differences between the two, making it anyone’s guess which side would ultimately come out ahead in the vote. The Yes campaign fought vigorously to get out their message of the failures of marijuana “prohibition” across the state. They contended that Ballot Measure 2 would regulate and tax a substance already being used by over 100,000 Alaskans each year. Doing so would begin to eliminate the black market and prevent people from being arrested for possessing or using a substance many argue is objectively safer than alcohol. The campaign noted that Ballot Measure 2 would allow for regulation of marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol by controlling the types of products sold, prohibiting sales to those under 21 and taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce wholesale. Proponents also championed the idea of reconciling what co-sponsor Tim Hinterberger, a longtime marijuana legalization advocate, called “illogical” laws. Alaska’s relationship with marijuana has long been a complicated one. The 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision in Ravin v. State that Alaskans’ right to privacy protected the possession of a small amount of marijuana in the home effectively legalized the substance. Despite that status, the legality of marijuana has remained in question. The Ravin ruling has been interpreted to be narrow, protecting use only in the home. Alaska statutes prohibit the possession of even a small amount of marijuana. Making things more complicated are the state’s medical marijuana laws, approved by voters in 1998. Patients can be prescribed the drug, however, with no dispensaries there is no legal way to acquire it. Opponents of legalization agreed some reform to Alaska’s marijuana laws might be appropriate, but that vagaries of Ballot Measure 2 made the initiative inappropriate for Alaska. Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2, the group opposing the measure, had concerns over the language of the initiative -- specifically that it left too much up to the regulatory process. With so many questions unanswered in the initiative’s language, they voiced concerns over possible increases in marijuana use. They argued that more use would lead to more problems related to increased teen access, public health risks, potent marijuana concentrates and additional cost and resource burdens on public safety departments. Opposition reacts The No campaign expressed frustration with the results Tuesday night. "We're disappointed in the numbers right now,” said No campaign deputy treasurer Deborah Williams, but added, “We're very proud of the campaign we ran." “The campaign pointed out a lot of needed areas for amendments and improvements ... the people in this campaign are committed to doing what is best for Alaska,” she said. But as the results continued to arrive and the gap became slightly more narrow as the night wore on, Williams expressed some optimism. As she left Election Central at 11:30 p.m., Williams had her phone in hand and was refreshing election results every few minutes. "We keep narrowing the gap," she said. "Obviously we have a lot of ground to make up." That gap never fully closed. Despite its late start in the campaign cycle, the No campaign gained ground in the lead-up to Election Day. Focusing on a statewide grass-roots effort that included a long list of organizations and individuals opposing the measure, the group surged in fundraising down the home stretch. The No campaign was quick to note that the $148,000 it raised since April is 100 percent Alaska-funded -- a stark comparison to the Yes side, whose primary funding came through the Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. The group, a national nonprofit that advocates for marijuana reform across the country and was the primary sponsor behind Colorado’s measure, funneled almost $800,000 into Alaska over the course of the campaign. That funding base allowed the pro-legalization side to outspend their opponents nearly 9-1. “Alaska is fiercely independent, and I think regardless of how tonight turns out Alaskans understand that we were part of a national strategy” surrounding pot legalization, said No campaign spokeswoman Kristina Woolston. “I think at the end of the day we were all happy with the group of Alaskans that came together,” she said. What they lacked in spending they made up in notable public support. As the opposition rallied supporters -- from Alaska Native organizations, public safety officials, Alaska mayors, local communities and political leaders on both sides of the aisle -- supporters of legalization struggled against what they perceived as a long-standing stigma against marijuana. That stigma didn’t play out as much behind the voting curtain, with many Alaskans coming out in favor of the measure. Results showed supporters ahead from the start, with a lead they never relinquished as returns continued to stream in. Tim Hinterberger, co-sponsor of the initiative, said the tide is changing when it comes to marijuana perceptions, for basic reasons. He pointed to wins in other states proving demographics are shifting on the substance, particularly among young voters. “More people are voting who have experience with marijuana or know someone who uses marijuana,” he said. “The older people who don’t, they’re dying off.” No clear voting bloc Earlier in the day, one thing was clear: When it came to voting on Ballot Measure 2, party affiliation meant zilch. In other states, marijuana legalization generally falls along party lines. Democrats tend to favor it, with Republicans opposed. But in Alaska, affiliation didn’t seem to matter. Politicians on both sides of the aisle publicly opposed the measure, while supporters actively targeted conservative voters leading up to the election. That targeting may have worked. Husband and wife Larry and Lauren Larsen of Fairview both described themselves as conservative voters and both voted in favor of legalizing marijuana. Lauren Larsen thought police did a good job of dealing with violent crime, but didn’t do so well when it came to property crimes. She attributes that to being overworked, and thought if marijuana was legalized it would at least free up some police resources. Larry Larsen said the couple, who do not use marijuana, know people in Barrow who use pot. “It’s everywhere, it’s no problem for people to get it,” he said outside of his polling place at Anchorage’s Central Lutheran Church. “If (marijuana enforcement) isn’t working, then the hell with it.” The biggest issue that drove Rebecca DeGoroot to the polls was another ballot initiative, one which would raise the minimum wage and appeared to be winning handily Tuesday. DeGoroot has worked as manager, overseeing low paid workers and would like to see them paid more. She also voted in favor of the Bill Walker-Byron Mallott gubernatorial ticket. But she didn’t support Ballot Measure 2. “I think there are more important things to worry about,” she said in Fairview Tuesday afternoon. "I wouldn't like to see it pass but I think it will,” said Larry Mooney, waving a sign for Democratic Sen. Mark Begich Tuesday morning at the intersection of Minnesota Drive and Benson Boulevard. Fairview resident Davy Mousseaux voted for conservative candidates straight down the ticket, but voted yes to legalize marijuana. He said while he doesn’t use it now, he has used it in the past and thought that legalization could help communities. “Maybe if they legalize it there won’t be so many problems,” he said. “It’s not like heroin or cocaine.” Contact Suzanna Caldwell at or on Google+ Contact Laurel Andrews at or on Google+
Recreational marijuana passes in Oregon http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/recreational_marijuana_passes.html#incart_maj-story-1 Recreational marijuana passes in Oregon: Oregon election results 2014 Noelle Crombie | ncrombie@oregonian.com By Noelle Crombie | ncrombie@oregonian.com on November 04, 2014 at 9:34 PM, updated November 05, 2014 at 6:12 AM Oregon voters said yes to marijuana Tuesday, making the state the third to allow the possession and sale of cannabis for recreational rather than strictly medical use. The crowd at the Southeast Portland club Holocene, where Yes on 91 held its victory party, erupted into rowdy cheers upon learning Measure 91 had passed. Someone in the audience yelled "Legal cannabis, baby," as longtime legalization advocate Anthony Johnson took the stage. He called the vote "decades in the making." "We have ended a painful, discriminatory, harmful policy that has terrible consequences for our state," Johnson said. "We replaced it with a policy that is smarter, more humane. ... It's a policy whose time has come." The closely watched vote on Measure 91 represents a major victory for state and national marijuana legalization advocates. They viewed Oregon, already home to a robust medical marijuana program, as part of a key second wave of states to legalize cannabis for recreational use. Video: Crowd reacts to legal marijuana in Oregon Measure 91, which legalizes recreational marijuana use in Oregon, passed in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. Oregon joins Washington state and Colorado, the first states to legalize pot for recreational use in 2012. Earlier in the night, Washington, D.C., voters approved a measure allowing residents to possess and grow -- but not sell -- marijuana. Alaska voters were also considering legalization Tuesday. Oregon's Measure 91 took elements from both the Washington and Colorado laws and was primarily financed by out-of-state donors and groups seeking national reform of drug laws. The Yes on 91 campaign collected about $4 million, compared to less than $200,000 raised by the No on 91 effort. Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis, who opposed marijuana legalization, called the race a "David vs. Goliath." He said Oregonians aren't likely to see much of a difference when it comes to law enforcement, which already views marijuana as a low priority. "Marijuana was very low on the priority list in Oregon," he said. "And now it will essentially be totally crossed off." The measure, which will not take effect until July 1, 2015, allows adults 21 and older to possess 1 ounce in public and up to 8 ounces at home, as well as a variety of other marijuana-infused products. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission will get the job of regulating marijuana production and sales. Tax revenue generated by marijuana will go to public schools; mental health and addiction services; law enforcement; and the Oregon Health Authority. Using marijuana in public or while driving will be prohibited. Current medical marijuana laws won't change. Oregon voters rejected marijuana legalization two years ago, and sponsors of Measure 91 hoped this year's version would be seen as having more regulatory controls than what was on the ballot in 2012. Unlike the 2012 marijuana initiative, which failed by six percentage points, Measure 91 had a large advertising budget that featured, among others, a retired judge, a retired deputy sheriff and a former top drug addictions official for the state. The campaign deliberately stayed away from any hints of the marijuana culture, even using colors in their signs that avoided any hint of green. Opponents seized on the wide array of marijuana products -- ranging from pot-laced gummy bears to sugary sodas containing the drug – for sale in Colorado that they said were aimed at enticing youthful consumers. The measure is "about creating a big marijuana industry," said Mandi Puckett, a drug education worker who headed the No on 91 campaign. According to incomplete returns, Measure 91 benefited from overwhelming support in Multnomah County, home to about 20 percent of expected voters statewide. Ethan Nadelmann, whose organization Drug Policy Alliance was a major funder of the Oregon measure, called the win "fantastic news," particularly since it came during a year when a presidential election wasn't on the ballot. Conventional wisdom suggested waiting until 2016, but Nadelmann's group pushed ahead this year despite concerns about low voter turnout. "It's just a fantastic victory, all the more so because it's in a non-presidential election year," Nadelmann said. "I think it bodes very well for 2016 and the years beyond." Kevin Sabet, a high-profile opponent of marijuana legalization who traveled to Oregon twice this year with an anti-pot message, said the Measure 91 results mean cannabis opponents need to get even more serious in 2016. "We are going to redouble our efforts," he said. "We can now get very serious with potential donors and supporters about how important 2016 is." He said opponents will continue to press their case as Oregon drafts rules for the recreational pot industry. "Even in Oregon the conversation is not over," he said. "We are going to make sure we are watching the marijuana industry and make sure they