What appears to be a tragic downward spiral, Titus Young (formerly of the Lions) was arrested in San Clemente for Burglary, Resisting Arrest, and Assault on an Officer — his third arrest in single week.
Orange County Sheriff’s Department responded late friday night to a suspect supposedly inside a residence. When deputies arrived to the scene they had eventually found Young outside the residence attempting to flee on foot.
After a brief struggle Young was finally detained. He was later booked on $75,000 bail on the charges mentioned above.
“I’m a scholar, not a criminal”–reads the USChangeMovement
Many students and citizens are enraged by what has occurred at the USC campus on friday where 79 police officers responded to a racially diverse house party of USC students. What resulted was a handful of arrests as well as allegations of excessive force (some of which was prudently recorded by witnesses). What appears most shocking of the entire event, however, is that a predominantly white house party was going on just across the street–with little or no disturbance. Reports have suggested that the manner in which the two houses were treated was shameful.
This event has touched many people in an atmosphere that already has mixed emotions relating to concepts like “selective enforcement” and racially motivated discrimination within police practices (aka: “racial profiling”). But what are these in the real-world of justice? How does a racial profiling event translate to actual complaints that may lead to civil rights litigation?
When it comes to “racial profiling”, it all begins with the Fourteenth Amendment. Our courts interpret racial profiling as an intentional discrimination that falls under violations of Equal Protection principles.
For those of you scholarly types, here’s the formula:
To show that a person has a case for intentional discrimination, there must be at least some evidence that there were members of a racial minority who compared to similarly situated non-minorities–where treated differently. However, the courts want to see whether or not there was any other evidence that showed intentional discrimination as being the reason for that difference.
In other words, in Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach (9th Cir. 2003) 341 F.3d 939, the 9th Circuit court in California strongly suggests that there must be some other evidence of intent to discriminate in addition to any evidence that the two groups were treated differently.
This is the standard that must be considered when evaluating unlawful racial discrimination under the constitution. So what do you do now if you can’t get any one of those 79 officers to say they actually intended to treat one group different than another group? What do you do if you can’t find any dirt or comment from the police department that would convince a jury the officers were racially motivated?
The US Supreme Court established a Three-Part Test under equal protection principles in Batson v. Kentucky.
The group that challenges a racially discriminatory action by police can provide circumstantial proof via statistics. Through an effective public records campaign, arrest records, and other statistical maneuvers, the plaintiff can put the onus on the police in a lawsuit–forcing the department to explain their actions in a race-neutral manner (Ex: they had probable cause, there was escalating violence, concerns for officer safety, etc.). That means that the police have to give legitimate and non-racially related reasons for why they acted the way they did.
However, if the police make their case that there were legitimate reasons for why race was an issue, then they must provide a compelling governmental interest for their conduct. In other words, it better be good.
It will be interesting to see how the event plays out. There were many students present with a lot of cell phones and tons of motivation to see things right. Approximately 6 arrests were made that night, and I would be very interested to see what the charges and circumstances were. Stay tuned.
It is with deep regret that a bad apple has once again tainted the honor and integrity of the hardworking men and women within the Fullerton Police Department.
On November 1, a former Fullerton corporal plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of destroying evidence and another misdemeanor for vandalism. He was charged for smashing the only audio recording of his arrest of a man for suspicion of DUI–only to have that man tragically take his own life in jail after he was booked.
Like many cities across the country from time to time, an important protest suddenly erupts into a riot and the usual appears: a wave of uploaded videos and photos from cell phones into countless social media arenas.
Unfortunately, many people don’t prepare for the chaos that happens at these violent encounters. Phones get destroyed, confiscated, lost, and in some cases tampered with so that evidence can never be used.
The following is a compilation of what you can do to minimize damage to your phone, protect yourself from injury, and preserve your own constitutional rights at a protest when the heat gets hot.
Malaika Brooks was seven-months pregnant and with her 11 year old son in the car when whe was pulled over for speeding one day in 2004.
The two Seattle police officers who had pulled her over cited her for driving 32 mph in a 20 mph zone. Although she accepted the ticket once handed to her, she did not want to sign it because she had incorrectly believed it would have been an admissin of guilt had she done so.
The case against a local journalist that had been involved in one of the Occupy Wall Street (OCW) arrests had his case dismissed on Tuesday after Judge Sciarrino found him not guilty of disorderly conduct.
The two officers who have been charged by the Orange County District Attorney’s office for the killing of Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill homeless man, have completed their preliminary hearing after three days of testimony.
Why is it so hard to believe? If you find out that there was a mysterious growth inside your body and that it was necessary to surgically remove it, you would never ask the surgeon, “So give me an exact amount, what’s this going to cost me?”
As if the doctor, right there with the x-ray in their hand, knows exactly how long the procedure will last, exactly how many complications will come up, and exactly how successful the operation will ultimately be. Why is that?
Congratulations to Judge Zellerbach for winning the 2010 election for the District Attorney’s office. This change comes at a time when the county of Riverside faces many costly challenges—many of which will be on the new DA’s shoulders to bear.