Los Angeles Covid, turn off electricity at party residences I am researching the COVID 2020 lockdowns in Los Angeles, where mayor turned off the electricity, for people who have parties and social gatherings. Did they have court trials proceedings before shutting off electricity, or did they have Police turn off electricity without due process trial? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-19/tiktok-house-bryce-hall-los-angeles-eric-garcetti https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53680761
There was probably due process This article explains that due process is required and also explains what that means: … one may not be deprived of a property interest without (1) notice, (2) an opportunity to be heard, and (3) a decision by a neutral judge. The mayor’s notice-only service interruption is, therefore, a gross abuse of power. I’ve included the conclusion even though I don’t think it’s necessarily correct - it depends what’s in the notice whether due process has been afforded. If the notice is a “show cause” notice which gives an opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision maker (not necessarily a judicial officer), then that’s due process. From what I can tell, the notice was delivered on or about 6 August 2020 and power was disconnected on 20 August - that’s plenty of time for submissions to be made and considered by the decision maker. It’s also plenty of time for an injunction to be sought if the person did not believe they were being afforded due process. Now, is possible, even probable, that given what the occupants do for a living, they were quite happy to have their utilities shut off. All publicity is good publicity after all. They may therefore have chosen not to respond to the notice. This is a situation where everyone is happy with the status quo - the influencers can play up their “victim” status and make lots of money, the mayor gets to be “tough” which no doubt plays well with his constituents. So, no one is going to challenge this in court. Now, if the city went after that revenue as “proceeds of crime” …
Many states have laws providing for a residence for their governors, but I know of no state that mandates the use of those homes. Oregon's previous governor, for instance, lived in Portland rather than the governor's mansion, Mahonia Hall. Some cities do the same. In New York City, Mayor Bill De Blasio lives at Gracie Mansion, but Mike Bloomberg never did. Although we don't always think of them as government officials, some government schools provide their presidents with state-funded residences, as well. At the University of Virginia, the president lives at Carr's Hill.
No. A governor could not be held liable in a lawsuit on those grounds. Governors in every U.S. state have governmental immunity from liability in tort (and a lawsuit for wrongful death is a kind of tort lawsuit) for their official actions, and there is no U.S. state in which this kind of lawsuit would fall within an exception to that governmental immunity. There is not private cause of action against a state government executive branch official under federal law for a violation of "Trump administration official guidelines for reducing the covid-19 mitigation." Indeed, it isn't clear that a federal statute creating such a private cause of action that purported to pierce a state law official's governmental immunity from liability, even if it were enacted, would be constitutional. In contrast, if a corporation violated such a guideline, the violation of the guideline would be evidence of negligence, although probably not conclusive evidence, in a suit for wrongful death by a non-employee brought against the corporation.
Is it the case that Police in the US are unable to proceed with a charge if a victim declines to &quot;press charges&quot; and if so, how are murder charges or even more pertinently, domestic violence charges, brought to court? First of all, it is prosecutors and not police officers who actually bring criminal charges in the legal systems in the vast majority of U.S. states (although not quite all, minor offenses in Rhode Island, for example, are an exception). Second, a prosecutor does have the right to bring criminal charges even if the victim or someone affiliated with the victim does not &quot;press charges&quot;. Indeed, a prosecutor can almost always bring criminal charges over the objections of a victim, although &quot;victim's rights&quot; protections in some U.S. states require a prosecutor to confer with a victim before doing so. This said, law enforcement and a prosecutor cannot prosecute a criminal case if they have no knowledge that a crime was committed, so if no one brings a crime to the attention of authorities it is unlikely to be prosecuted. And, law enforcement and prosecutors will defer to the wishes of a victim that charges not be pressed in the legal system against an offender in many kinds of cases (although that discretion is limited in many states in domestic violence cases by statute).
You do need to know the location of both parties. U.S. Federal law (18 USC 2511(2)(d)), which prohibits the interception of wire and electronic communication, states: It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. California Penal Code 632 requires the consent of all parties to a confidential communication in order for the conversation to be recorded. The statute defines a "confidential communication" as follows: The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. Once AT&amp;T, or anyone else for that matter, states that the communication is being recorded, it is no longer considered a confidential communication requiring the consent of all parties in order for any party to record it. Part of the California Civil Jury Instructions for this code requires that the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the plaintiff had a "reasonable expectation that the conversation was not being overheard or recorded." You can see the full jury instructions here: https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1800/1809.html
In the case of the US, the only anti-discrimination laws that would cover an event is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under the rubric "public accommodation", in Title II. But that law does not prohibit sex discrimination. The extent of "public accommodation" is not clearly defined, but generally is held to be about "a place", and would include "entrance into this facility". It might be illegal in California, though, since the Unruh Civil Rights Act is more generic, not excluding sex on this point. The main issue would be whether this organization is a "business".
I am assuming, for the purpose of this answer, that you are talking about actual (attempted) suicide - rather than (physician or associate) assisted suicide. With regard to the U.S., various states at one time or another did have the act of attempted-suicide listed as a crime; some even as a felony, although I cannot find a single case of actual prosecution (of attempted - obviously you cannot enforce a law against actual suicide since the actor would be deceased). With that said, currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in any state in the United States. I did a full Lexis search. Suicide (attempted suicide) is considered a mental health issue rather than a criminal one; hence, a person who is thought to be suicidal is subject to well being checks by fire, police, social services, and other like entities/people and are also subject to civil commitment and mental health holds if they are thought/found to be a danger to themselves or others. To that end, the reason police can enter a dwelling without a warrant under these circumstances, is to do a well being check. If they have a reasonable suspicion that someone may be attempting to kill themselves (a family member, friend or a neighbor calls and says they believe you're are in eminent danger of harming yourself), the police may enter the premises and bring them to a hospital, even against there will. They can be held (at a hospital) to determine if they are of "sound mind". Every state has some form of civil commitment (statutes) and some limited amount of time a person can be held for observation (again, at a hospital or treatment facility). I do not believe this is a typical ruse used by the police to enter premises without a warrant. Why? Not because all police are above skirting the laws against warrantless searches; however, there are just much easier means to accomplishing that end, if that is what they are going to do. Yes, if evidence of a crime is in plain view while the police enter for a well being check (or any other legitimate reason), the individual can be charged with that crime. However, most police officers are not going to charge someone if they see (a usable amount of) drugs, paraphernalia, or evidence of some other low level crime. This is true since (1) they are already in crisis and (2) they are there for the very reason that they have information they may not be of sound mind, hence potentially not criminally responsible. If they walk into a meth lab or a murder scene or some other serious criminal scene, ...well that is different and all bets are off. The bottom line is while this may have happened somewhere sometime to someone....this is not a practice I would be worried about.
The powers given to law enforcement professionals will be detailed in the relevant law that establishes them. I would suspect that the decision to cordon off an area would fall within the purview of the officer on the scene; the idea that a police officer would need to seek permission before cordoning off a motor vehicle accident or chemical spill is unworkable. I would also suspect that other emergency personnel (e.g. ambulance and fire-fighters) would have similar powers. However, such cordoning off would be a temporary measure and if it was maintained for an unreasonable period it would be open to challenge through an administrative or judicial process. If the police decided that a feature was a permanent hazard then they could seek a court order on the owner of the property to provide some measure to adequately protect the public, by either removing the hazard or providing some permanent barrier, under whatever laws seemed most appropriate.