don't get everything they want. This conversation about marijuana is just beginning. It's certainly not ending." -- Noelle Crombie and Jeff Mapes http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/marijuana_legalization_oregon.html#incart_maj-story-1 Marijuana legalization Q&A: What's next for Oregon? Noelle Crombie | ncrombie@oregonian.com By Noelle Crombie | ncrombie@oregonian.com on November 05, 2014 at 6:30 AM, updated November 05, 2014 at 7:25 AM 0 Oregon voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a measure to legalize recreational marijuana. Here's a Q&A on what happens next. Q: Oregon legalized marijuana Tuesday. Does that mean the marijuana stashed in a drawer in my house is now legal to possess? A: No. The legal protections for recreational marijuana possession do not take effect until July 1, 2015. Until then, possession of 1 to 4 ounces is considered a misdemeanor and possessing more is a felony. Possession of less than an ounce remains a non-criminal violation through July 1. Q: OK, so what happens on July 1, 2015? A: People 21 and older will be allowed to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana in a public place and up to 8 ounces in their home. The law also allows up to four marijuana plants per household. Q: I’ve got a few marijuana plants for my own use. I’m not in the medical marijuana program. Are my plants legal now? A: Not yet. Households will be allowed to have up to four plants, but that provision does not go into effect until July 1. A household, by the way, includes an apartment unit, a house or mobile home. Q: Where can I buy marijuana? A: Unless you’re an Oregon medical marijuana patient, there’s no way to legally obtain marijuana before July 1, 2015. The new law gives the Oregon Liquor Control Commission until Jan. 1, 2016 to draft rules and implement regulations for production, processing and selling marijuana. The measure says the state must begin receiving licensing applications by Jan. 4, 2016. The first batch of licenses should be issued during the first half of 2016. 2014 Midterms: Jeff Mapes and Noelle Crombie analyze Measure 91’s win The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes and Noelle Crombie analyze what the passage of Measure 91 means for the future of marijuana in Oregon. Q: So how can I legally obtain marijuana? A: For now, you can’t. But starting July 1, 2015, you’ll be able to grow your own or get it from someone who’s growing it. The law says anyone 21 or older can give away an ounce to someone else who’s 21 and older. Q: Where can I buy marijuana plants? A: For now, only medical marijuana patients in Oregon can legally buy clones, which are young cannabis plants. Once the state’s retail industry is up and running in the first half of 2016, anyone 21 and older will be able to go into stores that stock clones and buy one. Q: After July 1, how much marijuana can I have? A: Quite a bit. In addition to growing four plants and possessing up to 8 ounces at home or 1 ounce away from home, anyone 21 and older can possess up to 1 pound of solid edibles, or about 10 chocolate bars; 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquid, or a six-pack of 12-ounce sodas; and 1 ounce of marijuana extract. Q: I thought marijuana came in dried flowers. What are marijuana liquids and concentrates? A: Marijuana comes in many forms, from sodas and pizzas to tinctures and lotions. Liquids include sodas and other beverages infused with marijuana. Extracts are a concentrated form of marijuana, such as butane hash oil. Extracts or concentrates are often consumed in vaporizer pens. Q: How much is an ounce of marijuana? A: Depends on whom you ask, but the most common answer is about 28 joints. One ounce would also yield 57 modest half-gram joints. Q: After July 1, where can I legally consume marijuana? A: Your home, your friend’s house or another private place. Q: Can I light up a joint at a park? A: No. You are not legally allowed to smoke in a public place now or after July 1. The law prohibits consumption in public places, which under state law includes hallways and lobbies of apartment buildings and hotels, on the street, in schools, amusement parks and public parks. Q: How about TriMet? Can I get stoned on the bus? A: Not legally. Public transportation is considered a public place. Q: What about on my front porch? A: Whether your front porch would be considered a public place may depend on the type of porch of you have and the particular circumstances. The drafters of Measure 91 copied the definition of “public place” from another statute, and there are various cases that interpret whether a particular front porch constitutes a public place. To be safe, you’re probably better off consuming marijuana on your back porch. Q: What about work? Can I show up at my job stoned? A: Measure 91 does not change Oregon employment law. Employers may mandate drug testing and require employees to follow drug-free workplace policies. Q: Can I walk into the medical marijuana dispensary down the street to buy marijuana? A: No. Measure 91 does not affect Oregon’s medical marijuana laws. Only cardholders in the medical marijuana program may buy marijuana from a state licensed dispensary. Q: Recreational marijuana shops are open in Washington. Does that mean I can buy marijuana in Vancouver and drive back home to Portland? A: No. Under federal law, you are not legally allowed to transport marijuana across state lines. If you buy marijuana in Washington, you are supposed to consume it there. Q: If I’ve got four recreational marijuana plants at home, will the government be able to inspect my grow? A: No. Home growers are exempt from regulation and taxation. Q: Will the government keep a list of people who grow their own marijuana? A: No. Unlike the Oregon medical marijuana program, which maintains a registry of cardholders, there is no registration process for recreational consumers or home growers. Q: My friends are visiting from out of state. Can they legally possess marijuana while they’re in Oregon? A: Yes. The law applies to anyone 21 and older. Q: Can I ship it out of state? A: No. Mailing or shipping pot out of state is off-limits for everyone, including medical marijuana patients. It violates both state and federal law. -- Noelle Crombie
DC votes with a 7 to 3 ratio to legalize recreational marijuana!!!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-voters-titling-heavily-toward-legalizing-marijuana-likely-joining-colo-wash/2014/11/04/116e83f8-60fe-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html?hpid=z3 D.C. voters overwhelmingly support legalizing marijuana, joining Colo., Wash. By Aaron C. Davis November 4 at 11:06 PM The District followed Colorado and Washington state into a closely watched experiment to legalize marijuana Tuesday, as voters overwhelmingly backed an initiative 7 to 3 allowing cannabis to be consumed and grown in the nation’s capital. The move to allow the drug almost certainly will take effect unless the next Congress blocks it. Under a voter-proposed measure, known as Initiative 71, residents and visitors age 21 and older will be allowed to legally possess as much as two ounces of marijuana and to grow up to three marijuana plants at home. Leading candidates for mayor and the D.C. Council have vowed to quickly sign the measure into law. A majority of the council also pledged that if approved by voters, they would submit follow-up legislation to Congress next year establishing a system to sell and tax the drug in the District. The twin measures will become law, as District bills do, unless Congress vetoes them and the president agrees that the local measures should be halted. That complex layer of federal oversight could thrust Congress — which on Tuesday flipped to Republican control — and President Obama into the middle of a rapidly evolving national debate. In joining two states to bring marijuana into the mainstream — making it nearly akin to alcohol and tobacco — the District’s vote is the latest sign of growing public acceptance of the drug. Advocates have been trying to give marijuana legal status since the 1960s, losing periodic battles with parent groups and to the war on drugs. But the arguments against weed have lost steam, and public opinion has shifted; about 6 percent of Americans use the drug, including one-third of the nation’s high school seniors. How Muriel Bowser won D.C. View Graphic Unlike the arguments about health concerns elsewhere, the legalization debate in the District became fused with weighty issues of civil rights after a series of studies during the past year showed wide disparities in drug arrests: Eighty-eight percent of people convicted of marijuana possession in the city in recent years were black, even as surveys have shown that whites and blacks are equally likely to use the drug. “The population in the District is certainly different from that in Colorado and Washington state. Here, this has been cast as a racial-justice issue,” said Malik Burnett, a doctor who delayed practicing to organize support for the measure. “This is huge. We’re talking about ending the prohibition of marijuana as a manifestation of the war on drugs, in the birthplace of the war on drugs: Washington, D.C.” Adam Eidinger, who is a longtime advocate for legalization in the District and who spent $20,000 of his own money to help put the measure on the ballot, said he was thrilled and confident that any pushback from Congress could eventually be overcome. “This sends a message to the nation that people are finally ready for change,” he said. “If your job is over at 5 o’clock and you want to have cannabis instead of a glass of scotch, so be it.” Realtor Tom Bryant, 50, who cast a ballot at the Georgetown public library, said he voted yes because he thinks it is “ridiculous for people to go to jail” for a small amount of pot. Katie Holloran, a 37-year-old teacher, said she, too, voted in favor of legalization: “I guess I’ve really never understood why it’s different from something like alcohol.” Not everyone agreed. Alizonia Leach, who voted Tuesday at Watkins Elementary School, said she had no doubts: “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no,” she said. “Marijuana is not good for anybody.” This summer, the District joined 17 states that have decriminalized marijuana. Members of the D.C. Council and Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) said they were moved by studies that showed the District’s marijuana-arrest rate was higher than any of the 50 states and ranked seventh nationally among a study of 1,000 counties analyzed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Local election results Such studies also helped fuel a complete reversal in public opinion during the past four years among the District’s black residents, who now account for half the city’s population. According to Washington Post polls this year, roughly 56 percent of likely African American voters said they planned to back legalization. Four years ago, 37 percent were in favor and 55 percent opposed, with many saying they feared greater access could lead to addiction among black youths. The D.C. Council measure in March that decriminalized marijuana took a first step toward legalization. It stripped away jail time for possession and made it a $25 fine — cheaper than most city parking tickets — and the lowest fine outside of Colorado, Washington state or Alaska. Penalties for public consumption also were lowered to that of carrying an open container of alcohol, punishable by up to 60 days in jail. But on the District’s iconic federal land, including the Mall, the monuments and streets surrounding the White House, possession remains a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail. The District also is home to federal agencies charged with enforcing U.S. drug laws, which still designate marijuana in a class of the most dangerous drugs, worse than cocaine and viewed equal only to the likes of heroin in terms of how addictive they are. Full legalization of marijuana would set up a conflict with federal law enforcement agencies and Congress. Even advocates of legalization say they can barely imagine a day when the District would resemble Denver, with a proliferation of shops selling marijuana by the bag, in joints or in foods such as cookies or brownies. Advocates testified at a hearing last week that, given the necessary congressional review and time needed for the D.C. Council to decide how sales would work, the earliest marijuana could be legally purchased in the District would be in early 2016. Less clear is how Congress will react. After D.C. voters passed a measure allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in 1998, Republicans used amendments to federal budget bills for 11 years to keep the District from enacting the law. Aaron Davis covers D.C. government and politics for The Post and wants to hear your story about how D.C. works — or how it doesn’t.
