玉溪做人流妇科医院玉溪专科人流医院,玉溪做人流好点医院,玉溪一般做打胎多少钱,玉溪市那里能做人流,玉溪去做人流要多少钱,玉溪人流什么医院好,玉溪市打胎手术

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

ROSEMEAD (CNS) - Residents across Southern California were checking their homes and apartments this morning for any damage caused by a magnitude 4.5 earthquake that struck two miles south of Rosemead and was felt across a large portion of the region, including Orange County.The quake struck at 11:38 p.m. Friday, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was in almost the same location as the magnitude 5.9Whittier Narrows earthquake in 1987, famed seismologist Dr. Lucy Jones said. ``Just like in '87, the earthquake is quite deep ... it's possibly on the same fault,'' Jones told NBC4 early Saturday morning.She later tweeted this quake ``is not considered an aftershock (to the Whittier Narrows quake) because the aftershocks died off completely in less than two years.''A pair of aftershocks, magnitudes 2.1 and 1.6, struck within 10 minutes of Friday's quake, Jones said.She said there is about a 5% chance this was a foreshock to a bigger earthquake.The Los Angeles Fire Department went into ``Earthquake Mode, with all 106 Neighborhood Fire Stations checking their areas for damage.''About 12:45 a.m., the department said it had completed its assessments. "Though felt widely in the greater Los Angeles area, we are pleased to report there are no serious injuries, and no preliminary indication of significant infrastructure damage within the City of Los Angeles,'' department spokesman Brian Humphrey said.The department asked residents to also check on at-risk neighbors, especially seniors living alone, and pets. Immediately after the quake, the department called on residents to be prepared for aftershocks.``If inside when shaking starts: DROP, COVER, HOLD ON,'' the department said in a statement. ``Protect your head (and) neck while taking cover under sturdy furniture or near a sturdy interior wall, away from windows and doorways until the shaking stops.''There were no reports of damage at Los Angeles International Airport, but crews are thoroughly checking the airfield and terminal, officials at Los Angeles World Airports said.USC tweeted about 2:15 a.m. that ``(Department of Public Safety) completed a survey of (the main) & (Health Services) campuses, respectively. There were no reports of injuries or damage.''A news photographer near the Golden State (5) and Garden Grove (22) freeways in Santa Ana told City News Service the shaking there was ``significant.''The Los Angeles Police Department tweeted about 12:40 a.m. ``fortunately there are no significant incidents to report'' and asked residents to only call 911 for emergencies. 2578

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

Robot janitors are already at Walmart, so they are now making their way to Sam's Club.According to a press release by Brain Corp, which is the company making the robot floor scrubbers, Sam's Club will put 372 of them into its stores by this fall.In 2018, Walmart placed the Auto-C – Autonomous Cleaner into 78 Walmart stores.Walmart, which owns Sam's, announced last year it would bring autonomous floor scrubbers to more than 1,800 of its stores by next February, CNN reported.The company says that's so employees can help customers instead of mopping floors."After an associate preps the area, this machine can be programmed to travel throughout the open parts of the store, leaving behind a clean, polished floor," Walmart said in a press release. "Auto-C provides a cleaner shopping experience for our customers, and it frees up our associates to serve them better." 878

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gavin Newsom is the favorite in California's governor's race, and if he's elected his extensive business holdings could present an ethics problem.His company, PlumpJack Group, owns wineries, bars, restaurants, hotels and liquor stores that operate in California. Issues involving the hospitality industry often come before the governor.Newsom is adamant he won't sell his interests but otherwise is deferring decisions about how to handle potential ethics conflicts until after the election.RELATED: John Cox, Gavin Newsom battle it out in debateThe potential for blurred lines between business and government service has become especially resonant since President Donald Trump broke with tradition for U.S. presidents and chose not to divest from his extensive holdings.Republican candidate John Cox also is a millionaire with extensive holdings, but his businesses operate outside California.RELATED: Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox's plan for California 1012