A lawsuit filed in Ohio claims that at least 13 people who have posted bond are still in jail because the county ran out of monitoring units. The lawsuit says Martin has posted bond, but he is required by a judge’s order to wear an electronic monitoring unit and all of the units are currently in use. According to the lawsuit, the sheriff’s office has told Martin’s family that he is 13th on the waiting list. Read the full story here.
NFL star Michael Bennett criticized Las Vegas police who detained him in August, accusing them of excessive force and racial profiling. Now, Las Vegas police are striking back, accusing the Seattle Seahawks defensive lineman of being a liar, a publicity hound and a potential criminal, according to Slate. Bennett’s attorney says he’s considering a lawsuit alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Attorney John Burris says police illegally detained Bennett and used excessive force by pointing a gun at his head. Meanwhile, Las Vegas police have yet to offer an account of what happened in the incident. Bennett has received support from a number of civil rights leaders and athletes after going public with his accusations of police brutality.
Three of President Trump’s nominees for federal judiciary posts will appear in Senate confirmation hearings on Wednesday. Is Trump advancing an anti-civil rights agenda by appointing federal judges with questionable civil rights records? Find out more about the possibility in this story at Politico.
As the nation awaited answers about the shooting that left three police officers dead, civil rights activists were quick to condemn the incident.Source: ‘Shooting police is not a civil rights tactic’: Activists condemn killing of officers – The Washington Post
Judge Howard Maltz agreed to a defense motion Tuesday to push back the start of the civil trial involving former Jacksonville Jaguars running back Maurice Jones-Drew.Source: Former Jaguars player Maurice Jones-Drew sees civil trial in St. Augustine moved to September | jacksonville.com
Californians who sue unsuccessfully for discrimination can’t be penalized with orders to pay their employer’s or landlord’s legal costs unless their suit was obviously baseless, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday. […] the court said suits under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act are different because the law was intended to encourage individuals, who believe their rights were violated, to pursue their claims without fear of serious financial losses. In these cases, “even ordinary litigation costs can be substantial, and the possibility of their assessment could significantly chill the vindication of employees’ civil rights,” said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar in the 7-0 ruling. The court said the 1980 California law should be interpreted in line with a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that set standards for federal civil rights cases. Under those standards, a plaintiff who sues and loses must pay the other side’s legal costs only if the trial judge decides that the claims of discrimination obviously had no factual basis to begin with, or that the plaintiff continued with the suit after its lack of foundation became obvious. Judith Islas, a lawyer for the fire district, disagreed with the ruling and said employer organizations should ask the Legislature to change the law and establish a uniform standard for recovering legal costs.Source: State court aids unsuccessful plaintiffs in discrimination suits – SFGate