Recreational pot - Yes in Oregon & Washington, D.C. - Maybe in Alaska Voters pass wage hikes, legal pot; divide on abortion http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/04/states-referendum-initiatives-marijuana-abortion/18350783/ Voters pass wage hikes, legal pot; divide on abortion Greg Toppo and Laura Mandaro 11:22 a.m. EST November 5, 2014 Voters on ballot initiatives in 41 states gave a resounding thumbs-up to recreational marijuana and higher minimum wages, while dividing on abortion-related measures and GMO labeling. Scores of measures that thickened ballot booklets from Alaska to Florida included a ban on bear baiting (overturned), immigrants IDs (rejected) and gun background checks (approved). ABORTION In Colorado, voters rejected a proposal to add "unborn human beings" to the state's criminal code, a measure that some feared could ban abortion. And in North Dakota, voters rejected a "right-to-life" state constitutional amendment that abortion rights advocates feared would have ended legal abortions there. The North Dakota measure would have declared "the inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development must be recognized and protected." But Tennessee approved an amendment that will give more power to state lawmakers to regulate and restrict abortion, adding language to the Tennessee constitution that reads, in part: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion," even in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother. Tennessee voters backed Amendment 1 by a solid margin. The measure gives state lawmakers more power to restrict and regulate abortions. VPC MARIJUANA Voters in Florida rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana for the relief of chronic pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with eight major diseases. Oregon voters did approve a measure, modeled on Washington state's, that allow adults to buy marijuana for recreational use. A household can have up to 8 ounces of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants; consumption is banned in public. Alaska also looked likely to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Advocates for the measure were holding a slim lead with nearly two-thirds of the state's precincts reporting. USA TODAY Where America landed on marijuana And in Washington, D.C., city residents overwhelmingly approved a measure that will allow people to possess up to 2 oz. of marijuana and cultivate up to six plants at home without legal penalties. But the D.C. law faces a strange restriction, as pot still remains illegal in the one-fourth of the city that sits on federal land — federal law still bans marijuana possession. And Congress could step in and overrule any new measure. MINIMUM WAGE, GMOS, BEARS Other issues on the ballot Tuesday night: • In Oregon, voters rejected a measure permitting four-year driver's cards to those who cannot prove their legal status in the United States. Supporters said the bill would keep the streets safer by forcing people to learn the rules of the road and get insurance. The measure was aimed mainly at Oregon's tens of thousands of immigrants who are in the country illegally. The Pew Hispanic Center says about 160,000 immigrants living in Oregon entered the country illegally. USA TODAY Berkeley, Calif. likely 1st U.S. city to pass soda tax • In Arkansas, Alaska, South Dakota and Nebraska, voters approved hiking the minimum wage. Voters in Illinois approved a non-binding ballot question on raising the minimum wage. • Voters in Colorado rejected mandated labels for genetically modified foods; a similar measure in Oregon was too close to call. • In Maine, voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have banned sportsmen from hunting bears with the use of bait, dogs and traps. A fierce debate on hunting methods has raged there for months, frequently pitting hunters against animal rights advocates. The bait used is typically sugary human food such as doughnuts. Maine's bear population of 30,000 is up about 30% from 10 years ago, and state wildlife officials have said the hunting methods are needed to control the population. • In Washington state, voters passed a measure expanding background checks on gun sales and transfers. • Voters also cast votes on casino gambling in California, South Dakota, Kansas, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Contributing: AP
Our elected officials tell us that in America everybody is treated equally by the government, but this article seems to say that is a big lie. According to this article if you have an extra $85 in your wallet the TSA and Homeland Security thugs at the airport will give you special treatment. I guess when it comes to abusing people the TSA is not an equal opportunity abuser!!!! http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/11/04/tsa-airport-executives-john-pistole-aaae/18453109/ TSA chief says popular Pre-check will expand next year Bart Jansen, USA TODAY 1:21 p.m. EST November 4, 2014 ARLINGTON, Va. – The head of the Transportation Security Administration voiced confidence Tuesday in Pre-check to scrutinize the riskiest travelers the most, but he said the key to longevity for the program is whether there is criticism after another potential terrorist attack. TSA Administrator John Pistole told an American Association of Airport Executives conference that risk-based security would continue after his retirement effective Dec. 31, to deal with changing threats such as non-metallic explosives and foreign terrorists. "It just makes sense to keep doing this," Pistole said. "Everybody believes it's the right thing to do, to buy down risk." The most prominent aspect of the strategy is expedited screening called Pre-check, which began in October 2011. Travelers in airline loyalty programs, airline crew members, members of the military, young and old travelers are each allowed to keep their shoes and jackets on at checkpoints, and leave laptops and small containers of liquids in their carry-on bags. Now travelers can pay $85 for five years to apply for Pre-check and a total of 675,000 people belong. But after meeting with dozens of contractors in October, Pistole said the program will expand next year to privately recruit millions more participants. "We can look at these people in a different light because we know more about them," Pistole said. "This is the way to expand the number of people who are trusted." Focusing on greater threats allowed TSA to reduce its budget $500 million a year from three years ago, with a 7% reduction in security officers and a reduction to 81 from 120 security directors that work with airports, Pistole said. "We're a leaner, more efficient organization," Pistole said. But he said the open question will be whether there is criticism of risk-based security, if there is another terrorist attack. "The challenge is, if there is an attack – something bad happens – is everyone going to run for cover?" Pistole said. "People could say, 'That TSA Pre-check, that's gone too far.' That would be an important challenge in sustaining and continuing (risk-based security) initiatives." Pistole has served more than four years atop the agency created in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, that screens travelers and luggage at airports. He was previously a 26-year veteran of the FBI. Pistole is leaving the federal government to lead Anderson University, a private Christian college in Indiana, where the board of trustees voted Oct. 27 to name him president-elect. Saturday was the first anniversary of the shooting death of TSA Officer Gerardo Hernandez at Los Angeles International Airport. Pistole said during the past year, the TSA has fixed alarms that didn't work at checkpoints and trained to shorten response times. Keeping aware of exit routes is important if a shooting erupts, he said. "We learned a lot from that," Pistole said. "We cannot protect against all bad things." In response to questions from AAAE CEO Todd Hauptli, Pistole said one his biggest frustrations is the growing number of guns found at airport checkpoints. TSA detected 1,928 so far this year and is on pace to break the record set last year of 1,956, he said. None of those travelers was on a terrorist watch list, Pistole said. "It's a distraction from our primary mission," he said.
