it does that require reasonable suspicion? >> it does not. >> so you're only concern is searches that go further than that. >> that's right. a very close inspection of the individuals genitals, which can occur absolutely so long as there is some minimal level of suspicion that's created. i do want to return to justice kennedy's concern about dignitary interest here and whether drawing -- >> can i just follow up on that? is there a disputed fact as to whether anything beyond that occurred in burlington county? >> in burlington county there is a dispute with the so-called general lift whether mr. florent was required to lift his genitals or not. there is no dispute butte he was directed to strip naked despite the officer having made the finding which is on page treen 90 of the appendix there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search. that is the only dispute. >> could you clarify to points for me? the first is he was admitted into the general population at burlington? >> the record is not entirely clear. what the rec

there are two levels of reasoning that you can apply to this. so on the one hand you can study the specific arguments, the pieces of evidence, one by one, and learn all of the details. and so you would think about the theology problem, like the problem of evil. how could a perfectly good, perfectly powerful god create children dying of cancer? and you can think about the argument theologians have tried to make that circumvent this. you can think about the puzzle of the universe looking fine tuned and how could that have happened by chance and what are the alternatives and so on and so forth. the other level of approaching this is by taking a step back and realizing that there are a lot of people who have already thought about these things and the specific arguments and they have formed some over all assessment on the basis of that. and unless you have some reason to think that you are much more likely to find the truth if you look at all of these specific arguments than these other people, then maybe you should just look at the distribution of o

that is reasonable. it is foreseeable. there is a reason for the subdivision. it is not happening for no reason. it would be odd to find it is not reasonably foreseeable. there is no reason to subdivide unless there is going to be a project that is coming forward. it is clearly not required that there be a project application. the other thing house want to say to year -- your staff told you that the reason the top rollcall exemption does not apply is that category of exemption implies that there is development spending. here there is not, so this exemption does not apply. that is not what the exemptions says. that exemption is for minor subdivisions where you have residential or commercial zoning in place, etc. it doesn't say and there is a product application. that exemption is just for a small subdivision. there is nothing in there about development pending. the whole point is that indexing that happens after a project -- a lot is divided, the development potential increases. here it is questionable whether there would be environmental reviews required if you

you are not saying it always has to be reasonable suspicion. >> we think that is reasonable suspicion. >> all right. well, that isn't helping me. what helps me is to know what the category of things is that the jail, in your opinion, is going to have to look into the characteristics of this individual person. and when i look at the aba, they talk about minor arrests. and when i look at some of the cases, there's a long list like violence, drugs and so forth where you don't have to, where you can just use general -- the fact that he was arrested for the thing. but there are other ones, minor ones, where you do. so what's your rule on that? >> our rule that we would accept is that with respect to minor offenders, that's when -- >> with okay. then the next question is who is a minor offender, and how to you administrator that rule? >> okay. i think that's a great question for them because that's their rule. they have a rule that says for minor offenders -- >> if you're trying to state the constitutional rule and you teak talking about what is their rule, and we're trying to find out what

was reasonable suspicion to do a reasonable body cavity search. >> the distinction between what they did and the actual course -- written policy? >> what happens here is essex after this search occurred, and this was described, essex is its policy. we were denied an injunction going forward, so it is a question of damages for the search that occurred at the time under their oil policy. >> concerned about your position. suppose your jurisdiction has a policy of requiring every inmate who is arrested and is going to be held in custody to disrobe and take a shower and apply medication for the prevention of the spread of lice and is observed while this is taking place from some distance by a corrections officer, let's say, 10 feet away. is that -- those that require reasonable suspicion? >> it does not. >> your only concern is searches that the further than that? >> that is exactly right. the close inspection of an individual's generals, which can there someong as t minimal suspicion. >> is there a dispute as to whether anything beyond that occurred in burlington county? >> there is a di

