梅州综合整鼻多少钱-【梅州曙光医院】,梅州曙光医院,梅州盆腔炎是啥症状,梅州女孩怀孕第二个月打胎,梅州一般面部线雕多少钱,梅州韩式无痕双眼皮手术,梅州做打胎在哪个医院好,梅州妇科疾病盆腔炎
梅州综合整鼻多少钱梅州做人流的医院,梅州慢性月经调怎么办,梅州轻度阴道炎症状,梅州宫颈糜烂做打胎的总价格,梅州妇科专科24小时咨询热线,梅州哪个医院查妇科病,梅州白带异常该如何治疗
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) — A California appeals court says it's legal to have small amounts of marijuana in prison — so long as inmates don't inhale.The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that California voters legalized recreational possession of less than an ounce (28 grams) of cannabis in 2016, with no exception even for those behind bars.But the court says state law does prohibit smoking weed in prison. Prison officials can also still punish pot possession as a rules violation."According to the plain language of ... Proposition 64, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony," the court ruled Tuesday. "Smoking or ingesting cannabis in prison remains a felony."RELATED: City votes in favor of marijuana production site in Kearny MesaThe court overturned the Sacramento County convictions of five inmates who had been found with marijuana in their prison cells."The voters made quite clear their intention to avoid spending state and county funds prosecuting possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, and quite clear that they did not want to see adults suffer criminal convictions for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana," Sacramento County Assistant Public Defender Leonard Tauman said in an email. The appeals court "quite properly honored what the electorate passed."Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said it is reviewing the ruling and did not say if he will appeal.RELATED: Nevada becomes first state to ban pre-employment marijuana tests"We want to be clear that drug use and sales within state prisons remains prohibited," said corrections department spokeswoman Vicky Waters. She said the department "is committed to providing a safe, accountable environment for prisoners and staff alike and we plan to evaluate this decision with an eye toward maintaining health and security within our institutions."The three-judge panel rejected the state's argument that guards will lose control over prisons if inmates are free to possess small quantities of marijuana, noting that possession can still be punished as a rules violation with longer prison terms or a reduction in privileges.While prison officials can still punish inmates for violating the rules, "this ruling will prevent inmates from having years added to their sentences for simple possession, reducing overcrowding and saving ,000-75,000 a year in unnecessary costs," said Assistant Public Defender David Lynch.RELATED: More than 100 illegal pot farms busted in Anza, tons of weed seizedThe judges scolded the attorney general's office for a counter-argument it said "uses arcane rules" and "twists the meaning of the words of the statute."Becerra's office argued that the court's reading of the law was absurd because it in effect allows controlled substances into prisons. But the court noted that it previously ruled that it's not illegal for inmates to have properly prescribed medications or medical marijuana behind bars — though it may be against the rules."The Attorney General raises the same hackneyed and losing arguments in each case involving contraband in jails or prisons," the judges wrote.Lawmakers held "an over abiding consensus" in the 1940s that drug use by inmates was "the ultimate evil," they wrote. But those old laws belie "a gradual change in attitude" first toward medical and eventually toward recreational marijuana."As a matter of public policy, his position may be sound," the judges wrote. "The fact that the Attorney General may not agree with the voters does not empower us to rewrite the initiative."They ultimately concluded that "a result is not absurd because the outcome may be unwise." 3667
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (KGTV and AP) - New charges were filed Friday against a Riverside County couple accused of torturing their children by starving, beating and shackling them. 192
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Pastor Greg Laurie of the prominent California-based church Harvest Christian Fellowship confirmed he has tested positive for COVID-19.Laurie said in an Instagram posting Monday that he tested positive on Friday and has been in quarantine since then with his wife, but so far all members of his family have tested negative.“My symptoms have been mild so far, and I expect to make a full recovery,” he wrote. “I have always taken the Coronavirus seriously, and it has tragically taken many lives. At a time like this, we need to pray for those that have it and avoid politicizing it. If our President and First Lady can get COVID-19, clearly anyone can.”The Associated Press reports that Laurie was at an event at the White House on Sept. 26 in which President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. At least nine other people who attended that event — including President Donald Trump — have since tested positive for COVID-19.Many in attendance at the White House event were photographed without masks as well as shaking hands and hugging. 1137
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California’s attorney general has dropped a lawsuit seeking the names and contact information of every person who used one of the state Republican Party’s unofficial ballot drop boxes. The party used the boxes to collect ballots in some counties with closely contested U.S. House races. It’s legal in California to collect completed ballots and turn them in on behalf of voters. But state law says only county election officials are allowed to deploy ballot drop boxes. Friday, the attorney general’s office announced it was able to ensure that voters’ ballots were counted. California Republican Party officials say the lawsuit was a political ploy. 684