Personally I think our sadistic government rulers enjoy murdering people who have been sentenced to death using cruel sadistic methods. If they really wanted to there are a number of drugs that the government could use to kill people and at the same time murder them in a way that gives them a peaceful, non-violent death. I suspect that any of the opiate drugs could be used by the government to murder people, while at the same time murdering them in a peaceful way that doesn't cause them pain. Of course I am against the death penalty because innocent people have been executed in the past and innocent people will be executed in the future. http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/11/04/brittany-maynard-suicide/18484883/ Can Brittany's drugs be used in executions? John Freels 4:08 p.m. MST November 4, 2014 Brittany Maynard, 29, ended her life with dignity in Oregon. Why isn't the same prescription drug used for the Arizona death penalty instead of the controversial drug protocol? — John Freels, Coolidge
Don't pee on the palace??? Personally I think taking a whiz on the King's Palace is a great way for you to show the King how much you respect his government!!!! The only way you could show more respect for royalty is by bringing in a few of those guillotines that the French use to show respect towards French royalty. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/weird/2014/11/05/dutch-palace-peeing/18529053/ Quit urinating on the palace, public told Associated Press 8:56 a.m. MST November 5, 2014 AMSTERDAM — If you're caught short on Amsterdam's historic Dam Square, the Dutch government has a message for you: Don't pee on the palace. The Dutch royal family uses the stately Royal Palace in downtown Amsterdam as a working palace, not a residence. But the building's dark arches provide a favored spot for urination, often at night, out of sight of police who regularly patrol the palace vicinity. After a multimillion-euro renovation ended in late 2011, people began urinating against the palace's sandstone facade. That prompted authorities to put up a fence. But the Interior Ministry on Wednesday called the fence "unworthy" of the historic location. It is now installing lights and movement sensors to deter people from relieving themselves. The government also warned that peeing in public is punishable by a 140-euro ($175) fine. If those measures don't work, authorities are considering installing a urinal near the palace that rises out of the ground at night and sinks back below the sidewalk during the day. Other possible moves include a raised set of steps featuring a "pop-up" fence or fine mesh screens to block off access to the arches after dark.
Man, 90, among 3 arrested for feeding homeless Don't these PIGS have any real criminals to hunt down??? And YES, this is why we call the police PIGS. If this is all the PIGS have to do they should be all fired. We don't need them!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/05/feeding-homeless-arrests/18529709/ Man, 90, among 3 arrested for feeding homeless Associated Press 9:11 a.m. MST November 5, 2014 Arnold Abbott FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Police in Florida arrested two pastors and a 90-year-old man who were feeding the homeless, saying they violated a new ordinance in Fort Lauderdale that essentially bans public food sharing. South Florida television station WPLG (http://bit.ly/1qpgywd ) reports homeless advocate Arnold Abbott and ministers Dwayne Black and Mark Sims were arrested Sunday. They face up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. The ordinance took effect Friday. Abbot runs a nonprofit group called Love Thy Neighbor, Inc. He says he was feeding the homeless in a park when a police officer told him to "drop that plate right now." Black pastors The Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale. Sims is pastor of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs. Abbott says he won't stop and plans to bring food for the homeless Wednesday. http://www.local10.com/news/police-charge-90yearold-man-2-pastors-with-feeding-the-homeless/29510268 Police charge 90-year-old man, 2 pastors with feeding homeless Author: Bob Norman, Reporter, bnorman@Local10.com Published On: Nov 03 2014 06:27:49 PM EST FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - Fort Lauderdale police charged three men -- including two pastors and a 90-year-old man -- for feeding the homeless in public on Sunday, the first such cases made by the city after the a new ordinance effectively banning public food sharings took effect Friday. The first to be charged was homeless advocate Arnold Abbott, 90, who has been feeding the homeless in Fort Lauderdale for more than 20 years. Also cited were two Christian ministers -- Dwayne Black, pastor of The Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale, and Mark Sims of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs. All three men face up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. "One of the police officers said, 'Drop that plate right now,' as if I were carrying a weapon," said Abbott, who runs a nonprofit group called Love Thy Neighbor, Inc. "It's man's inhumanity to man is all it is." In 1999, the city tried to stop Abbott from feeding the homeless on Fort Lauderdale Beach, prompting a lawsuit from Abbott, which he won. Now he said he will fight the municipal ordinance charge and be forced to take the city back to court. "I’m going to have to go to court again and sue the city of Fort Lauderdale -- a beautiful city," said Abbott. "These are the poorest of the poor, they have nothing, they don't have a roof over their heads. How do you turn them away?" Abbott said he won't turn them away and is planning to bring food to the beach this Wednesday evening with the expectation that he may be hit with another charge. "I don't do things to purposefully aggravate the situation," said Abbott. "I'm trying to work with the city. Any human has the right to help his fellow man."
I wonder was this another one of Ernie Hancocks publicity stunts that blew up in his face??? I support the 2nd Amendment 100%, but a lot of Ernie Hancock's publicity stunts blow up in his face making Libertarians look like idiots. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/11/05/charges-dropped-man-brought-gun-sky-harbor-abrk/18515491/ Charges dropped for man who brought gun to Sky Harbor He will be required to complete a gun safety course and is not allowed to open carry at the airport. Agnel Philip, The Republic | azcentral.com 7:35 a.m. MST November 5, 2014 The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has agreed not to pursue criminal charges against a man who carried an AR-15 rifle into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in July as long as he meets certain requirements, records show. Peter Steinmetz, a director at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, had been facing two counts of disorderly conduct. After signing a "pre-indictment resolution offer" on Tuesday, Steinmetz told 12 News that the deal was a victory for gun-rights advocates. "I certainly didn't intend to commit a crime; I did not commit a crime," Steinmetz said. "I think the important point that was made is that, in fact, as Americans, we have a non-infringeable right to keep and bear arms and that you can legally do so at Sky Harbor Airport." The agreement stipulates that Steinmetz must complete NRA-certified courses by the end of March 2015 and refrain from openly carrying a firearm in any of the Valley's major airports for the next two years, although he may carry a concealed firearm. He is also required to make a $500 donation to the Rio Salado Sportsman's Club Youth Program. In the agreement signed by Steinmetz, his attorney and Deputy County Attorney Keith D. Manning, prosecutors also reserved the right to file criminal charges if Steinmetz "violates any term or condition of this agreement." Steinmetz received national attention in July after walking around Sky Harbor with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder during a self-described coffee run. While bringing the gun to the airport is not illegal, Steinmetz was arrested on suspicion of two counts of disorderly conduct after the gun's muzzle reportedly faced toward a frightened woman and her daughter, according to Phoenix police. Barrow put Steinmetz on a brief administrative leave, having returned to work a week later, he said Tuesday. Steinmetz said his trip to the airport was peaceful until the police decided to arrest him and that few people noticed he had a gun as he walked through one of the airport's busiest terminals. Marc Victor, Steinmetz's lawyer, said the county attorney's decision validated his client's actions and proved that he never broke the law. "To charge him with a crime when he didn't commit a crime would be outrageous," Victor said. "And so it's a fair and reasonable result because it doesn't put any kind of requirements that are onerous on my client." Victor said airport surveillance video shows that Steinmetz was carrying his gun peacefully and legally. "He didn't go there with the intent of disturbing anybody's peace," Victor said. "He wasn't aware of disturbing anybody's peace. And he never recklessly displayed a firearm." Steinmetz said he did not expect the media attention that came with his actions, but he doesn't regret what he did. "I think it was a worthwhile endeavor, and I think it has made the point fairly powerful," Steinmetz said.
Don't these pigs have any REAL criminals to hunt down???? Personally I don't consider consensual sex between two people to be a crime. But in this case they didn't even have sex!!!!! Why are we paying cops to arrest people for victimless crimes like this???? Even worse why are we wasting out tax dollars putting harmless people like this in prison. Oh well, I guess this isn't any more stupid then arresting people for victimless drug war crimes. Or wasting our tax dollars sending people who commit victimless drug war crimes to prison. http://eastvalleytribune.com/local/tempe/article_b7a3cba8-6166-11e4-975b-af78c8677a82.html Tempe High teacher pleads guilty to attempted sexual conduct Posted: Sunday, November 2, 2014 3:15 am By Kaitlyn Thompson, Special to Tribune Former Tempe High School teacher Joel Calderon has plead guilty to three counts of attempted sexual conduct. Calderon entered his plea on Oct. 16 approximately a year after he was charged with six counts of sexual conduct with a minor. Calderon will receive sentencing on Dec. 5, according to court documents. Sexual conduct with a minor is considered a Class 6 felony in the state of Arizona, and Calderon will face a minim of a year and a half in prison. Calderon, 27, was a student teacher at Tempe High School last August when he met the unidentified 16-year-old victim. He was assigned as a student teacher through Arizona State University’s educational program, according to a police report. The 16-year-old student was in a class that was under observation by Calderon and sent him a friend request on Facebook. Calderon and the victim eventually began to text each other and referred to themselves as boyfriend and girlfriend. A tip sent to the Tempe Police Department led to interviews with Calderon and the victim, in which Calderon admitted to having make out sessions with the victim and feeling up her breasts above her clothes. The victim, however, stated that he had placed his hand inside of her underwear and touched her in a sexual manner. The victim said she never touched Calderon other than to give him hickeys and kisses. While the victim claims that Calderon did not have sex with her, she explains that Calderon was intimate with her “mouth wise,” saying that he performed oral sex on her. Calderon later confirmed to officers that he had felt the victim’s breasts, clitoris and had performed oral sex on her twice. The officers proceeded to place Calderon under arrest on six counts of sexual conduct with a minor and proceeded to get a search warrant on his home. Calderon had admitted to searching the term “statutory rape” on his lap top in order to look at what charges he may face. • Kaitlyn Thompson, a junior at Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, is an intern for GetOut. Contact her at (480) 898-6514 or tribintern@evtrib.com.
