Możesz dodawać lokalizację do Twoich Tweetów, jak miasto czy konkretne miejsce, z sieci lub innych aplikacji. W każdej chwili możesz usunąć historię lokalizacji swoich Tweetów. Dowiedz się więcej
HAPPENING NOW: A federal judge is hearing arguments over part of the new police accountability law. @CT_STATE_POLICE Union arguing for a preliminary injunction over section making certain disciplinary records public. The 2019 State Police contract keeps them sealed
Attorney @Proloy for State Police Union to judge: Change would lead to unfounded and frivolous complaints against troopers becoming public. Says provision violates US Constitution's Contracts Clause. Says law was designed as an end-run around the State Police contract
Union attorney: What's the point of a contract if lawmakers can just void it for any reason?
Judge says the issue is whether the state is acting as a private party reneging on a contract -- or is it governing?
State Police Union attorney: Prelim injunction necessary bc once those "unfounded" disciplinary records are released, troopers will suffer "irreparable harm." Essentially, the cat is out of the bag at that point
Now it's the CT Attorney General's turn. They're arguing the Contracts Clause doesn't apply bc the change doesn't substantially change the State Police contract State AG's office: Making disciplinary records public is a "reasonable means to achieve state interest"
State AG's office: This is whole reason CT has a Freedom of Information Act
They're saying the state has the right to pass "regulatory" laws and Contracts Clause applies to purely contractual issues like pay & benefits: "Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectations that the state couldn't act in the public interest to change the provision"
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
