ReportWire

Tag: california bill

  • Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO — A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

    A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

    California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.

    Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.

    Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.

    Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.

    Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.

    George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.

    Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.

    “I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”

    He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.

    Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.

    Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.

    Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.

    “We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”

    Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

    Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.

    “We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.

    Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

    The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Fighting intensifies over California bill that tries to ban immigration officers from wearing masks

    [ad_1]

    As California faces a deadline Friday to pass new laws for the year, police groups in the state are turning up pressure against a bill that attempts to ban law enforcement at nearly every level in California from wearing face coverings in most situations. The bill, SB 627, was filed by two Democratic state senators in response to images of federal immigration raids in which officers have been seen wearing masks. The state legislation attempts to enforce the ban against federal officers, which critics say is not legally possible. Police groups, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Police Chiefs Association, on Monday warned that the bill was recently changed to take away qualified immunity, or the legal protections provided to police under state law, from officers who “knowingly and willfully” violate the ban. In a letter sent to all state lawmakers and Gov. Newsom’s office on Monday, PORAC warned it could push officers to second-guess themselves and potentially put public safety at risk. “Without these protections, an officer would potentially be subject to civil suits against them personally for actions they took in good faith and based on information available at the time. For example, if an officer acting in good faith and based on current information arrests the wrong person, they are given immunity from being sued personally. Any erosion of existing immunity protections strikes at the core protections necessary for officers to operate safely and securely in California,” PORAC officials wrote. The bill was also recently changed to exempt the California Highway Patrol from the measure. Opponents said the legislation will end up solely punishing local law enforcement agencies for the actions of federal officers. “It’s not local law enforcement that’s engaging in those tactics,” said Jason Salazar, the President of the California Police Chiefs Association. “Our officers are following the law through good law enforcement and trying to provide public safety to our communities. This bill makes it harder to do that.” “As long as law enforcement are following the law and the policies set by their departments, they’ll have nothing to worry about under SB 627,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the proposal. “California has terrific law enforcement who are more than capable of following the policies set by their supervisors—all we’re asking is that they do so with regard to the extreme masking ICE and others have begun to deploy in recent months.” “They can pass all the laws they want. It’s more wishful thinking than an actual law,” U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector Chief, Gregory Bovino, told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala in a recent interview. Bovino said there has been a 1000% increase in federal officer assaults. “Whether they’re being doxxed or followed or whatever, I’m going to protect those agents, and face coverings make sense,” Bovino said. California’s U.S. Senator Alex Padilla has filed a proposal that would require federal immigration authorities to display legible identification during public-facing operations. It has been referred to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    As California faces a deadline Friday to pass new laws for the year, police groups in the state are turning up pressure against a bill that attempts to ban law enforcement at nearly every level in California from wearing face coverings in most situations.

    The bill, SB 627, was filed by two Democratic state senators in response to images of federal immigration raids in which officers have been seen wearing masks. The state legislation attempts to enforce the ban against federal officers, which critics say is not legally possible.

    Police groups, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Police Chiefs Association, on Monday warned that the bill was recently changed to take away qualified immunity, or the legal protections provided to police under state law, from officers who “knowingly and willfully” violate the ban.

    In a letter sent to all state lawmakers and Gov. Newsom’s office on Monday, PORAC warned it could push officers to second-guess themselves and potentially put public safety at risk.

    “Without these protections, an officer would potentially be subject to civil suits against them personally for actions they took in good faith and based on information available at the time. For example, if an officer acting in good faith and based on current information arrests the wrong person, they are given immunity from being sued personally. Any erosion of existing immunity protections strikes at the core protections necessary for officers to operate safely and securely in California,” PORAC officials wrote.

    The bill was also recently changed to exempt the California Highway Patrol from the measure. Opponents said the legislation will end up solely punishing local law enforcement agencies for the actions of federal officers.

    “It’s not local law enforcement that’s engaging in those tactics,” said Jason Salazar, the President of the California Police Chiefs Association. “Our officers are following the law through good law enforcement and trying to provide public safety to our communities. This bill makes it harder to do that.”

    “As long as law enforcement are following the law and the policies set by their departments, they’ll have nothing to worry about under SB 627,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the proposal. “California has terrific law enforcement who are more than capable of following the policies set by their supervisors—all we’re asking is that they do so with regard to the extreme masking ICE and others have begun to deploy in recent months.”

    “They can pass all the laws they want. It’s more wishful thinking than an actual law,” U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector Chief, Gregory Bovino, told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala in a recent interview. Bovino said there has been a 1000% increase in federal officer assaults.

    “Whether they’re being doxxed or followed or whatever, I’m going to protect those agents, and face coverings make sense,” Bovino said.

    California’s U.S. Senator Alex Padilla has filed a proposal that would require federal immigration authorities to display legible identification during public-facing operations. It has been referred to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom to sign California bill to limit ‘addictive’ social media feeds for kids

    Newsom to sign California bill to limit ‘addictive’ social media feeds for kids

    [ad_1]

    California will take a major step in its fight to protect children from the ills of social media with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature on a bill to limit the ability of companies to provide “addictive feeds” to minors.