and -- and he claims: no, that's not the real reason; the real reason is because i threatened to sue the church. okay? so, that reason is just pretextual. would you -- would you allow the government to go -- go into the -- into the dismissal of the catholic priest to see whether indeed it -- it was pretextual? ms. no, justice scalia -- justice scalia: why? kruger: -- but that is the case -- justice scalia: why is that any different from the lutheran minister? kruger: i would begin with looking at the burdens on association under the balancing test. i think that the core of the understanding of the ministerial exception, as it was elaborated in the lower courts, is that there is a fundamental difference between governmental regulation that operates to interfere with the relationship between a church and those who would govern it, those who would preach the word to the congregation, those who would administer its sacraments, on the one hand, and the more public relationship between a church and a school teacher and others that provide services to the public at large. justice scalia: i

this is important to the reasons for the request. literally hundreds of people have invested their lives in their neighborhood who are affected by this and there is no meaningful way to find out what this going on. we have not yet seen the position of the department, and we're hopeful but there'll be a submission from the other side of frankel -- frankly, we are not a corporate organization. we are a group of many citizens who need the chance to see all of these materials and to get the position together. we are genuinely concerned that is almost as if to -- the events are putting us at the worst possible time of the year. you remember, when you went to grandmothers for thanksgiving and christmas, we have a lot of grandmothers here and a lot of children who come to visit on holidays. this is a complicating factor. we need time to give this adequate deliberation. the only other thing i would emphasize is that we do not oppose the granting of the application. provided that all the facts are considered and we can come to a common unders

the principal reason that the researchers were reasonable is that it was essential to deter smugglingat has much more -- the inmates in the case was having a planned meeting with someone. the problem was if you plan to somebody visit you and you have a contact visit, you can plan for them to sneak something to you. >> there were guards who were watching the visits. there was no empirical evidence that smuggling came about as a result of these visits. >> can i read see what the court said about that? this is from page 559 of the court's opinion. "there was one instance when there were trying to smuggle contraband. the opportunity arises and will have an unexpected arrest, the paper work was shown that he was not wanted for arrest and that will be true in all kinds of traffic stops and the lighke. >> imagine a case where someone will be arrested and into the general prison population there is a warrant out against him for second degree murder, and a policeman stopped again for a traffic offense arrests him because he knows he is wanted on warrants in another place. we strip search you.

whatever reason this applicant has for requesting a subdivision, it has to do with a reasonably foreseeable development of the site. we have a lot of ceqa cases, environmental cases the sec, he should not segment environmental approval. you're supposed to look at the issues as early as possible in the planning prospect. hear, the subdivision is step one, next is reasonably foreseeable development. if you get a supreme court case law that says if you have a receipt -- a reasonable foreseeable devout man, take a look at the whole thing. why not look on the proposed development on the smaller side, which is reasonably perceivable even if we do not have an application yet. that is the point of this. but get it all together so you can figure out how you stabilize the smoke, howdy mitigate the impact, how you deal with the environmental review. this is a site that could affect many parcels are rounded -- around it. there is no certainty that there is no possible environmental impact. you cannot separated because the ceqa guidelines tell you you can. it is not that difficult of a decision. you hav

for any number of reasons. i have submitted an e-mail to the board outlining two and a half pages of opposition. our primary concern has to do with the safety at octavia and haight street. we think the impact at both in the sections will decrease safety. we think it is going to increase congestion at both intersections. we are also concerned about the loss of parking. we think that is going to adversely affect our neighbors across the street, and we are deeply concerned for them. we are not opposed to change. we just think the plan is still- conceived and has been from the beginning. we would like to see it continue at the best at this point and have more things looked at. the intersection at golf and haight it will be negatively impacted. -- and market will be negatively impacted. >> good afternoon. i am a resident in the first block of haight. i would like to state again my opposition to this plan. i live with my family, but i was raised in the house and our families are the property there for almost 60 years

