ALAMEDA COUNTY/
Nov. 17, 10:30 a.m.
Stingray policy; Not Megan’s Law
STINGRAY POLICY The Alameda County Sheriff’s push to purchase an upgrade to its cell-site simulator, known as a Stingray, returns to the Board of Supervisors for a third time, this time with a policy for its use. The $113,000 for the upgrade comes from federal Homeland Security funding. But last month, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley struggled to explain the capabilities of the simulator. A policy for the simulator’s use was referenced during the meeting last month, but supervisors had not yet vetted it. Approval of the allocation for the simulator and the policy is on the agenda Tuesday afternoon.
MENTALLY ILL HELP It’s not Megan’s Law, the act that allows the family of mentally ill patients to get a court order for medical and psychiatric attention, but after numerous stops and starts, Alameda County could have a policy in place to help. Implementing Megan’s Law in the county has faced opposition from the community and some supervisors soured on its potential in the East Bay. Instead, a working group of stakeholders will offer suggestions for increasing outreach to patients, establishing better lines of communication and improving data-sharing.
SHARPS DISPOSAL More medical injections are occurring outside of healthcare settings, but there is no safe disposal of self-injecting needles and lancets. The second and final reading of an ordinance authored by Supervisor Keith Carson and approved two weeks ago will require pharmaceutical companies to fund safe disposal of sharps. Sound familiar? Supervisor Nate Miley authored a similar ordinance last year for disposing of unwanted medication.
ebcitizen.com 
By MW:
Related to my above post, everytime I think Nancy O'Malley has hit a new alltime low for stupidity, she still manages to a short time later outdo herself and come up with an even more extreme new alltime low.
For instance since she pretends to be a liberal, so therefore when she then made her comment that she did not want people in Oakland to have easy access to the city of Alameda, and where she lives, since she thought that would bring crime to Alameda, I was wondering if she was trying to get the alltime record for stupidity. (Just think of all the yelling and screaming liberals and Democrats would have engaged in if a conservative, a Republican, or a member of the KKK had made such a remark. And I seriously doubt even a high school dropout who only pretended to be a liberal would have been stupid enough to make such a remark. NOTE: I suspect some lawyers back when they were in law school took courses in making stupid statements and finding ways to put their foot in their mouth.)
However no matter what she says, she always manages to come up with a another “good” one, and often still “better” one. In fact if she personally handles any depositions and/or cross examinations in the Berkeley balcony collapse case, and rather than handing the whole thing over to other people in her office or an outside law firm, I am going to go into business as a ticket broker, then advertise tickets to see the circus, but rather than taking my customers to see Ringling Brothers/Barnum& Bailey, instead I will take them to see Nancy O'Malley in action. Since if Nancy O'Malley herself personally tries the case, she will be even less effective than if my grandmother's best friend, and who was in her sixties and so badly disabled that she could barely walk, had attempted to play cornerback in the SuperBowl.
LikeLike
By MW:
In regard to the Stingray issue, if Nancy O'Malley chose to make the presentation HERSELF, and did not instead have someone else from her office, or even a paid outside contractor, make the presentation and be assigned to answer any questions, then she made a huge mistake, since Nancy O'Malley (and along with Nadia Lockyer) could be used as Exhibit A to illustrate the fact that some of the people the California State Bar has issued law licenses to have IQ's lower than their shoe size.
LikeLike