    The governor’s office said Newsom on Friday will sign Senate Bill 976, named the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act and introduced by state Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). The bill was supported by state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and groups such as the Assn. of California School Administrators, Common Sense Media and the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    Newsom’s wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is also outspoken about the links between social media consumption and low self-esteem, depression and anxiety among youth.

    The legislation attracted an unusual collection of opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union of California, Equality California and associations representing giants in the industry that own TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. The California Chamber of Commerce argued that the legislation “unconstitutionally burdens” access to lawful content, setting up the potential for another lawsuit in an ongoing court battle between the state and social media companies over use of the platforms by children.

    “Every parent knows the harm social media addiction can inflict on their children — isolation from human contact, stress and anxiety, and endless hours wasted late into the night,” Newsom said. “With this bill, California is helping protect children and teenagers from purposely designed features that feed these destructive habits.”

    The bill, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, with Newsom’s signature, prohibits internet service and applications from providing “addictive feeds,” defined as media curated based on information gathered on or provided by the user, to minors without parental consent. SB 976 also bans companies from sending notifications to users identified as minors between midnight and 6 a.m. or during the school day from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. unless parents give the OK.

    The bill will effectively require companies to make posts from people children know and follow appear in chronological order on their social media feeds instead of in an arrangement to maximize engagement. Proponents of the bill point to warnings from U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and others about a mental health crisis among youths, which studies show is exacerbated by the use of social media.

    “As a mother, I’m proud of California’s continued leadership in holding technology companies accountable for their products and ensuring those products are not harmful to children. Thank you to the Governor and Senator Skinner for taking a critical step in protecting children and ensuring their safety is prioritized over companies’ profits,” Siebel Newsom said.

    The industry has argued that it’s false to assume that feeds curated by an algorithm are harmful but that a chronological feed is safe. The ACLU also argued that age verification creates potential privacy concerns because it could require the collection of additional user data that could be at risk in a security breach and because it could threaten the 1st Amendment rights of people who cannot verify their age.

    Several groups advocating for LGBTQ+ youths suggested the bill could limit youths’ ability to engage on platforms that offer emotional support for their identities, particularly for kids who live in communities that might be hostile to their identity. Giving more control to parents could also potentially result in parents choosing settings that share sensitive information about the child, the groups said.

    The bill marks the latest action in a battle between state government and social media companies taking place in the California Legislature and the court system over the use of platforms by children.

    In October, Bonta’s office filed a lawsuit with 32 other states against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, alleging that the company designed apps specifically to addict young users while misleading the public about the adverse effects.

    A bill that failed last year in the California Legislature would have made social media companies liable for up to $250,000 in damages if they knowingly promoted features that could harm children. Portions of a 2022 law that sought to require companies to provide privacy protections for children have also been held up in court.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Sorry, speeders: New bill would require speed-limiting devices in California cars

    Sorry, speeders: New bill would require speed-limiting devices in California cars

    [ad_1]

    What if you could not speed that much?

    That’s the premise of a new bill in the California Senate that would require vehicles sold in the state to be equipped with speed governors to limit how fast they can go.

    The proposal from Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) is part of a package of bills that he hopes will reduce traffic injuries and deaths in the Golden State.

    “There’s no reason why people should routinely be allowed to drive more than 10 miles per hour above the speed limit,” Wiener said in an interview with The Times. “You can want whatever you want. But that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to do it and that doesn’t mean you should be physically able to do it.”

    The measure, Senate Bill 961, would require every passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured or sold in California to have speed governors starting in 2027. The devices would use GPS technology or cameras to verify the speed limit in a particular area and slow a speeding vehicle down if it approaches 10 mph over the limit.

    Wiener said he is open to changes in the bill — for example, whether to require active or passive speed governors.

    Active speed governors would actually reduce the speed of cars that hit the 10 mph limit, while passive ones would make some sort of annoying sound or buzz to warn drivers to slow down.

    The European Union passed legislation that will require passive speed governors in all cars sold in member countries starting in July.

    The legislation is likely to be met with some opposition from certain trucking groups that have similarly opposed federal legislation regarding speed governors.

    Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn., opposes the legislation, which he believes is not the correct way to make roads safer. Spencer advocates for increased police presence to monitor speeders, but said that changes in speed are sometimes necessary to drive safely.

    “There are times drivers may want to speed up enough to switch lanes, to move away from certain unsafe situations. Our preference is for drivers to have the maximum ability to do that. We don’t think technology or even most well-intentioned regulations should obstruct that,” Spencer said.

    But Wiener says surging traffic deaths in California — 4,400 people died in crashes in 2022, a 22% increase from 2019 — make the legislation a safety imperative.

    In Los Angeles, there were more traffic deaths in 2023 than homicides — the first time that has occurred in a decade.

    “This is a technology that exists. It’s in operation right now, and it will save lives,” Wiener said.

    While the senator acknowledged there would be pushback, he noted that every car safety requirement has run into some degree of opposition when proposed, before becoming a given. Wiener cited requirements for seat belts, child car seats and motorcycle helmets as examples.

    Weiner’s package of bills introduced this week — which he has dubbed Speeding and Fatality Emergency Reduction (SAFER) on California Streets — would also require underride guardrails on trucks to prevent cars and motorcycles from being pulled under the bigger vehicles in a crash.

    [ad_2]

    Noah Goldberg

    Source link