youthere is no reason they could not have gotten tree permits already. you should get permits, but as you can see, this is the procedure, which says any design of an element in the public right-of-way should not fully enclosed it, because that would privatize the property. this completely encloses it, and the settlement would end close it, and the fact of the department of public works would point out they did not ask. there are a lot of things that weren't on done -- that were not done. it can be done right now. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> the presentation seemed reasonable. could they have gotten some permits before now? and when they came before us, they had a sidewalk and encroachment program. what was going to be done remains to be resolved. as to the issue raised by ms. clark, that would not be anything we would be involved in. i am sure they will take that into consideration. when they plant trees or are involved in the planting of trees, they give you pretty explicit instruction on how to care fo

that is not the reason i will vote for the use or not. in any case, that is not a reason to approve something. for me, i would not approve it if it was a request directly on fillmore. i think this being down a little way, among especially molly stone's and on california street, argues for approval. i will keep thinking about it for the next 20 seconds before a vote to, but it is difficult. i think if this was a building that had been legitimately retail spaces, i might feel a little more reluctant to vote for it, but it seems like the dividing wall in itself was kind of a temporary thing to begin with. it was probably always intended to be one building. i do not mind where the atms are. i think they are better where they are. commissioner antonini: and in terms of adjacent banks being local, unfortunately bank of america is no longer some francisco-based. it is in north carolina. it is no more local than chase out of new york this. i would not consider it a local bank anymore, unfortunately. president olague: call the question. >> there i

many of us are approached by the fbi for no reason. really, no reason. all my time here, i lived among the many other arab-americans who along with me are being mistreated for no other reason than for the way we look in who we are. it is based on the way we look at our background. that is not fair to anybody. we have been harassed and missed treated by the law enforcement authorities. -- and mistreated by the law enforcement authorities. they treat us like second-class citizens, and that is not fair. these acts of discrimination are attacking our identity, dignity as arab-americans. they deny our constitutional rights as u.s. citizens. these acts of discrimination are affecting our community. they are causing stress and fear. they also impact our community's education, growth, and development. and i mean it. i am an arab-american. i have responsibilities and rights as a u.s. citizen. if they cannot protect my human rights and dignity, as part of this nation, does that mean anything to me? do i need it? we do not deserve this type of discrimination. there

there is no reason to subdivide

there is no reason to subdivide except to facilitate development. it is reasonably foreseeable. this is an incredibly desirable piece of property that they are trying to figure out how to develop. develop. the right way to do it is to

two basic reasons., republicans are determined to see president obama fail, even if it means americans fail with him. sad but true. my colleague, the republican leader, has said his number-one goal in this congress is to defeat president obama. they would rather see the americans that are struggling so hard to find work than work together. they would rather see the americans continue to struggle as i've outlined how many people are struggle, they would rather do that than work together with the president and with us. second, republicans are more concerned with protecting millionaires and billionaires. than they are willing to work with us in putting 1 million people back to -- 14 million people back to work. i heard on the radio this morning, the national broadcasting system, public radio, that during the bush years we lost 8.6 million jobs. we've only gotten a little over two million of those back. but -- about two and a half million, frankly. it wasn't long ago that a president was in office for eight

no matter what reason the plan was done, and that other was a man a number of good reasons, we should all continue to congratulate ourselves. the fight over some projects that have attempted to change the plan, it is a real testament to that. the one thing that continues to throw me on the plan, when she was preparing the report, i must have after five times to check the job numbers. i was astounded by the drop in that job downtown. what seems to be the case, and i don't know if we know the exact reason for that, job growth in the city has been generally flat over 30 years. the job numbers downtown have dropped in the largely made up by job growth. even though we added 12 million square feet of space, the job numbers dropped. that is partially because of some buildings were converted to housing, and job density actually dropped. the types of businesses and the number of employees per floor has dropped just because of the types of businesses, the character of the businesses and so on. as we move forward. the other interesting facts on this is the mixed results of transportation. in the

