For many supporters, there has been a sense that the police department has not fairly kept their oath to both protect and serve the community, but rather create violence and oppression towards communities like that of the Hispanic and Black communities in America. Though the in the last few weeks $3 million was granted to civilian oversight board so there would be more to be done to stop the systematic racism seen in our police force in Arizona. Though there is a long list what needs to be done there is all different opinions on which best to create a fair department. Some supporters would desire to completely eliminate the system of having no police force while others believe to defund it is change the system entire and allocating necessary funds equally to other areas like that of community development and infrastructure. CIMA Law has looked at different solutions that could be more impactful reform that can create a more trustworthy system without eliminating the department completely.

Creating a more diversified police department especially in high power positions in the department will go along way to create a sense of connectiveness with the community and the police department. Matt Giordano, executive director of Arizona POST believes there is no denying it in our states main department board is made up of all white men. The 13 members include The Arizona attorney general, the Department of Public Safety director; the Arizona Department of Corrections director; an administrator of a county or municipal correctional facility; two sheriffs, one from a county with less than 200,000 people; two police chiefs; a patrol officer or sergeant, one from a city police department and the other from a sheriff’s office; a college faculty member; and two public members. As well the selection process is based on State law mandates in which some positions are awarded by title and others the governor appoints the others. That’s where it can be a little difficult for diversity to be created within this board. The leadership board could do better to have more representation from diverse groups within Arizona and to be pro motive of diverse leadership that would represent most of Arizona.

As we know it is difficult to be a police officer in today world that deals with many issues that the police really don’t need to be much part of especially dealing with mental health situations and homelessness. In light of the tragedies these last months many believe to have social worker professionals be part of the co response team with police officers could positively impact situations that can be diffused easily without the Brut force of a police officer. One example the AZ police departments could copy is the CAHOOTS response team in Eugene Oregon. This crisis intervention teams typically do not include an armed, uniformed officer but do feature counselors, social workers, and paramedics. Even if the cops are at the scene usually with mental health or homelessness situations the police back off let them do their work to diffuse the situation. To allocate money towards successful programs like this would probably one of the biggest game-changers in which decrease tensions for the both the police and the communities. As well we need to work on creating solutions that don’t involve locking up people especially if its small offenses like misdemeanor or drug offenses. For example, for many years people years in prison just for having drug possession or using it without necessary help or given the change behaviors. For drug addicts, they should be sent to programs to help themselves get better while other offenses could be done with community service or probation.

Lastly, the departments across America including that of the Arizona departments need to reform disciplining and firing of “bad apples”. However unions arbitration and bargaining has made it very difficult for supervisors to hold officers accountable for their actions and difficult to for screening of habitual misconduct when many cities departments erase misconduct actions after a certain time. In Phoenix many news articles in 2019 came out that the department purged the records of misconduct officers so they wouldn’t be more disciplined as they should. The practice, which the Department refers to as “purging,” has been standard for more than two decades under the police union’s contract in which states the contract prohibits misconduct details to be in the purged records from being considered in future disciplinary investigations or performance evaluations. It has lead some advocates and experts believe in a cascade effect in which police oversight, shielding misbehaving officers from public scrutiny and depriving supervisors of information about officers’ conduct. It also would allow misbehavior to go undetected, and officers to remain employed. The Arizona Republic did a month long investigation and concluded almost 600 cases were purged from records in the last 5 years. Of the Phoenix Police Department’s 3,000 sworn employees, there was around 525 have purged disciplinary records, which range from small minor accidents to excessive use of force. The number includes sergeants and lieutenants who supervise other officers and investigate allegations of misconduct lodged against them. This system needs to changed how we have officers be more accountable for their actions and there should be more freedom for supervisors to discipline their officers correctly based on their actions and to have records not purged so that to make sure an officer does not get promoted or re hired for repeated misconduct. As well if harm has been done it is important there is a legal compensation for the victims. There should be a sense no one is above the law even for those who enforce it.

Hopefully in the near future, Arizona will be seeing changes like these if they truly want to change the systematic racism that has cost the lives of thousands. If we want to see a better service done by the police department we need to give equal voices to all members of Arizona’s society and create accountability so we can rebuild trust.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, many states in the U.S. have deemed medical marijuana organizations “essential” businesses. The state of California took the lead by being the first to declare cannabis an “essential” business. California Governor Gavin Newsom categorized cannabis dispensaries in like manner of pharmacies, keeping medicinal – as well as recreational – dispensary sales open and implementing safety measures such as delivery, curbside pickup, increased sanitation, and social distancing when physically in shops.

Of the 33 states which have legalized medical marijuana, the majority have voiced that patient access to marijuana is essential for health-related reasons. Randal Meyer, the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce, stated,

“In the 33 states that have legalized medical cannabis, patients need to purchase medicine for cancer, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other conditions. There is a good reason for cannabis retailers to be treated like pharmacies. The basis is medical.”

