Just to remind everyone there is no jury this week, but tomorrow is a 402 motion, (evidentiary motion.)

Dr. Leo an expert on coerced confessions, as seen on Forensic files, will testify to see if the judge will allow his testimony in the trial.

So, listen to the noon report then podcast tomorrow night.

Also, don’t forget the “TEES” have been ordered.





TSA agents cannot be sued over allegations of abuse

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Transportation Security Administration screeners who operate the checkpoints at the nation’s airports cannot be sued over allegations of abuse — and acknowledged that as a result, passengers have very limited legal options even in the face of outrageous TSA misconduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which sits in Philadelphia, held that TSA officers enjoy sovereign immunity because, despite their badges and titles as “officers,” they do not qualify as “investigative or law enforcement officers” who could be held legally responsible for abuses under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The court also revisited the question of when a search should trigger Fourth Amendment protections and found that TSA screeners are more like federal meat inspectors than police officers.

“[W]e are sympathetic to the concerns this may raise as a matter of policy, particularly given the nature and frequency of TSOs’ contact with the flying public,” the opinion says, using an abbreviation for “transportation security officer.”

In a dissenting opinion, however, Judge Thomas L. Ambro argued that what the TSA does every day at checkpoints around the country is not much different from what police do when they conduct traffic stops and pat down the drivers to see whether they are carrying weapons.

Ambro also noted that the majority’s opinion would bar passengers from bringing legal claims even in the most extreme cases, such as when TSA officers at Denver International Airport were accused of manipulating security procedures so that they could grope “attractive” male passengers.

“Their opinion leaves several plaintiffs without a remedy, even if a TSO assaults them, wrongfully detains them, or fabricates criminal charges against them,” Ambro wrote. “I do not believe this is what Congress intended.”

The case was brought by Nadine Pellegrino, who was arrested after a physical confrontation with TSA agents at Philadelphia International Airport in 2006.

Pellegrino and her husband were on their way home to Florida when she was asked to step aside with her luggage for further checkpoint screening after passing through a metal detector, the opinion says. She objected to the TSA agent’s treatment of her and her luggage, however, and asked for a private screening. She was then led into an examination room with three female agents.

Pellegrino objected to how this screening was handled, too, saying it was unnecessarily rough, as well as invasive because it extended to her credit cards, mobile phone and lipstick. She accused the agents of damaging some of her things, at one point calling them “bitches” and threatening to report them to superiors, the court’s opinion says.

Then, after the screening was finished and the agents told her she could go, Pellegrino began collecting her luggage and knocked two of the agents with the bags, according to the TSA — a charge Pellegrino denied. The TSA agents summoned police to arrest her.

Pellegrino was eventually charged with 10 counts of felony aggravated assault, simple assault, making terroristic threats and “possession of instruments of a crime.” She was acquitted, at least in part because of rulings and circumstances that limited the trial testimony that the TSA agents could present, the opinion says.

After her claim to the TSA for $951,200 was denied, Pellegrino filed suit in 2009. The District Court granted relief for property damage but said the TSA agents could not be held individually liable for their conduct.

The court’s reasoning hinged on whether TSA agents should be considered government employees or law enforcement officials. Under the Tort Claims Act, the federal government and its employees have sovereign immunity that shields them from civil or criminal liability except in certain limited circumstances. These include wrongful behavior such as assault and false arrest if committed by an “investigative or law enforcement officer” — officers who are presumed to know when they have probable cause or proper authority for their actions. The ability to sue such officers came about amid outrage after rogue federal agents carried out “no-knock” drug searches in Illinois in 1973.

In Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s majority opinion, the appeals court ruled that TSA screeners conduct only “administrative” searches such as those carried out at checkpoints targeting everyone — in contrast to the search of a single person that is triggered by suspicious behavior and must be carried out by law enforcement.

The court also noted that when the TSA was created, the initial job description given to its employees at airport checkpoints was simply “screener.” This was later switched to “transportation security officer” only as a kind of morale booster. In contrast, actual federal law enforcement officers are given the power to execute arrests and carry firearms, the court found.

“[W]e are persuaded that the phrase ‘investigative or law enforcement officers’ refers only to criminal law enforcement officers, not to federal employees who conduct only administrative searches,” the opinion says, citing previous rulings, language in the federal statute and its legislative history. And the court acknowledged that its holding means passengers “will have very limited legal redress.”

But the court also suggested that it is up to Congress to decide whether that should change.






Gas tax projects prompt Jerry Brown’s Large pay raises…….

Gov. Jerry Brown’s last contract with the state’s highway engineers includes some sweet perks aimed at retaining the longtime road designers, planners and project managers who’d be charged with executing work funded by the gas tax he backed last year.

Brown struck a two-year agreement with Professional Engineers in California Government that includes general wage increases of 4.5 percent immediately and 4 percent next July.

That’s a good raise, but engineers with more 20 years of experience are in line for an extra longevity bump.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The proposed contract’s longevity increases are

· 2 percent for engineers with 20 years of experience or more as of July 1, 2018

· 3 percent for engineers with 21 years of experience or more as of July 1, 2019

· 4 percent for engineers with 22 years of experience or more as of July 1, 2020

· And 5.5 percent for engineers with 23 years of experience or more as of July 1, 2021

The Brown administration estimates the contract will cost $93 million in the current budget year, and $171 million next year.

Caltrans is building up its staff to execute projects funded by Senate Bill 1, the gas tax and vehicle fee increases that are expected to raise $5.4 billion a year for transportation projects. Voters in November will consider Proposition 6, which would repeal the gas tax increase.

Caltrans also is working through a wave of retirements.

More than 500 engineers retired from the department last year. In recent years, the department had held back on hiring because it anticipated that its funding would decrease.

“The piece I like to call experienced pay is there to address a real problem. Those experienced folks are retiring and there isn’t really a cadre in the middle to deliver SB 1 projects,” said Ted Toppin, PECG’s executive director. “Hopefully this agreement will keep those people on the job delivering highways, schools, hospitals and every other type of infrastructure project.”

PECG represents about 10,000 state workers, about 60 percent of whom work for Caltrans.

“It’s a fair and reasonable deal. This is a pretty modest raise given the market. The market right now is very competitive for licensed engineers,” Toppin said, pointing to local governments and private firms that also are recruiting engineers.

Do you work for the state of California?

If so, then we’ve got something special for you. For more than 10 years we’ve provided state workers with exclusive insight and analysis that can keep you ahead of the curve.

Adam Ashton and others on The State Worker team provide vital information:

  • News on pay, benefits, pensions, job openings and promotions.
  • Trends in the state workforce and at PERS and STRS.
  • Exclusive stories about discipline and politics in state service.

For a limited time, state workers can take advantage of a 99-cents offer for your first month of access.

The proposed contract includes a temporary concession from the union that could lead to workers paying more money to fund their pensions.

Today, engineers pay 8 percent of their wages to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the state pays another 8.14 percent.

The proposal would require engineers to pay 50 percent of the costs of their pensions if CalPERS increases its pension pre-funding rate by more than 1 percent.

So, if CalPERS next year determines that it needs 17 percent of engineers’ wages to pre-fund their pensions, employees will have to kick in 8.5 percent instead of 8 percent.

That concession expires with the proposed two-year contract, meaning the next governor would have to negotiate the 50/50 pension split if the state wants to continue using that formula.

PECG plans to send ballots for its members to vote on the contract next week. The Legislature also must approve it for employees to get the raises in the agreement.