Nyefrank

fabricating and coercing a false confession that was consistent with their initial and faulty assumptions of how the crime occurred" and later "ignoring and covering up the mounting evidence that both proved the confession false, and incriminated other suspects

Points of View: They Must Answer for What They've Done; Prosecutors Who Misuse Discretion or Abuse Power Should Be Held Accountable

that lawyers with previous experience before the Court prevail "substantially more often."57 Data from the Solicitor General's office also support this theory http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?48+Duke+L.+J.+111

victim rights

Establishment of Victims' Rights Policy Coalitions: New Directions can serve as the basis for creating victims' rights policy coalitions composed of a broad membership of victim activists, victim advocates, justice system representatives, and allied professionals who share a common interest of implementing the recommendations set forth in New Directions to enhance victims' rights. Coalitions can be formed to pass single legislative measures, or can become ongoing coalitions of crime victims, victim advocates, and justice officials as an undeniable force in all criminal and juvenile justice-related policy to the benefit of each constituency. Once established, such coalitions could expand their efforts beyond legislation to play a role in assessing and promoting implementation of victims' rights laws statewide. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Md5n4cAuJFwJ:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/newdirections2000/ascii/global.txt+protocol+for+law+enforcement+responding+to+victims+of+elder+crime+in+california,+judge+training+manual&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Evans, former chairman of the council's Judiciary Committee, said that he hasn't paid attention to the department's homicide problems in recent months

Legal Duties It is no reflection on either the breadth of the United States Constitution or the importance of traditional tort law to say that they do not address the same concerns.4 Thus, while negligence claims against a police officer or the department may be recognized under state law, the Supreme Court has held that simple negligence-or lack of due care-is insufficient to establish the violation of a federal constitutional right. These distinctions between state tort claims and federal constitutional tort claims can have a bearing on the different ways the courts treat allegations of policy violations. The basic formula for any lawsuit is 1) existence of a legal duty owed by one party to another, 2) an alleged breach of that duty, and 3) injury or loss resulting from that breach. Legal duties may arise in a variety of contexts, but most generally are established by custom, statute, or constitutional law. Whatever its source, a legal duty must be owed to the plaintiff by the named defendant in order for a civil suit to be viable. That being the case, a departmental policy must create a legal duty to a potential plaintiff before a violation of that policy can create liability. In reality, whether a policy violation is even relevant to the question of the legal liability of an officer or department depends to a large extent upon the nature of the claim and the forum in which it is brought. For example, policy violations in tort claims brought under state law alleging negligence will generally be treated differently than claims brought under federal law alleging violations of federal constitutional rights. The relevance of departmental policy also can depend upon whether a legal duty, or standard of conduct, is clearly delineated by law, or whether it is determined by reference to custom or practice.

Federal Criminal Enforcement It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies. These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including

What information should I include in a complaint to DOJ? Your complaint, whether alleging violations of criminal or civil laws listed in this document, should include the following information: Your name, address, and telephone number(s). The name(s) of the law enforcement agency (or agencies) involved. A description of the conduct you believe violates one of the laws discussed above, with as many details as possible. You should include: the dates and times of incident(s); any injuries sustained; the name(s), or other identifying information, of the officer(s) involved (if possible); and any other examples of similar misconduct. The names and telephone numbers of witnesses who can support your allegations. If you believe that the misconduct is based on your race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability, please identify the basis and explain what led you to believe that you were treated in a discriminatory manner (i.e., differently from persons of another race, sex, etc.). Reproduction of this document is encouraged.

9 See CAL. CIVIL CODE ¤1708.7 and WYO. STAT. ANN. ¤1-1-26. California's law allows victims of stalking to sue perpetrators for punitive damages.

Moreover, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-stalking laws, most of which impose criminal sanctions against stalkers. A few state legislatures have also enacted laws that create a civil law tort of stalking allowing victims of stalking to sue perpetrators for monetary damages.9 Finally, many laws have been passed that provide legal recourse for hate-motivated violence based on a victim's race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or age.10 Recommendations from the Field for Civil Remedies Civil Remedies Recommendation from the Field #1 Crime victims should be fully informed of their legal rights to pursue civil remedies. It is always the victim's decision whether or not to pursue a civil action against a

Intense feelings of anger, fear, isolation, low self-esteem, helplessness, and depression are common reactions to victimization

The Supreme Court in Owen undertook a textual analysis. By the Court's methodology, broad statutory language -- coupled with silence on the subject of privileges, immunities, and defenses -- means that municipalities are liable in federal court for civil rights violations. Owen, 100 S.Ct. at 1407. Its [the statute's] language is absolute and unqualified; no mention is made of any privileges, immunities, or defenses that may be asserted. Rather, the Act [§ 1983] imposes liability upon "every person" who, under color of state law or custom, "subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities of the Constitution and laws." And Monell [supra] held that these words were intended to encompass municipal corporations as well as natural "persons."

Seminole notwithstanding, these cases do not support the conclusion that a city is immune from suit under federal statutes. To the contrary, the Court has clearly established that municipalities can be amenable to civil rights suits in federal court. Owen, 100 S.Ct. at 1407; Monell, 98 S.Ct. at 2035- 2036; Mt. Healthy, 97 S.Ct. at 572. See also Howlett v. Rose, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 2444 (1990) (holding that "Federal law makes governmental defendants that are not arms of the State, such as municipalities, liable for their constitutional violations," but acknowledging that the state and its arms are immune from the reach of § 1983).

IFurther, Weinberger concerned in the main an explicit statutory exemption to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). See Weinberger, 454 U.S. at 144, 102 S. Ct. 197. FOIA analysis is governed strictly by statute, while the state secrets privilege is governed solely by judge-made law. Also, FOIA cases involve a determination of what information can be released to the public without any restriction on the information's dissemination. In contrast, the state secrets privilege governs what material can be used by individual litigants who need such information to make their cases, under such restrictions of access as may be necessary, including in camera review, closed proceedings, and sealed records. Weinberger therefore dealt principally with the substantive question whether the sensitive material at issue could be made public and only as a subsidiary matter with the handling of that material within the confines of litigation. Weinberger did refer to Totten at the end of the opinion as an explanation, by analogy, concerning why the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") inquiry could not go forward in court. It also referred, however, in the same context, to Reynolds, the seminal state secrets privilege case. Weinberger, 454 U.S. at 147, 102 S. Ct. 197. The brief reference to Totten in Weinberger therefore cannot be read as prescribing the application of Totten without regard to the later-developed state secrets privilege doctrine, and Kasza evidently did not so read it. We therefore conclude that Totten is applicable to the case before us only as applied through the prism of current state secrets doctrine. C. To invoke the state secrets privilege, a formal claim of privilege must be "lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration [of the evidence] by that officer." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 7-8, 73 S. Ct. 528 (footnotes omitted); see also Kasza, 133 F.3d at 1165. After that, "[t]he court itself

California APS: Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15600 through 15766 (Encompasses the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act in Chapter 11, Protective Placements and Custody of Endangered Adults in Chapter 12, and Adult Protective Services in Chapter 13) Inst. Abuse: N/A LTCOP: Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 9700 through 9745