For friendlier laws

This is the story of the Rajasthan law reform project, an exciting exercise I have had the good luck to be part of since 2014 first as a member of the Rajasthan chief minister s economic advisory council and subsequently, since 2015, as a member of the Niti Aayog.

As a citizen, I am expected to comply with the laws of the land. However, how can I do that if I wear t even understand exactly what the statutes, and the associated rules are or exactly what they state?


Contrary to the basic impression, it isn t easy to get a list and text of the statutes. No one understands for certain how numerous state-level statutes there are.

However, this is no more than a guess. Don t get me wrong. In basic, we do know the vital statutes and rules. I suggested the entire corpus, not just the essential ones. Once the entire database is offered, there are a number of steps required for statutory law reform; the speed of disagreement resolution being a different problem.

Initially, exist old statutes and guidelines that can be rescinded, similar to the current Union government effort? Second, can one rationalize and harmonise statutes/rules, and prevent the confusion that lack of standardisation causes? Third, can one place all statutes/rules in the public domain? 4th, can one decrease excessive government intervention in statutes/rules?

As a possible template, such an enormous reform exercise doesn t take off unless it has the personal interest and the blessings of the chief minister. That message needs to percolate through to departments. To state something not often valued: Rajasthan federal government doesn t administer a statute/rule; a particular department within the Rajasthan government does, and every such department concerns its statutes/rules as proprietary stuff, not to be trifled with. That s where the CM s intervention is essential. Equally notably, there needs to be a faceless bureaucrat, who will take the CM s program and keep up it, plaguing and pestering departments, choosing not to back off.

2aThis isn t about the Industrial Disputes Act. Kerala repealed 697 statutes in 2005 and another 107 in 2009. Rajasthan s exercise is exhaustive.

We started with the presumption there were around 900 statutes and attempted to list all of them and get their texts. We had been given a figure of 900 but there were just 592 laws after some appropriation acts were ditched. Of the 592, 405 were primary acts and 187 were amending acts.

Ultimately, texts were acquired from the government printing press. The very first action was a straight-out repeal of the old and unneeded statutes/rules. In all, 61 primary acts and 187 modifying acts were eventually rescinded in October 2015.


There were statutes that had actually been overtaken and replaced by Union legislation and guidelines. The Rajasthan Corneal Grafting Act of 1984 is an example. Why shouldn t the Rajasthan Identification of Prisoners Act (1956), the Rajasthan Prisoners Act (1960) and the Rajasthan Prisons Act (1894) be consolidated into one?

We had believed the task would take till February 2017, but we will be through with it in September 2016, when we would have cut the number of statues to simply 277. With the state federal government s commitment, this provides you a concept of how long it takes to get to this phase approximately 2 years. All these statutes/rules will be offered online; the process has currently begun.

As of now, we are combining statutes under four broad heads land earnings, tenancy, land reforms and the imposition of ceilings. Messy, it may well be possible to minimize all land-related statutes to a cluster of simply 2 heads. If there is contract that statutes such as the Rajasthan Regulation of Boating Act (1956) can be done away with, we could minimize the last tally to simply 100.

Promote cops openness laws gets stuck in Sacramento

A swath of expenses handling California s strict laws safeguarding the privacy of law enforcement officer and the release of info to the general public has actually cannot garner assistance, leaving the state at a standstill on a troubling public issue that blew up anew this week.

In Baton Rouge, La., protests appeared Tuesday night after a cellular phone video went viral revealing 2 police officers pinning down and fatally shooting a black man that early morning.


The event, likewise recorded on authorities body video cameras though the video was not released restored calls across the country for police openness and accountability, and comes as California lawmakers have actually deadlocked on legislation that would have set guidelines on who need to be able to see police body electronic camera footage and when.

In the Baton Rouge shooting, police killed Alton Sterling, 37, after responding to a call about a male with a weapon outside a convenience store, where Sterling routinely sold CDs. On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department announced that it had opened a civil-rights examination into Sterling s death.

2aThe event is the latest in a string of deadly authorities shootings caught on video that have actually resulted in massive, violent protests throughout several U.S. cities. The shootings triggered California legislators to call for increased cops openness and accountability, but with couple of outcomes.

The Legislature is out of action with exactly what the public desires, said Peter Bibring, director of cops practices for the ACLU of California. This isn t disappearing until the Legislature repairs it.


Leno bill dies.

One of the bills was authored by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and would have opened records of examinations and discipline in cops shootings and other major cases of use of force. But SB1286 died without a vote last month. Supporters stated California law currently disallows the release of basic details about a department s examination into officer misbehavior. SB1286 would have consisted of the release of body-camera video in use-of-force cases.

When police don t divulge, the public believes it s because they have something to hide, Bibring stated, including that this lack of openness increases skepticism of police in some communities.

2aHe said California keeps personal nearly all elements of law-enforcement examinations into a policeman s conduct, even when proved.

It s not just that they can withhold it they need to, Bibring stated.

