老熟女午夜福利

PHOENIX 鈥� Maricopa County filed a motion yesterday to prematurely end court-ordered reforms in Ortega Melendres v. Sheridan, a class action lawsuit that found MCSO engaged in racially discriminatory policing practices and immigration enforcement in Arizona. The move follows a court-ordered budget report which found that MCSO improperly attributed tens of millions of spent taxpayer dollars to this case. In addition to the widespread misuse of county funds, MCSO has failed to fully achieve court-ordered reforms, including reducing or eliminating racial disparities in traffic stops and investigating allegations of deputy misconduct. 鈥淢aricopa County鈥檚 move to prematurely halt reforms in Melendres ignores the enduring harm Latino residents have experienced at the hands of MCSO,鈥� said Victoria Lopez, executive director for the ACLU of Arizona. 鈥淭his case is about ensuring meaningful, lasting reform, not settling for temporary fixes. Ending oversight now jeopardizes the progress made thus far and is a distraction from working towards total compliance.鈥� 鈥淭he County鈥檚 effort to end reforms now is like a doctor choosing to end treatment when a patient鈥檚 cancer is only partially cured.鈥� Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淭he people of Maricopa County are entitled to complete reform and protection against a return of the Arpaio days, and the County has not yet delivered.鈥�

This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias鈥檚 car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.

Equally important, but less revered than voting; jury service is a powerful tool for holding the government accountable. ACLU experts answer your questions about jury service.

At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people鈥痜rom marginalized populations鈥痺ho鈥痑re most likely to be subject to these police practices.