Using a cellphone while voting, Can you get arrested for it? A Guide To Not Getting Arrested When You Use Your Cell Phone On Election Day (apparently not in NY) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/photo-polling-place_n_6095746.html?utm_hp_ref=politics WASHINGTON -- Aaron Huertas wanted to make sure he picked the right candidates when he walked into the voting booth Wednesday, taking advantage of the early voting period in Washington, D.C. When he came down to the end of the ballot, he pulled out his phone to confirm the name of the Board of Education candidate he wanted to back. "A poll worker told me voters aren't allowed to use smartphones at the booth," he said. "Seemed odd to me. She was a bit brusque about it, so I didn't ... ask why." Jenna Lowenstein was also stopped when she tried to take a picture of her ballot in 2008. She was running for an Advisory Neighborhood Commission position in D.C. at the time, and wanted to send her parents a photo of her name in print. A poll worker, however, made her delete the picture. One of the reporters on this story also tried to take a picture of her polling place during a recent election -- for no other reason than to post on Instagram to share with her friends -- and was made to delete it by a polling worker. She was then told to leave the premises. Increasingly, there's a good chance that if you're on social media, your friends will post -- or try to post -- a photo of themselves doing their civic duty. But in some places, they could go to jail for doing so. And in other places, where there isn't actually any law prohibiting the practice, they may be barred from doing so anyway by state officials. The restrictions aim to prevent voter intimidation or voting bribery, both practices that are prohibited under federal law. But the state policies becomes more gray when a photographer isn’t participating in those activities. Election law on what's allowed at polling places has not kept up to reflect the ubiquity of smartphones. Instead, secretaries of state and other officials are left interpreting outdated statutes and creating policies that are often unevenly applied and confusing for ordinary voters to figure out. They not only vary from state to state, but also from precinct to precinct. In Washington, D.C., for example, there is no law saying that Lowenstein couldn't take a picture of her ballot. The D.C. Board of Elections, however, has a policy against it and puts up signs saying cell phones aren't allowed, which also explains why Huertas wasn't able to check his device when voting. There's no real penalty if you break the rule, except being told to stop what you're doing and the ensuing frustration. Indeed on Saturday, the last day of early voting in D.C., voters standing in line at a polling place in the upper northwest portion of the city were told by a worker to put away their phones while they waited to cast a ballot. They did so, grudgingly, with one woman asking why. "A number of reasons," the poll worker explained, eventually mentioning the "privacy of voters" and noting that cell phones usually have cameras these days. New Hampshire implemented a law this year that makes it illegal to share a photo of your own ballot, with a fine up to $1,000. The American Civil Liberties Union is nowchallenging that law, on the basis that it violates freedom of speech. But in fact, many states ban sharing your ballot, even if they don’t specify that the law extends to Twitter. Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, told The Huffington Post that while there is no specific law against taking a photo of your own ballot in the state, "We advise voters not to take pictures of their completed ballots, let alone post them Facebook or Twitter." That’s because under Wisconsin’s election fraud law, it is a class 1 felony to intentionally show your marked ballot to another person. Magney said that people still do photograph and share pictures of their completed ballots, and he is not aware of anyone having been prosecuted by a district attorney. Andy Sellars, a fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, put together a chart in 2012 showing which states have laws that actually prohibit taking photos of ballots or polling places. In short, very few do. "We should have clarity here," said Sellars. "The danger when you have an ambiguous law in the states is it could be used for oppressive or unbalanced ends." Most of the rules that do exist were put in place with the best of intentions, meant as measures to preserve the integrity of the voting process. Preventing the photographing of ballots, officials argue, maintains ballot secrecy and discourages vote-buying schemes, where a voter can take a photo of a marked ballot to prove he or she cast the right vote in order to get the payday. "I certainly think it's a good thing to prohibit photographing ballots (including absentee ballots)," said University of Florida political scientist Daniel Smith. "If voters are able to photograph their ballots, they have a greater likelihood of being compensated for their vote, as it allows them to provide documentary proof to ballot brokers, or bolleteros as they are known in south Florida." Officials also want to avoid a scenario where so-called "poll watchers" stand and take pictures to intimidate voters from turning out. Deval Patrick, now the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, wrote to the Mississippi secretary of state in 1994 about the issue. At the time, Patrick was assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. The Justice Department's lawyers, Patrick wrote, believed that "the actions of white people in videotaping black voters at or near the polls could constitute a violation" of the Voting Rights Act, calling them "thinly veiled attempts to intimidate black voters at the polls." Banning photography does raise some First Amendment concerns, said David Greene, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that defends civil liberties and free speech. He noted that after the Supreme Court ruled in Burson v. Freeman that a 100-foot buffer zone for campaigning did not restrict free speech, many legislatures took that decision to mean that it was permissible to restrict First Amendment rights on some level around polling places. Greene added that while it’s one thing to make sure people are not pressured while voting, it’s another to forbid them from photographing their ballots, when they can go tell their friends how they voted anyway. "I don’t think you should be able to restrict that type of stuff," he said. But Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit which defends privacy and free speech, said that forbidding tweeting a photo of your own ballot is "actually a good restriction from a voting fairness perspective." "I imagine it's tempting to show others how you voted, but it is contrary to a theory of democratic government that recognizes the need to safeguard votes for unpopular candidates," he added. Jerald Lentini, general counsel at the Bulldog Finance Group, which raises money for campaigns, said a good reason to change the laws on technology at the polls may simply be that they're already being "regularly broken by people who simply don't know that they're committing a crime." "I don't know of any prosecutions for posting images of a ballot online, but I see people on Facebook doing it every single election. A lot of voters are very proud to cast ballots, especially when they feel strongly about a particular race, and they want to share that pride with their friends online," he said. There's also the issue of possible malfeasance. While reporters are often -- but not always -- granted special permission to record and photograph at polling locations, more citizen journalists are now capturing events and sharing them online. Sellars said barring the public from being able to share problems on social media could be harmful. "Obviously if there's a problem with how a polling station is conducting the election, that is an important thing for us to know very early or after an election," he said. Penalties in states where there are laws prohibiting photographs at the ballot box range from misdemeanors to Wisconsin's class 1 felony. In places where the law is less explicit, violators will usually just be told to delete the picture and/or asked to leave. But the law isn't always enforced. Suzanne, who asked that her last name not be used, voted in northern Virginia in 2011. She brought her son, who was then four months old, with her, and a polling worker agreed to take a picture of her with her "I Voted" sticker next to the optical scanner. Virginia, however, does not allow polling place photography. In Louisiana, the state election code specifies that no one, including a voter, can "allow a ballot to be seen" by others. Violating this provision could result in a fine up to $500 and/or up to six months in jail. But Meg Casper, the press secretary for Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R), acknowledged that this law has not kept up with changing technology. "Obviously, this law was written before the age of social media, so we do receive many reports of individuals posting their ballots on Facebook, Twitter, etc.," she said. "Our response has been to remind voters that their vote is private." Below are the laws and policies on taking photos in polling places in each state, based on the statutes and the responses received by The Huffington Post from government officials. These are rules that apply to regular voters, not reporters, who often have additional privileges. We marked a practice as "banned" whether it's prohibited by state law or by election officials. In some cases, a state may allow photographing a blank ballot but not a completed one. In those cases, we still marked the law as banning ballot photography. Finally, if you’re intimidating voters or engaging in vote bribery, it’s safe to say that you’re going to get in trouble no matter what. Alabama: Alabama's policy is confusing, stating, "All citizens are allowed to photograph or videotape general election activities in a polling place as long as they remain 30 feet outside a polling place and do not photograph an elector marking their ballot." When asked how a voter could both be "in a polling place" and "30 feet outside a polling place" at the same time, Alabama Secretary of State spokesman Will Sutton explained, "I believe they mean citizens can take pictures as long as they remain 30 feet outside a polling place and do not photograph an elector marking their ballot." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Alaska: State law says a "voter may not exhibit the voter’s ballot to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Arizona: According to the Arizona secretary of state's office, photography and videography are prohibited within the polling place and for an additional 75 feet. Breaking this rule is a class 2 misdemeanor. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Arkansas: Arkansas state code says that "any ... person in or out of this state in any primary, general, or special election in this state" cannot "divulge to any person the results of any votes cast for any candidate or on any issue in the election until after the closing of the polls on the day of the election." It's not clear, however, if this rule would apply specifically to individuals attempting to take photographs of their own ballots, and the Arkansas secretary of state's office did not return requests for comment. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography may be allowed. California: A 2012 secretary of state memo stated that the office "has historically taken the position that the use of cameras or video equipment at polling places is prohibited," with exceptions for media. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Colorado: Voters are not allowed to show how they voted, so an unmarked ballot may be allowed. There's no statewide rule on taking photos in polling places, though the Colorado secretary of state's office notes that some county clerks may bar voters from bringing cell phones or cameras into the polling place.Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, although some counties may ban cell phone use. Connecticut: State law criminalizes "any act which invades or interferes with the secrecy of the voting or causes the same to be invaded or interfered with," but it's not clear if this would apply to a voter photographing his or her own ballot. Connecticut officials did not return requests for comment. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography unclear. Delaware: According to the Delaware Elections Commissioner Elaine Manlove, "[V]oters are not allowed to use cameras or phones in the polling place." Since it's a policy, not a law, there's no real penalty for breaking the rule, other than getting reprimanded. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. District of Columbia: Cell phones are barred at polling locations in the District. There's no penalty for breaking the rule, other than being asked to stop.Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Florida: State law says, "No photography is permitted in the polling room or early voting area." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Georgia: Georgia law states, "No elector shall use photographic or other electronic monitoring or recording devices or cellular telephones while such elector is within the enclosed space in a polling place." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Hawaii: Rex Quidilla, spokesman for the state Office of Elections, said there is an administrative ban on photography in polling places. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Idaho: The secretary of state's office instructs poll workers that with the exception of the media, photography is not allowed in polling places. There's no penalty, however, if the rule is broken. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Illinois: According to state election code, voters are not allowed to take pictures of their marked ballots and show them to other people. Doing so could result in a class 4 felony. Bernadette Harrington, legal counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said that there is no specific prohibition on photography in a polling place, although taking a photo of another person's marked ballot is barred.Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Indiana: Taking a photo of a ballot and showing it to someone else -- including on social media -- is a level 6 felony in the state of Indiana. Trent Deckard, co-director of the Indiana Election Division, said there technically is no state prohibition on photography in polling places, but that could vary depending on the polling location. "We have an issue where a county elections board will adopt a policy asking people to silence their phones while they come in. There's no law on that," he said. "But then people will take that, at the precinct level, to 'don't use your phone at all.' And so they will creep a little bit further." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, although voters may still be told to put away their phones. Iowa: State law prohibits cameras and cell phones in the voting booth. The penalty is a misdemeanor violation. But according to Chance McElhaney, spokesman for the Iowa secretary of state, there's no prohibition on taking photos in the polling place "as long as it is not intimidating or showing the way a person marked their ballot." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Kansas: According to V. Kay Kurtis, spokeswoman for the Kansas secretary of state, "Kansas laws don’t mention Facebook or even photography. Our office has discouraged taking pictures of ballots and posting them on the web, but we’ve been unable to prohibit or completely prevent it. We do think many people refrain from doing it if they know it’s discouraged by our office." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Kentucky: State law bars people from using a "paper, telephone, personal telecommunications device, computer, or other information technology system to create a checkoff list or record the identity of voters." While the law doesn't specifically address using cell phones for other purposes, in 2008, then-Secretary of State Trey Grayson (D) said voters were not allowed to bring cameras and recording devices into polling places. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Louisiana: State law says people cannot "allow a ballot to be seen," resulting in a fine of no more than $500 or jail for no more than six months, or both. "Obviously, this law was written before the age of social media, so we do receive many reports of individuals posting their ballots on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Our response has been to remind voters that their vote is private," said Meg Casper, press secretary for the secretary of state. Photography at polling places doesn't appear to be banned, but it cannot be done in a way that affects or interferes with the voting process. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Maine: Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn said, "Ballots are not public documents, so voters should not be taking copies or pics and posting their ballots. We have not prosecuted anyone for this, but this is like putting a distinguishing mark on your ballot so that a party or candidate will know how you voted (harkens back to the days when the political machine would pay people for voting for their candidates). People should be discouraged from doing this." She did not comment on photography in polling places generally. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography may be allowed. Maryland: Maryland regulations ban the use of electronic communication devices, including cameras and cell phones, inside polling locations. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Massachusetts: State law bans voters from sharing a marked ballot, with a penalty of jail for no more than six months or a fine of no more than $100.Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Michigan: According to a recent press release from the Michigan secretary of state's office, "The use of video cameras, still cameras and other recording devices are prohibited in the polls when they are open for voting. This includes still cameras and other recording features built into many cell phones. ... Photos of ballots should not be posted on social media. Additionally, under Michigan election law, a ballot is rejected if deliberately exposed. A voter who deliberately exposes their ballot will not be allowed to vote in that election." Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Minnesota: Nathan Bowie, a spokesman for the Minnesota Secretary of State, said that while there is no law that specifically prohibits voters from recording their own voting experience, the office "strongly discourages voters from using cameras or video recorders in the polling place." Bowie cited voter privacy issues and the fact that taking extra time to Instagram could hold up the voting process for others. State law also prohibits voters from showing their marked ballot to others. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography not technically banned, but it is discouraged. Mississippi: Mississippi does not allow voters to show marked ballots, but it's unclear whether photos can be taken in polling places. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography unclear. Missouri: Missouri law bars a voter from showing a ballot to others "with the intent of letting it be known how he is about to vote or has voted." So in theory, putting up a photo on Instagram of a totally blank ballot, with no other information, would be allowed. Breaking the state rule comes with a class 4 misdemeanor. There's nothing in state law that bars voters from taking a picture in a polling place, although since some locations are private property (e.g. a church), the people running the operation could prohibit photos. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, but may be up to the discretion of the polling workers. Montana: According to the secretary of state’s office, Montana law does not specifically prohibit taking pictures of a polling place or a ballot. However, election officials can limit any activity that may be disruptive to the voting process. Additionally, photos of marked ballots are discouraged, because Montana law states that an elector may not show the contents of the elector’s ballot to anyone after it is marked. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Nebraska: In Nebraska, under no conditions is a non-media person allowed to take photos inside a polling place building, including of a ballot, according to the secretary of state’s office. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Nevada: Under Nevada law, “A member of the general public shall not photograph the conduct of voting at a polling place or record the conduct of voting on audiotape or any other means of sound or video reproduction.” Violating the secrecy of a voter’s ballot through photography is also prohibited.Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. New Hampshire: According to the secretary of state’s office, it is legal for a non-media person to take a photo inside a polling place, provided the photographer does not try to capture how another person has voted and does not try to capture what another voter is entering on a registration form. However, there is a law specifically barring a person from sharing a digital image of how he or she voted, with a fine up to $1,000. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. New Jersey: According to the Digital Media Law Project, it is “unclear whether a citizen recording inside the polling place would qualify as ‘expressive activity’ subject to [the Supreme Court] ban.” New Jersey election officials did not respond to clarify. Verdict: Ballot photography is banned. Polling place photography allowed, but policies are unclear. New Mexico: State law does not appear to ban photography inside polling places or of ballots, but election officials did not respond to clarify. Verdict: Policies unclear. Ballot photography may be allowed. Polling place photography may be allowed. New York: There is no law against photographing inside polling places, but according to the New York State Board of Elections, causing a commotion could get you kicked out. John Conklin, a spokesman for the Board of Elections, said people are encouraged to take photos of their ballots before, but not after, voting.Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed. North Carolina: Under North Carolina law, “No person shall photograph, videotape, or otherwise record the image of any voter within the voting enclosure, except with the permission of both the voter and the chief judge of the precinct.” Ballot photos are also prohibited. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. North Dakota: According to the secretary of state’s office, photography inside a polling place is allowed, and there is no law against taking a picture of your own ballot. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed. Ohio: In Ohio, voters may not use devices to take photographs inside a polling place, according to the secretary of state’s office. The penalties for breaking this rule are unclear. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Oklahoma: According to the Oklahoma State Election Board, there is no law restricting photography inside a polling place, but sharing your ballot while you're voting is banned. So, the board recommends that you don’t photograph your marked ballot. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Oregon: According to the secretary of state’s office, it is legal to take photos inside a polling place. Additionally, “elections officials can't show you a ballot for a photo, but an individual can.” Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania law bans voters from showing a "ballot or the face of the voting machine voted by him to be seen by any person with the apparent intention of letting it be known how he is about to vote.” Those who break the law are subject to a fine up to $1,000, a maximum 12-month jail sentence, or both. The law does not specify whether photography inside polling places is banned, and election officials did not respond to clarify. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, but policies are unclear. Rhode Island: According to the rules established by the Rhode Island Board of Elections, “Electronic recording of the election process is allowed inside the polling place as long as it is done outside of the railed or enclosed voting area. Electronic recording devices may not hinder the election process or compromise a voter's right to cast a secret ballot by recording the specific votes(s) cast by any person." Under the rules, a moderator may remove or arrest a person who disturbs voting. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. South Carolina: In South Carolina, there are no laws against taking photographs inside a polling place. But a spokesperson for the state’s Election Commission said that people can take photos only as long as they “don’t get too close to the machines,” and that poll workers still may tell people to turn their cell phones off. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed, but do it without turning your cell phone on? South Dakota: Under South Dakota law, “No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place ... use any communication or photographic device.” The penalty is a class 2 misdemeanor.Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Tennessee: Tennessee law does not say that photographing ballots or inside polling places is prohibited, but election officials did not respond to clarify policies. Photograph at your own risk. Verdict: Official policies are unclear. Ballot photography may be allowed. Polling place photography may be allowed. Texas: Texas law prohibits photography within 100 feet of a polling place. A person who violates this law may be asked “to turn off the device or to leave the polling place.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Utah: It is legal for any person in Utah to take a photo inside a polling place or of an unmarked ballot, according to the lieutenant governor's elections staff. However, under state law, it is illegal for a voter to allow his or her ballot to be seen by any other person with an intent to reveal the vote, subject to a class C misdemeanor. Verdict: Ballot photography banned, but sharing the photo could get you in trouble. Polling place photography allowed. Vermont: There is no law in Vermont expressly prohibiting a person from taking a photo of a ballot or while inside a polling place, according to the secretary of state’s office. However, there is a law that allows a $1,000 fine for a voter who “allows his ballot to be seen by another person with an apparent intention of letting it be known how he or she is about to vote.” Verdict: Ballot photography allowed, but sharing the photo of your marked ballot could get you in trouble. Polling place photography allowed. Virginia: Under Virginia law, it is forbidden to take photos in a polling place or of a ballot. The penalty depends on the offense. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Washington: Washington voters primarily vote by mail. At voting centers where people drop of their ballots, there are no prohibitions against photography, as long as it’s not disruptive. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed. West Virginia: In West Virginia, a person is allowed to take pictures inside the polling place (unless they are disrupting the voting process, at which time a poll worker can tell them to leave), but they cannot take pictures of people actually voting or take pictures of a ballot. Under West Virginia law, entering a voting booth “with an recording or electronic device in order to record or interfere with the voting process” is a misdemeanor subject to a fine up to $1,000, a maximum 12-month jail sentence, or both. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed. Wisconsin: Under the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board’s interpretation of state law, “no voter or observer may use any video or still camera inside the polling place while the polls are open for voting, except for news media.” There is not a specific prohibition on taking a picture of your ballot. However, the board advises voters not to photograph their completed ballots because under Wisconsin’s election fraud law, it is a class I felony to intentionally show your marked ballot to any person. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Seriously, don’t do it. Wyoming: According to the secretary of state, Wyoming has no laws that specifically bar photography inside polling places or of ballots. However, there is a law that says, “Judges of election have the duty and authority to preserve order at the polls by any necessary and suitable means.” Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed. But a judge might decide to kick you out anyway.
