ACLU of Sacramento sends candidate questionnaires
ACLU in Sacramento queries candidates about their views
on civil rights issues, from enforcement of federal immigration law
to the death penalty, racial profiling, tasers and surveillance cameras
SACRAMENTO – The ACLU of Sacramento has announced it has sent questionnaires about vital civil rights issues to candidates running for office in races for Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, District Attorney and Sacramento City Council.
The ACLU said it intends to make the answers public before the June 8 election.
Questions (available at www.aclusac.org) include a query on whether the candidates would support the right to protest if elected – the Sacramento City Council approved in 2003, and later repealed much of a controversial “parade ordinance” that unconstitutionally restricted free speech protests at an international trade event in Sacramento.
Other questions posed include whether the candidates support the increased use surveillance cameras, tasers, racial profiling, independent police or sheriff commissions and gang injunctions.
The ACLU of Sacramento also asked candidates’ opinions on the separation of church/state, the legalization of medical cannabis dispensaries, whether they would use scarce resources to enforce federal immigration policies, and the use of “filters” in public libraries.
In a special questionnaire submitted to the District Attorney candidates, ACLU/Sacramento covered a very wide range of topics, from the death penalty and drug law enforcement to reducing jail time during the budget crisis, juvenile justice, three strikes and the use, or non-use, of rehabilitation and prevention in jail and prison.
-30-
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| ACLU-Sac Candidate Questionnaire 2010.pdf | 157.55 KB |
| ACLU-Sac DA Questionnaire 2010.pdf | 181.86 KB |
- billl4's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
District Attorney Questionaire
The SAC DA Questionnaire is probing and hopefully elicits a more solution minded policy from the next DA.
In response to the second question under the Budget Crisis section of the questionaire, I have the following comment.
The current district attorney is set to expend over 1.5 million dollars on traffic court prosecutions. This comes from the same district attorney who pledged to reduce the burden on taxpayers by refraining from prosecuting low level misdemeanor crimes like simple assaults and marijuana "crimes." See KCRA.com, 12/21/09. The Sac DA may be the only district attorney in the state who makes prosecuting infractions a priority. To put the 1.5 million in perspective, the Sac DA spends more money on traffic court than 18 other programs, including Spousal Abuse, Identity Theft, and Elder Abuse. According to online budget documents, there is no revenue collected as a result of this function.
The DA funds prosecutors in this traffic court that regularly violate the 5th Amendment rights of the poor souls that are prosecuted there. As can be seen daily at the Carol Miller Justice Center, if a traffic infraction defendant pleads not guilty, the judge makes the defendant talk with the DA before he or she is allowed to set the case for trial. If the defendant requests to by pass discussions with the DA, the judge will tell the defendant that he or she "must" talk with the DA. Then the defendant must wait in chairs set aside near the side door of the court room for the DA's arrival. When the DA arrives, the defendant must go into a hall way and discuss their case with this alleged "DA." A knowing, voluntary waiver of 5th or 6th Amendment rights is not taken. The DA doesn't remind the defendants of their rights before eliciting otherwise privileged information.
It turns out the alleged "DA" is really a law clerk, not an attorney. The DA's policy is that it refuses to provide the names of these mysterious law clerks, nor do the law clerks voluntarily provide information to the defendant that they are simply law clerks. The secret prosecutor / law clerk does not provide a card or any identifying information confirming they are indeed an employee at the DA's office. Yet, this secret prosecutor will have access to personal and confidential information such as the defendant's driver's license number, address, birth date, license plate number, or any other information associated with the alleged infraction. There is no way to report the law clerk to the State Bar if the law clerks identifies himself as an attorney as the defendant is never told the student's name.
The DA's policy of not providing the names of its law clerks violates the public records act and case law which explicitly state that names and salaries of public employees are public record. See, POST v. Superior Court (2007) 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 661; AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 693. Further, the DA denies public record act requests for budget information if you have a traffic ticket pending. Hence, not only is an alleged traffic violator deprived of 5th Amendment rights, but his or her 1st Amendment free speech rights are chilled if he or she wants to opposed the funding of traffic court (e.g., to the Board of Supervisors) as the District Attorney attempts to apprehend the author of the request to determine if the requester has a traffic court case pending (also in violation of the CA Public Records Act.) One can't oppose something credibly without proper proof so this practice is an excellent way to keep people quiet. It's more than creepy.
Based on public statements regarding "smart" spending, the DA should be all in favor of discontinuing the traffic court program and her questionable practices there. Hence, her funding of this program is quite confusing and the lack of consideration for criminal defendant's rights is alarming.