– Randal Meyer

Many states, such as Arizona and Alaska, have not explicitly named cannabis companies in their stay-at-home orders or lists of essential businesses. However, in states legalizing medical marijuana use, cannabis dispensaries remain open — with safety measyres put in of course. For example:

• Arizona dispensaries are operational and many cannabis retailers can be found in the state’s categorization of “essential” businesses as part of the healthcare sector.
• State-licensed cannabis companies in California are allowed to continue their operations.
• Both medicinal and recreational marijuana retailers in Colorado remain operational under executive order, but medical dispensaries remain open while recreational dispensaries are confined to curbside pickup.

The guidelines and stipulations for cannabis companies’ operations vary from state to state amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but rules and regulations are centered mainly around safety measures that promote social distancing between retailers and consumers and increased sanitation practices.

Senator Sinema has been fiercely advocating on the behalf of Arizonians to push for another Bi Partisan discussion into creating another round of Stimulus for the country relief effort during this pandemic. She made it clear in the on call discussion forum, in which CIMA Law management assistants attended, that the CARES Act was a good stepping stone however it is not enough.

As we know this has become hardest times we have faced in decades since World War II and Senator Sinema believes we need to come together from both parties to decide how to keep people from going under and get the economy running safely. She explained to the organizers of the meeting that she has 5 points she believes are the most crucial for not just Arizonians but as well the country if we can get another bill going.

Immediately cut red

We need to cut this red tape mistakes we have been running into this past couple of months. The federal government must develop distribution systems so that state, local and tribal governments are not forced to bid against one another to receive this crucial equipment for our hospitals and first responders. 

Boost the production and distribution of more personal protective equipment.

We shouldn’t be fighting each other for PPE we need to help one another out so we can all get the necessary protective supplies for frontline workers and first responders who are at the forefront of this epidemic war.

Strengthen the Paycheck Protection Program

It will allow $10 million dollars to small businesses that can provide for the payroll of their employees and operational expenses and make it easier for small businesses to tap into the loan since it will soon dry up.

Unemployment insurance

All Arizonians are guaranteed to get need support during these hard times including that of Supplemental Security Income or veteran income should not be denied rebate.

Invest in Broadband internet

800,000 Arizonians do not have internet resources especially those in rural areas that need such tools for their kids to go to school online and such. She wants to expand our broadband service and invest more in our schools but especially community colleges who have allowed people to get their degree at a reasonable price.

Develop housing assistance legislature and advocate for the forgiveness assurance.

One person on the phone asked Senator Sinema how she is going to protect, property owners of rental properties? and her response was There is  $50 billion dollar coverage by the state legislature for mortgages, However, only a small percentage has been given out which defeats the purpose of helping people pay their housing bills especially for property owners. On the federal level, She wants to increase  $75 billion for housing assistance bill to help pay for rent and mortgages if we have the next round of bipartisan agreements. She has a two-part plan in which focuses on firstly more mortgage driven solutions to give liquidity, so we do not see mass foreclosures and secondly to help renters and property owners pay their bills not just give referrals. She has also been lobbying for more regulatory assurance to stabilize the economy.

Many of the realtors are confused about how the IRS and the SB Treasury have not been clear on their ever-changing policies. Some realtors were concerned about forgiveness assurance since many people have multiple businesses and if one took PPE they cannot get the needed employment tax credit. Senator Sinema believes both have done a shameful job giving out information about forgiveness. She has talked with Munchin and the IRS and they are collaborating together on solving these issues. She has been advocating with the two to have presumptions to be taken good faith of the people using the money correctly. She pointed out that she is Co-sponsor of a bill this week that will relax some of the forgiveness timelines and regulations, which the house approved it and would provide flexibility for PPE.

For CIMA Law Group, it sounded promising that Senator Sinema desired to help both tenants and landlords. However with any politician we will have to see based on a possible stimulus bill if she will truly stick to her guns. If anyone has a concern she asked at the end to contact her directly https://www.sinema.senate.gov/get-assistance.

As protests in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery continue across the country, there are many unknowns concerning the rights of those protesting. As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have been actively supporting law enforcement at many protests, undocumented immigrants and DACA recipients (commonly known as “Dreamers”), in particular, are uncertain how protesting might affect their status

Because many Dreamers come from mixed-status families (a family in which some members are documented residents, citizens, or DACA recipients, and some members are undocumented) and social circles, there is justified fear that the arrest of a Dreamer could put at risk those relatives and friends. Though both CBP and ICE have released statements saying that they are there only to support local and federal law enforcement, there is little trust between immigration enforcement agencies and immigrants. The fear of arrest and detainment is real, and it has begun happening across the country. In Phoenix, activist Máxima Guerrero was arrested while leaving a protest on May 30th, and was transferred to ICE custody. After over 24 hours of public outcry and protests on her behalf, she was released from the Phoenix ICE field office on June 1st.