reasonable six figures were funny so to say the. images they're fun reasonable is it's an understatement now so what time said basically is that they're putting all their publishing to a halt for now because they're going to try to fight this financial blockade and i know they have a few legal processes in the works in europe but how much can they really do in this case. yeah i don't know about europe but in the u.s. really talk because this is actually kind of a government and a run but end run around the first amendment because the first seven protects you from governments or government such as speech but essentially what they did was start pressuring these companies like him it started with amazon joe lieberman staff all of amazon said oh you know you should be hosting these people and then after amazon and agree the next day joe lieberman went on t.v. and said well i hold other companies follow suit and so you saw abuse and master card and a public i was immediately cut off all of us. processing services and they didn't really s

they have come down with their reas reason. we say that they don't have any reason to kill her. they were friends of meredith. there's no motive. the newspapers say, oh, they killed her for nothing. it's not true, but can't you realize that obviously they see the consequences. of course, they can see the consequence. in america. can't you realize it's like a fight against the press. that she's escaping. she's a free girl. she's not escaping anything. she's someone who's returning home. you'll have to look at that, gentlemen. and they say that, you know, she got herself with lawyers. it really upsets me to hear things like that. but she has been able to say how can they say there's problems with the lawyers? how can they say that? how? today everything will be over. you know, i think, you know, everything in front of the media and everything. but the day of judgment -- the day of the judgment, i consider myself a serious lawyer within the constitutional -- and they say, you know, we'll have to confer the color of people with white people and i think they're innocent, in a process

he has a reason to be mad. this idea about money and politics -- the money gets into the politics because there is profit in it, or people want to support politicians that support their views and the rest. the idea that there are villains behind the scenes is one of the great mental pickups and a lot .f these debates been bee you hear this all the time. talk about what the occupy wall street movement is really about. if you ask 10 people what it is about, you will get 11 different answers. if i've repeated them on air, people would be saying i am slandering the occupy wall street movement. a third of the people at the protest in doors of violence or something like that. -- endore of violence or something like that. overwhelmingly, they are the typical left wingers who have found a really interesting marketing tool. when i say that, it annoys a lot of people who are sympathetic with the movement. i understand that, but they are projecting upon the movement something that the people in the park who are actually a

there is no reason to subdivide except to facilitate development. it is reasonably foreseeable. this is an incredibly desirable piece of property that they are trying to figure out how to develop. the right way to do it is to submit an application, study it, mitigate it, and then consider it. the planning department and the planning commission has the basis for considering approval. supervisor campos: just a quick question. what you say in response to the notion that somehow, if you're talking about future construction, you deal with that later. this is not the time to take that into consideration. >> that is why i bought a couple of points. ceqa does not allow that. i can appreciate that some supervisors may think, can we do a letter? the regulations say you cannot. this case is meaningful, not just for a role, once to subdivide, you lose the ability to do anything on the second parcel. each parcel will be independent. the category local exemption itself says that when you're looking at subdivisions, you have to consider future development. you cannot do a subdivision if a lot

they have not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. you could not decide whether to have life saving surgery. you need more information. that is "reasonable doubt." no one said i saw him do it or he told me. >>shepard: you are from the perry mason world where we have to have a witness or you let people go 23? >>randy: you have to have evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. he is presumed innocent. >>arthur: if breaking news happened right now and you started freaking out and yelling and throwing pains they would call three other anchors and say, what would happen if breaking news, or a major earthquake what would you do? i would speak to the producer and do this and that and it would show a pattern which the three main experts lay down that pattern of how you handle breaking news and now they are throwing on a defense expert who better really hit the ball out of the park this afternoon otherwise you will see a swift verdict. >>randy: what is going to be the best for dr. conrad murray is his video showing what an expert was that

