沈阳治青春痘去什么医院治疗好沈阳东城粉刺医院的电话,沈阳治疗青春痘的办法,沈阳东城祛青春痘价格,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治疗皮肤科正规嘛收费贵吗,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治皮肤科靠谱吗好不好,沈阳哪个医院治疗鬼剃头比较好,沈阳肤康皮肤病医院治皮肤科正不正规专业嘛

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — New York Attorney General Letitia James is promising to expedite the release of body camera footage in cases of alleged police misconduct that her office investigates. James spoke Sunday in Rochester, which has been in turmoil since the footage of Daniel Prude’s fatal encounter with police was released more than five months after his death. James said her office “will be proactively releasing footage to the public on our own.” It's unclear how many cases will be affected by the policy, since the attorney general’s office does not review all footage of police interactions with the public. 620

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Donald Trump paid back his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, the 0,000 in hush money that was used to pay off Stormy Daniels.The payment is going to turn out to be "perfectly legal," Giuliani said in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity."That money was not campaign money, sorry," Giuliani said. "I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation." 457

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Law enforcement agencies in California must release police misconduct records even if the behavior occurred before a new transparency law took effect, a state court of appeals has ruled.The 1st District Court of Appeal's decision released Friday settles for now a debate over whether records created before Jan. 1, when the law took effect, were subject to disclosure. Many police unions have sued to block the records release, while public information advocates argued the records should be disclosed.The ruling applies to police agencies statewide, including the attorney general's office, unless another appellate court steps in and rules differently, said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition."These records are absolutely essential for the public to be able to see what the police departments are doing with respect to police misdoubt," said Snyder, whose group intervened in the case. "These agencies have enormous power over Californians and so transparency of those agencies is absolutely essential in order to be able to hold them accountable."At least one agency reversed its prior decision to deny access to old records after the ruling came in. Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones said he would release records dating back five years after reading the court of appeal's decision, the Sacramento Bee reported.Mike Rains, an attorney for the Walnut Creek Police Officers Association and other police agencies seeking to block the disclosure, said he doesn't see the decision as setting precedent on the merits of the case but that agencies are likely to take guidance from it unless another court rules differently.His clients do not have an issue with releasing records of misconduct produced after Jan. 1, Rains said, but see the release of old records as a privacy violation."Police officers used to have a privacy right," he said. "We don't believe it changes the rights of privacy to those records that were created prior to Jan. 1."California lawmakers voted last year to require police agencies to release records on police shootings and officer misconduct to the public. Police unions had sought to block old records, with some law enforcement agencies even destroying them. Attorney General Xavier Becerra also declined to release records from his office, saying the intent of the law need to be clarified by the courts.The appeals court ruled on March 12 but only made the opinion public Friday.The rulings by a panel of three justices said the old records can be released because the action triggering their release — a request for public information by reporters or others — occurs after Jan. 1. The justices also noted the release of the records does not change the legal consequences for officers already found to have engaged in misconduct."The new law changes only the public's right to access peace officer records," the justices wrote. 2908

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California state Senate has approved a measure that would guarantee all registered voters get a ballot in the mail before the November election. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has already ordered ballots to be mailed. But Republicans have sued, arguing his order is illegal. The bill that cleared the Senate on Thursday is an attempt by lawmakers to make sure it happens anyway. Most California voters already vote by mail. Still, some Republican state senators opposed the bill because it would let election officials count mail-in ballots if they are received within 20 days of the election instead of three days. 651

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have capped dialysis clinics' profits in an effort to improve patient care.Proposition 8 would have limited profits for dialysis clinics that provide vital treatment for people whose kidneys don't work properly.The measure was the most expensive initiative on the 2018 ballot in California, generating more than 0 million in campaign contributions. A health care workers union, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, funded the million supporting campaign. Dialysis companies contributed more than 1 million to kill the initiative.The union argued Proposition 8 would stop the dialysis companies from cutting corners to make money and force them to invest more of their revenue into patient care. Supporters say the profit-hungry companies don't adequately clean clinics and overwork staff.Dialysis providers say the measure was actually a tactic to pressure the dialysis companies to let workers unionize and would have forced clinics to close. They say most California clinics provide high quality care.Dialysis companies' effort to kill the measure was the most expensive campaign on one side of a ballot initiative in the U.S. since at least 2002. Most of that money came from the two largest dialysis companies operating in California: Denver-based DaVita Inc. and Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care.The measure would have barred dialysis clinics from charging patients more than 115 percent of what providers spend on patient care and quality improvement. If clinics exceeded that limit, they would have to provide rebates or pay penalties.Although the measure didn't spell out exactly which expenses counted toward the limit, dialysis companies argued critical management expenses would be classified as profits and bankrupt clinics.RELATED CONTENT 1898