There has been no reassurance from ICE or CBP that Dreamers and undocumented immigrants will not be detained or deported if they are arrested at a protest, and it is not likely that there will be. There is a significant level of distrust surrounding the “support” role that ICE and CBP are playing with law enforcement, and detainment and deportation have been threatened already in many cases of arrest.

Before making the decision to protest, contact an immigration attorney to get as much information as possible about your rights as a DACA recipient or undocumented immigrant; CIMA Law Group has extensive experience with immigration and DACA cases, and we’re here to help.

If you are a Dreamer or an undocumented immigrant and plan on protesting, it is important to be cautious and try to avoid situations where arrests may occur. Many activists are recommending notifying your emergency contacts before attending a protest, and having their numbers (and that of an immigration attorney) handy in case you need it. Remaining as peaceful a protester as possible is key while there is so much uncertainty about the roles of ICE and CBP at the protests.

In January of this year, the Los Angeles City Council passed a motion requesting that the City Attorney’s office investigate statewide eviction protection laws that could potentially be adopted in Los Angeles. The motion cited a 2019 study conducted by Public Council and the UCLA School of Law that estimated over 500,000 eviction proceedings had been filed with LA County since 2010, and the real number of of evictions could be as high as 1,500,000, as many tenants left their units at the threat of eviction. The motion was filed in an effort to slow the amount of evictions happening in LA and protect tenants from price gouging and evictions, and keep the housing crisis in Los Angeles under control. If adopted, there’s no doubt that this ordinance could change the landscape of renting in Los Angeles.

What is a “Just Cause” Evictions Ordinance?

A “Just Cause” Evictions Ordinance would act as a protective order for those who are not covered under the existing Rent Stabilization Ordinance— generally, people renting multi-family units built before 1978. The “Just Cause” Ordinance would regulate all evictions in non-RSO units, require the payment of relocation services for all “No-Fault” evictions (evictions for which the tenant is not responsible), and require landlords to notify their tenants of their rights at the onset of their leases.

The “just causes” that may constitute an eviction include:

1. Nonpayment of rent, habitual late payment, or frequent bounced checks
2. Violation of the rental agreement
3. Nuisance or substantial damage to the unit, or creating an environment that prevents the other tenants or landlord from feeling safe or comfortable in the property
4. Illegal use of the unit
5. Termination of the rental agreement without an extension
6. Refusal to give the landlord access to the unit as required by law
7. Unapproved subtenant
8. Move-in of the landlord (tenant has the right to relocation payments)
9. Sale of a unit which has been converted to a condo
10. Demolition or removal of the unit from housing use (tenant has the right to relocation payments)
11. Capital improvements or rehabilitation which might cause temporary relocation of the tenant
12. “Substantial rehabilitation” of a building that is uninhabitable (tenant has the right to relocation payments)
13. Ellis Act evictions
14. Lead abatement as required by health code (tenant has the right to relocation payments)
15. Good Samaritan Occupancy Status for the tenant expires, and the landlord serves an eviction notice within 60 days after the expiration of the status

Why are some people opposed to a “Just Cause” ordinance?

In short, it favors tenants’ rights over that of landlords.

This ordinance is a significant increase in rental regulation, especially in that it places regulation on evictions from single-family homes in addition to multi-family properties like apartment complexes. By imposing more regulation on tenants, it creates more strain and financial expense for landlords to evict problem tenants. On the other hand, it protects renters from being evicted without proper cause.

The ordinance is designed, in part, to keep LA’s housing crisis under control, and to keep the number of people going homeless each year in LA from increasing. The argument against the ordinance is that it could be potentially devastating for small-scale landlords, and make property management an impossibility for many of them, leading to less rental properties available either way.

Will it be passed?

So far, no vote has taken place to adopt or reject the motion calling for the “Just Cause” ordinance. On June 4, 2020, there was a special meeting of LA City Council’s Housing Committee to discuss this motion and numerous other items, but this motion was skipped over; no agenda amendment was posted and the motion was not mentioned, so it is likely that the motion will be brought up at a future Housing Committee meeting.

While there wasn’t a vote either way on June 4th, there were many public commentators who called in to speak in opposition of the motion being passed. Many landlords said that they were concerned about losing their properties due to the new financial responsibility that the ordinance could impose on them, and they called for a more thorough investigation into how the ordinance might negatively affect the stakeholders who have invested in rental properties.

No future meeting to discuss the motion has yet been scheduled, but it is likely that it will be voted on in the near future.