I am moving to a new website: Intermediate Scrutiny. The change is necessary because I am longer located in Arizona. Because of life circumstances, I recently moved to Washington State and became a licensed attorney there, and it is too difficult for me to keep up with issues in Arizona to write about them.
However, I am going to continue blogging at Intermediate Scrutiny which will continue to focus on cutting edge constitutional issues, but have more of a Washington State slant.
It is the dog days of summer here in Phoenix, Arizona where the weather seems endlessly hot. There are a variety of ways that people try to beat the “dry heat” where temperatures commonly near 120 degrees. Sometimes going topless can be the refreshing answer to the heat.
The problem is only men are truly allowed to go topless in Arizona. State law prohibits women from exposing their nipples in public when it could be offensive.
This is an issue in the law applying different standards to women and men. I will argue in this article the state’s indecent exposure laws have constitutional issues on both the state and federal level.
*** This article contains an image that may Not Be Safe For Work!
I wish it was as simple as this: “Your Honor, I plead ignorance of the law because it is impractical and quite nearly impossible to access a significant amount of Arizona’s case law on the matter.” Nearly 30 years of Arizona case law is not freely and practically accessible, even though it should be.
“But Arizona Common Law, all of Arizona case law is available at libraries throughout the the state,” the Devil’s Advocate would hypothetically respond. “All an individual needs to do is go to their local library to research case law.”
The Federal Wiretap Report made by the federal judiciary, provides an insight into how wiretaps are used in Arizona and how the judicial district Arizona compares to other judicial districts in the United States.
Just looking at the map below, Arizona is colored in the darkest shade of orange. Without even looking at any numbers the map indicates the district of Arizona is a district with the most reported wiretaps in the entire country.
A wiretap is where communications are monitored. Law enforcement is required to have a valid warrant so as to not unreasonably infringe upon privacy rights.
In a religious freedom decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state of Washington’s rules requiring the timely delivery of prescription medication over two pharmacists religious objections. The pharmacists objected to delivering emergency contraceptives on the grounds of religious freedom.
The issue presented is whether a pharmacist must timely delivery emergency contraceptives when the state’s rules for pharmacies are neutral and generally applicable. The federal appellate court upheld the state’s pharmacy rules because “the rules are neutral and generally applicable and that the rules rationally further the State’s
interest in patient safety.”1Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, No. 12-35221 (9th Cir. July 23, 2015) (slip op. at 9).
Scheduling for the contempt hearings regarding Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is moving forward with U.S. District Judge Murray Snow telling both parties to clear dates from late September to early November. [CBS5AZ]
Glendale City Council and the Arizona Coyotes came to an agreement to revise the lease. [ABC15]
Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws are being challenged on constitutional grounds by the state branch of the ACLU (see complaint below). Civil asset forfeiture laws allow prosecutors and police to seize private property without a court order.
U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa denied a request for a preliminary injunction blocking the planned South Mountain Freeway. Two different groups challenged the proposed freeway for different reasons (See both complaints below). Protecting Arizona’s Resources and Children argued in part that the freeway would cause irreparable environmental harm. The Gila River Indian Community argues the freeway would impact it’s sacred lands. [AzRepublic]
Arizona Common Law is now using a creative commons license for all the material on this website, created by me.1 The creative commons license does not extend to items which I do not create or write, such as the issue indices or write any of the case law. Those items are in the public domain. In other words, this website is shifting from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved,” allowing more individuals more freedoms and flexibility to reproduce or modify this work.
“Creative Commons (CC) is a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools.”2 About, Creative Commons, available at: https://creativecommons.org/about/ (last accessed, July 21, 2015.
All of the Arizona case law reporters that are in the public domain are now added to the website. The case law spans from 1866-1921. This is an important resource for individuals research Arizona case law because these cases are not freely available in a searchable plain-text format elsewhere.
To find the case law from anywhere on the Arizona Common Law website click on the ‘Case Law’ tab in the horizontal menu at the top of the page (the horizontal menu will appear at the top of every page).
The case law section of the site offers:
Issue indices are available in plain text and .pdf (at the end of the .pdf copy of the reporter itself).
Plain text of cases are being added on a case-by-case basis. To request the plain text of a case to be added, please contact me via email at firstname.lastname@example.org or use the contact page.
Searchable Table of Contents are available to aid in the search for case law (Table of Contents are still being added for later volumes). Users may query by party, date, or citation.
Coming soon will be free video tutorials on how to effectively search through this early Arizona case law. If the format or layout does not seem quite clear yet, please wait for the instructional videos.
The lease dispute with the City of Glendale is putting a crimp in the Arizona Coyotes courting of free agents this off-season.
“You’re honest with them,” Arizona Coyotes General Manager Don Maloney told the Arizona Republic.1 Sarah McLellan, “Arizona Coyotes’ offseason priority: Improving defense,” Arizona Republic, July 02, 2015, available at: http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nhl/coyotes/2015/07/02/arizona-coyotes-mike-smith-don-maloney-brad-richardson-nhl-notes/29644819/ (last accessed July 08, 2015). “You basically say, ‘I have no idea what’s going on, but it’s a great place to play and we have great fans and a great stadium.’ Things seem to have a way of working themselves out, so we try to downplay it as much as we can.”
The lease dispute is putting the team’s future on ice (pun intended). At issue is whether the City of Glendale will be able to get out of the $225 million lease agreement with the Arizona Coyotes.