the reason very little influence. of the situation in libya on any kind of easily interest saw in this case we could observe the situation in libya from distance and i think the majority of the people in israel the world very happy with the end of combat very well because this is all going to as well because it is it was a bad and cruel person and hopefully it will bring a change a positive change to his own people so. you know when i want to talk about your relations with turkey as we remember they were destroyed what if not destroyed but but but really much harmed by by the israelis raid against the the for the telly on the gaza flotilla now do you think that israel is trying today to to to really improve the relations with this country i think that is a list trying to do whatever we can in order to improve the relationship there was a can turn a few days ago we've been over those sisters that was rejected by the turks. this is not our decision mr or is those successful domestically in turkey where the stoppage of d

reasons. we are all for letting the project pass. we will be working closely with the board of the mta in finding money for coordinating those opportunities. as staff told you, this money is hard to find and we need to continue to do things for pedestrians. we will keep working on bicycle improvement through other avenues. thank you. supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? and seeing no one, this item is closed. this is an action item. if we can take that without objection? the item passes. madam clerk, please call item no. 5. >> item #5. recommend amendment of the prop recommend amendment of the prop k bicycle circulation and safety 5-year prioritization program. >> this is a hefty item. especially over the summer, with the bike program, recognizing that we are to ramps -- site advocate staff going on right now. very briefly -- and few, erica, for the benefit of those watching the five-year prioritization requirements in this expenditure plan, and

for what reason? because the reason is the official website of at&t has already indicated the network coverage in our neighborhood is already very, very well covered. please refer to the diagram. this map refers to our visitation neighborhood. the color reflects here that it is a very, very headstrong signal. for this reason, we do not need them constructing this antenna at 199 leland avenue in our neighborhood. the second reason is i have been living in this area for more than two decades. i have been an at&t customer. all of my children are using broadband to get online. they are happy with the service. if there are individual customers that have reception issues, they, for instance, they can request to at&t and they can request 3g wireless access point. [tone] again, i oppose at&t's proposed construction of this antenna equipment. thank you. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i oppose at&t's plan to install this wireless internet equipment at 199 leland avenue. i have -- our requests are all ignored

you know the reason he. was testing nobody seems to know. the number of pepper spray defaced but part of the argument that they're being overly dramatic. i just time for show and tell on tonight's program last time we spoke to journalist david sirota and we discussed the washington disconnect with occupy wall street movement as you can the president's senior adviser david bloom said that obama is on the side of the protesters even though they're very much protesting against a system that he's a part of so should i like it officials even get involved or should they let the protesters speak for themselves that a producer for treason essentially to find out what you have to say. remember the old saying if you can't beat em join em well that's exactly they were approach republicans had taken with the tea party and now it seems some democrats are considering a take with occupy wall street you have president obama john good as another key democrats touching on things that tie the protesters to the democratic party demands for tax changes and here

this is one of the major reasons why.h is basically simply proposing that parents or children within certain neighborhood school areas are given the option of sending their children to the school in closest proximity to their home. that is all we are proposing, nothing more. just that within the current citywide lottery system, that parents are given the option of sending their children to school near their home, as opposed to being bussed across town, where were the district decides the children will go. that is basically the premise of prop h. >> opponents have argued that the current school assignment system does give substantial weight to a child's geographic location when deciding -- one assigning the to a school. how do you respond? it's very simply, one, that comment is not factually based. roughly 30% of parents in the city, according to the school district -- we're not sure if these are accurate numbers, a roughly 30% of the parents in the san francisco unified school district are opting to send their children to

>> for a number of reasons. one is that it's just on the face of it, to me to dui our kind of conventional image of the consequences of 1492. we have the germs, guns and steel image which is not incorrect of this meeting two hemispheres and it being almost a sort of unilateral set of consequences for the americas. and yet here are these two goods that were going in the other direction. and so i was interested in sort of exploring this other -- this sort of -- the eastward story as well as the westward story. another reason is i'm really interested in the meeting intersection between culture and nature. and here are two goods that, you know, are from nature, that have strong effects on the nervous system and on the body and yet they're mediated through culture. and so i was interested in the interplay of that as well in the way that, you know, you have cultural rituals but they're also kind of then become this biological experience as well. and when i started research way back in the '90s on this project, people