If you rely on the government provide your health care you are probably going to get screwed. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/03/obamacare-aca-loopholes-hospital-coverage/18073573/ Feds to require big companies to cover hospitalization Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY 9:07 p.m. EST November 3, 2014 The Obama administration plans to close a loophole in the Affordable Care Act that allows large companies to refuse to cover in-patient hospital stays in any of their health insurance plans, according to an official involved in the internal discussions. The official requested anonymity until the announcement is made because "the guidance that will be issued is not finalized." Health plans for individuals and those working for smaller employers must include coverage within at least 10 categories of "essential health benefits" that include maternity care, prescription drugs and hospitalization.The health care law is much more stringent about what health insurance must cover for these people than it is for those working at large employers. Washington and Lee University law professor Timothy Jost says the employer health insurance mandate is "not well-designed." It is a loophole, he says, that large companies "are not required to cover all of the essential health benefits." To pass the government "minimum value" test, these companies are required to cover only 60% of the value of some of the essential benefits, so they "don't have to necessarily offer every one," says Jost, a supporter of the law and an author of several health law books. Plans that cap the number of hospital visits — or offer no hospital coverage at all — could probably pass the ACA's minimum value test if other coverage is generous enough, says Cori Uccello, senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries. Cori Uccello is senior health fellow at the American Cori Uccello is senior health fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries(Photo: American Academy of Actuaries) Even if they didn't, employers would be allowed to offer these no-hospital-coverage plans, as long as one of their plans meets this "minimum value" test, says health care lawyer Alden Bianchi. Companies with more than 100 employees have to pay about a $3,000-per-employee penalty if they don't offer an affordable health plan next year, and workers who aren't insured have to pay a penalty as well. Both the company and the employee can avoid the penalties with a plan that doesn't cover hospitalization or anything other than preventive services such as physicals as long as one is offered. Many low-wage workers are likely to be attracted by the low premiums these plans have. Bianchi says he has many temp and contract worker agency clients who are investigating and adopting plans that don't offer hospital benefits. Some experts warn that workers may not realize how "skinny" these plans are — until it's too late. Plans that don't cover hospitalization are "preying on vulnerable people who don't have resources," says Brian Klepper, CEO of the National Business Coalition on Health. "The purpose of insurance is to cover the services that most of us cannot afford when we desperately need it." Small businesses can skirt some of the law's mandates by joining together in associations to buy insurance. This allows them to be treated like large employers, which have far fewer health insurance requirements. Employees at these companies might wind up with plans that don't cover the essential health benefits required under the ACA. These plans could discriminate against them based on their age, gender or health status, according to a new report by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. As open enrollment nears for both government exchanges and many employer-provided plans, Uccello says potential loopholes underscore the need for workers to "consider not just the premiums but total out-of-pocket costs, which reflect the generosity of the plan." The ACA prohibits limits on total health care coverage, but plans can have "visit limits," says Kevin Lucia, senior research fellow with the Georgetown Health Policy institute. Tim Jost is a professor at Washington and Lee University Tim Jost is a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law.(Photo: Washington and Lee) "Whenever there's a regulatory structure, there's going to be some gaming taking place to maximize profit," says Lucia, co-author of the Georgetown report, which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "That's where regulators need to step in — to make sure it isn't being done to the detriment of what the ACA is trying to do." Plans with limited benefits, such as those through associations, or that lack hospital benefits are most attractive to companies that employ low-wage workers who can't afford the higher premiums that come with plans with higher levels of benefits. Health care lawyer Nancy Taylor, who represents many restaurant companies, says she doesn't know of any offering plans without hospitalization. Neil Trautwein, vice president of health care policy at the National Retail Federation, says no retailers have acknowledged offering such plans. "People have come in and kicked the tires, but there are not that many early adopters," Trautwein says. "The sense is that it's a loophole that will get closed quickly." Although his benefits company doesn't offer "skinny" plans that don't offer hospitalization, Allen Wishner, CEO of Flexible Benefit Service in Rosemont, Ill., says they could make sense for some people. "Is this serving the greater good? Is this a loophole? I don't know," he says. "Sometimes the regulators just get it wrong." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/04/cms-no-hospital-coverage-loophole-employer-coverage/18455871/ Feds move to close no-hospital coverage loophole Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY 10:06 a.m. EST November 4, 2014 Federal regulators Tuesday announced plans to close a loophole in the Affordable Care Act that allows large employers to offer plans that don't cover in-patient hospital stays. USA TODAY reported Monday that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would do so. To meet the ACA's "minimum value" test, health plans for individuals and those working for smaller employers must include coverage within at least 10 categories of "essential health benefits" that include maternity care, prescription drugs and hospitalization.The health care law is much more stringent about what health insurance must cover for these people than it is for those working at large employers. Plans that cap the number of hospital visits or offer no hospital coverage were believed to pass the ACA's minimum value test if other coverage for doctors and prescription drugs was generous enough. But CMS is proposing that employers have to offer at least one plan that meets the minimum value test. MORE: 'Skinny' plans coverage questioned These plans were expected to appeal most to low-income workers because of lower premiums, but experts warned they could leave them without important coverage when they need it most. The proposed amendments to ACA regulations would take effect in 2015, meaning some employees could still be offered these plans. But the CMS guidance says these employees could still go to the federal or state exchanges and buy plans with subsidies as the plans don't meet the minimum value.