He pointed to Oakland, where Mayor Libby Schaaf has actually been limited by personal privacy laws from divulging details about the turmoil in the city s Police Department. The Oakland Police Department has actually been roiled by scandals, including allegations of officers having sex with an underage teen and sending out racist texts.

California has the most restrictive (policeman personal privacy) laws in the nation, Bibring said.

And some costs this year would have made those laws more limiting when it comes to body electronic cameras.

A bill by Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove (Sacramento County), would have permitted policemans to evaluate body-camera footage prior to making their reports, while legislation by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, would have given officers three days notice before their footage was made public, which challengers argued would have led to a boost in officers looking for a court injunction to postpone the release.

Both expenses died last month.

Those expenses were seen as preferring officers, while a bill by Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, tried to discover middle ground. Peculiarity s expense in the beginning required body-camera video footage to be released within 60 days, prior to the legislation was watered down and eventually eliminated.


A costs by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, would have supplied more moneying for cops to purchase body video cameras. It too died.

Still on the table.

The only costs still active is by Assemblyman Evan Low, D-San Jose, which would limit the release of video footage showing an officer s death.

Cooper stated he thinks all officers in the state need to be geared up with body-worn cams, but that a one-size-fits-all policy governing their use does not work. His bill would have left the choice on how the cameras are consumed to each agency s collectivebargaining procedure, but needed those standards to enable policemans to evaluate video footage before talking to internal-affairs private investigators.

2aAt the end of the day, the supreme objective for everyone is they want as lots of body electronic cameras out there as possible, said Cooper, a previous police policeman. Even my challengers agree on this. In the meantime, we as a legislature sit on our hands.

Last year, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, authored a costs that would have created necessary and advised guidelines for law-enforcement firms that use body-worn video cameras. That expense, AB66, consisted of requirements opposed by police unions, including a provision that disallowed officers from evaluating video footage before providing their preliminary statement following a major use-of-force occurrence and prohibited policemans from making copies of their video for their own records.

Mayor s assistance.

Schaaf, Oakland s mayor, supported the bill, which passed away in committee.

California would benefit significantly from more uniform policies that make it clear to law enforcement, the media and the public who can access body-camera footage and when they can do so; how we safeguard the privacy of everybody recorded on electronic camera, including spectators; as well as how the video should be kept and accessed and for how long it ought to be available, Schaaf said. These are just a few of the concerns we are now coming to grips with on a local level, city by city. It shouldn t be in this manner.

Fairview taken legal action against by industrial park for medical cannabis laws

An industrial park is taking legal action against Fairview over whether local governments that prohibit medical marijuana production are violating their authority under Oregon law.

The lawsuit, filed in Multnomah County on June 27, claims Eastwind Industrial Parks claim lost revenue from medical cannabis growers who stopped leasing at the park after Fairview city authorities informed them they might not grow on the property.


The city’s codes restrict medical marijuana grows regardless of whether the operation is signed up with the state.

The lawsuit asks Fairview to issue an injunction versus the enforcement of the city’s law concerning the growth of medical cannabis.

Eastwind rented to 4 signed up medical cannabis growers prior to March 2016, the lawsuit said. In early March, the city sent out a letter to park owner Gary Troutner informing him the park remained in violation of city code.

A few days later on, Fairview workers inspected the park. On March 28, the city sent out a letter demanding that all medical marijuana grows at the park be shut down, the claim stated.Troutner advised his tenants to stop growing. 3 of 4 stopped renting, and Troutner expects the fourth to leave quickly, the suit said. Troutner has lost $3,290 a month in rent and will lose another $880 when the 4th tenant leaves, the lawsuit said. ForĀ Veterans disability info you can visit our site.

Oregon law allows cities to forbid leisure cannabis manufacturers, processors and sales, along with medical processors and dispensaries. Cities and counties can control medical marijuana production, including a grow’s hours of operation, location, the public’s access and how items are transferred.

However, according to a guide by the League of Oregon Cities, state law does not define whether a city can prohibit medical marijuana grows. The league advises that cities thinking about prohibiting medical marijuana grows speak with their city attorney.

2aThe lawsuit asserts Fairview is overstepping its authority.

“There’s no authority from the state for a city to ban (on medical growing),” the park’s lawyer Bear Wilner-Nugent stated.

Fairview’s city attorney Ashley Driscoll declined to talk about the claim.

The issue of regional control over cannabis has actually been questionable. Lawmakers have actually struggled over just how much power to offer to cities and counties to restrict medical marijuana centers and retail sales of the drug.

Under Measure 91, in most locations only voters can approve a restriction if they gather enough signatures to put the issue on the tally. In 15 eastern Oregon counties where at least 55 percent of voters opposed Measure 91, city councils and county commissions can vote to prohibit any marijuana business.

Many cities and counties have successfully prohibited medical cannabis dispensaries, and 19 counties and 81 cities have actually opted out of recreational cannabis sales. Lots of others have high local taxes to prevent leisure retailers– including Fairview, which has a 40 percent tax.

There was no hearing scheduled for the suit on Wednesday early morning.