Cellphone kill switches sound real good, until you realized the police can use them against us to shutdown videotaping the police and stop us from using them to coordinate protests against the police. If we are going to have cellphone kill switches they should not be in the hands of the government or the police. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/22/cellphone-kill-switch/17749759/ States, privacy advocates battle over phone 'kill switch' Anjeanette Damon, USA TODAY 9:07 p.m. EDT October 22, 2014 A handful of states are pursuing legislation to require cellphone manufacturers to equip their devices with "kill switch" technology that would allow the phone to be remotely shut down and wiped of its information if it is stolen. Those sponsoring the measures argue the requirement is necessary to combat a surge in cellphone thefts and to protect consumers from having not only their phone but much of their personal information stolen. But the trend is alarming privacy advocates, who say law enforcement agencies can rely on the legislation to remotely shut down phones for public safety reasons, for example, in the event of a violent public demonstration. Such power could be used to rob citizens of the ability to use their phones' camera and recording functions to document police activity or to communicate with one another during a demonstration, they said. USA TODAY Google, Microsoft to add "kill switches" to phones "The idea of this being co-opted as an anti-protest tool is especially disturbing," said Jake Laperruque, a fellow on privacy, surveillance and security at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington, D.C.-based policy organization. Laperruque noted, for example, that police officers targeted protestors and journalists in Ferguson, Mo., ordering them to stop recording. So far, two states, California and Minnesota, have passed legislation requiring manufacturers to equip phones with a kill switch. Both laws take effect next year. California state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, California state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, right, uses a smartphone to snap a photo of Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, left, and Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, at the Capitol Monday, Aug. 11, 2014, By a 27-8 vote the Senate approved a measure that requires that all new smartphones come equipped with a "kill switch," that disables the device if lost or stolen.(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, AP) Two more states are considering legislation: Nevada and New Jersey. In Nevada, the Attorney General's Office is sponsoring the legislation, which will be considered when the Legislature convenes in February. "The point of the bill is to deincentivize the effectiveness of smartphones to thieves," said Deputy Attorney General Laura Tucker. "If a thief knows that if they steal a phone they can be 100% certain it can be wiped remotely, smartphones will be a less attractive target for thieves." Smartphone thefts are on a sharp rise, particularly in large cities, where as many as one in three robberies involve a mobile device, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Cellphone thefts nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013, when 3.1 million phones were stolen, according to Consumer Reports. USA TODAY Minnesota signs first smartphone 'kill switch' law In reaction, the industry has taken its own steps to help deter thefts. "The safety and security of wireless users is the wireless industry's top priority, and we've taken significant actions to provide consumers with the tools and information needed to help deter smartphone theft," said Jamie Hastings, vice president of external affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, in a written statement. "We've rolled out stolen phones databases, consumer education campaigns, anti-theft apps and features and most recently a 'Smartphone Anti-Theft Voluntary Commitment,' which provides a uniform national technology solution at no cost to the consumer." “The point of the bill is to deincentivize the effectiveness of smartphones to thieves. ” Nevada Deputy Attorney General Laura Tucker The association refused an interview on the topic, sending a written statement instead. Given the voluntary steps, Hastings said the industry opposes state-by-state legislation mandating kill switches, which threatens the industry's ability to manufacture a uniform phone for distribution nationally. "State-by-state technology mandates stifle innovation to the ultimate detriment to the consumer," she said in the statement. Some states scuttled proposed legislation after the industry implemented the voluntary measures. But Tucker said legislation is still needed. "We didn't feel like it went far enough," Tucker said of the industry's steps, adding that consumers should be able to deactivate their phone from abroad and that a phone's default setting should include the kill switch. "Ultimately, the goal is to protect consumers." USA TODAY Can a 'kill switch' cut the rate of smartphone theft? But privacy advocates say that protection could come at a cost to civil rights if law enforcement is given access to the kill switches, or the ability to request a company activate a kill switch on phones in a certain area. "While it may address theft, you're essentially creating a backdoor system of shutting down the phone that could be abused by law enforcement," said Adi Kamdar, an activist with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. “While it may address theft, you're essentially creating a backdoor system of shutting down the phone that could be abused by law enforcement.” Adi Kamdar, activist with Electronic Frontier Foundation In California, the legislation explicitly authorizes law enforcement to use the kill switch under certain conditions to address a public safety threat. The Minnesota law is silent on the question, Laperruque said. While both Laperruque and Kamdar said they oppose any new legislation, they added that if states are determined to pass bills they should be carefully written. "One of the main things is the law should be explicit about who has access to this kill switch device," Kamdar said. "The law should be explicit that it is up to the user only to trigger (the kill switch) unless they give law enforcement explicit permission as opposed to the other way around." Laperruque said pending federal legislation is a good model. It would allow law enforcement access to a kill switch only through a warrant. In Nevada, bill language won't be available until next year. Tucker said the state is looking to California as a model for the legislation. She isn't sure yet how the Nevada legislation will address the question of law enforcement access to the kill switch. "The main thrust behind this bill is consumer protection," she said. "That's first and foremost what the issue is. The other issues will be addressed later." How to keep your smartphone safe: • Consider your surroundings and use your phone discreetly in public. Never leave it unattended or visible in a vehicle. • Write down the device's make, model number, serial number and IMEI/MEID numbers, which may be needed on a police report. • Use a password-protected lock on your phone and install anti-theft software that will enable you to locate and lock the phone remotely. Such software is available through app stores for iPhone and Android phones. Damon also reports for Reno Gazette-Journal.
I mentions this article about Paula Pennypacker in a prior post and said I could not find the article on the Republic website. Well here is the article and it looks like Paula Pennypacker is on our side. Here is a quote from her: "The only drug I support decriminalizing for recreational purposes is marijuana. Period." Personally I think we should RE-LEGALIZE all drugs, but I guess if Paula Pennypacker supports re-legalizing marijuana, she is better then any of the politicians who support throwing people in prison for using or selling marijuana. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2014/11/03/az-fact-check-kavanagh-pennypacker-drug-laws/18418747/ Fact check: Kavanagh on Pennypacker's drug-law stance Vivian Padilla, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:56 a.m. MST November 3, 2014 WHO SAID IT: State Rep. John Kavanagh. OFFICE: Arizona state representative. PARTY: Republican. THE RACE: Arizona's Legislative District 23. THE TARGET: Paula Pennypacker. THE COMMENT: "At no point did she say she's against legalizing drugs for recreational use," including heroin. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT: Pennypacker's stance on the legalization of drugs for recreational use. ANALYSIS: The Senate seat vacated by Sen. Michele Reagan, which covers most of Fountain Hills, Rio Verde and Scottsdale, has two candidates squaring off: Republican candidate Rep. John Kavanagh, who has served in the Arizona Legislature since 2007, and Democrat Paula Pennypacker. During a recent debate, hosted by the Fountain Hills Tea Party, the moderator said Pennypacker was quoted in a Phoenix New Times article stating her support for the legalization of drugs, including heroin. Pennypacker said she had never said heroin should be legal. Kavanagh then said Pennypacker was not "against legalizing drugs for recreational use," while he opposes such legalization. The New Times story referenced by the moderator quoted an Arizona Republic op-ed by Pennypacker. In that article she wrote, "Adults should be able to ingest anything they want, as long as they do hot harm others." Pennypacker wrote the op-ed following a 2004 incident in which 16 teens from Scottsdale high schools were arrested for buying Mexican heroin. Pennypacker criticized the war on drugs as "a complete and utter failure" and said there was a need for "government policy that sets up a tightly controlled legal market for all drugs" similar to what is done with alcohol and cigarettes. Pennypacker wrote another opinion piece for The Republic in March 2005 where she referenced the arrest of another set of Scottsdale teens who were facing drug charges for selling heroin. In that op-ed, she said the government had failed to control illicit drugs. "The message is clear: We want drug laws that are based on the science of addiction and human compassion," she wrote, adding that there was a strong need for a "system where all drugs are legal and regulated." Kavanagh recently released a mailer quoting Pennypacker's call for a "legal market for all drugs." The mailer listed "cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, meth, opium, PCP and more." In an interview with The Republic, Pennypacker said she did not support the legalization or decriminalization of the drugs listed on Kavanagh's flier. She called his claims "crazy." Referring to the listed drugs on his flier she said, "I never advocated for that. I never will advocate for that." However, she said, "The only drug I support decriminalizing for recreational purposes is marijuana. Period." She said there was a "huge difference between a tightly controlled legal market for both legal and illegal drugs" and what she's being accused of supporting: the legalization of all drugs for recreational purposes. She said a legal market would make "hideous drugs" like heroin that are available on the black market disappear. Pennypacker said both op-eds called for policies that would keep drugs inaccessible to children. She said alcohol and tobacco are two harmful drugs that are legal and regulated, and "the same can be done for all drugs so that they do not fall into the hands of our children. There is a reason why a marijuana cigarette is more readily accessible on our school yards than a six pack of beer." Kavanagh, in an e-mail to The Republic, said he stands by the statements on the flier. "Pennypacker's position, while no doubt well intended, is bad for kids and bad for adults, too," he said. He added that he supports the war on drugs, and Pennypacker's opinion pieces demonstrate "her pro-drug legalization policy." THE BOTTOM LINE: Pennypacker's nine- and 10-year-old Republic op-ed pieces on the legalization and regulation of illicit drugs are vague on which drugs she's proposing be legally sold. However, she has made clear in debates and in interviews with The Republic that she does not, and will not, support the random legalization of illicit drugs, apart from marijuana for recreational and medical purposes. She said her position has not changed since the published op-eds where she wrote that "all drugs" should be legal, regulated and in a controlled market, but that is unclear based on her writings. THE FINDING: Two stars: Somewhat true/somewhat false. SOURCES: "Former Republican Paula Pennypacker Turns Democrat, Declaring War on GOP Heavyweight John Kavanagh," Phoenix New Times; "Scottsdale heroin ring busted; teens were target," The Arizona Republic ; "Scottsdale school heroin ring hit," The Arizona Republic; "Legalizing, regulating drugs is the way to fix problem" via Phoenix Public Library; "Legalize drugs, then control them" via Phoenix Public Library; Interview with Paula Pennypacker via e-mail and phone; Interview with John Kavanagh via e-mail; Candidate Q&A, The Arizona Republic. |