Tag Archives: Arizona

Unionizing Phoenix’s Strippers

You don’t have to watch the latest Franklin and Bash episode to know that strippers sometimes get a raw deal in society.  I can’t stop to help thinking that maybe if strippers unionized it would help cure some societal ills strippers face in employment, but it could also help the community as well.

What would it be like if the strippers in Phoenix unionized?  Hhhmmmmm.

I have been playing around with this idea for a while, long before I saw the Franklin and Bash try to unionize all the exotic dancers of Los Angeles, Season 4, Episode 6.  Seriously, if all the strippers in the city of Phoenix had a union to ensure they earned at least minimum wage, discrimination is kept in check (pregnancy discrimination comes to mind), and would be protected by the National Labor Relations Board in case they wanted to strike or picket (which would be interesting) —  it could help cure a lot of problems.

*** This article is not based off of any strip club in Phoenix and is just a generalization from what I have read about in the industry.  I do not know how any of the strip clubs in Phoenix are run, I only know the applicable laws governing employment.

Gorgeous Librarians

— Photo Credit: Thomas Hawk, Flickr

Continue reading Unionizing Phoenix’s Strippers


What is Excessive Force in Arizona?

Police practices have come under national scrutiny.  What is excessive force by law enforcement agencies and what is not?  While the nation is still coming to terms with the shooting by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, this is not an isolated problem. Phoenix and Arizona have faced their own questions about what amounts to excessive force during a mental health call and when ASU Assistant Professor Ersula Ore P.h.d. was videoed being slammed into a police car resulting from questioning about jaywalking.

Judging the use of force is a difficult undertaking, especially from the outside.  It is important judgment to make sure there are not abuses in the process.  Because of the power that police have, cases of alleged excessive force make the news.  But rarely does the discussion involve what excessive force is legally, especially from the police’s standpoint.

Police manuals (also referred to as: directives, policies, orders, etc) can be considered an internal standards of care.  Using them can help determine if police officers act in accordance with the law.  See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448-51 (1966) (where the court expressly used and quoted police manuals to determine the standard practice for custodial interrogations at that time).

This blog post intends to examine what the guidelines are for Arizona law enforcement agencies use of force.  Through examining the Arizona Revised Statutes and police department procedures and manuals for the three largest cities in Arizona (Phoenix, Mesa and Tucson), I hope to piece together a general standard for when police are allowed to use force.

Continue reading What is Excessive Force in Arizona?

Home Buyer Unable to Reasonably Discover Material Fact

Caveat emptor (buyer beware) is a common advice to someone making a purchase.  In theory, a person exercising their due diligence could research every aspect of a deal before making it.  With unlimited time and resources a person could be fully informed before entering into any transaction.

However, that is not the case in reality.  People do not have unlimited time or resources.

The Arizona Legislature carved out exceptions of what may not be omitted from disclosure when buying a house.

A. No criminal, civil or administrative action may be brought against a transferor or lessor of real property or a licensee for failing to disclose that the property being transferred or leased is or has been:

1. The site of a natural death, suicide or homicide or any other crime classified as a felony.

2. Owned or occupied by a person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus or diagnosed as having the acquired immune deficiency syndrome or any other disease that is not known to be transmitted through common occupancy of real estate.

3. Located in the vicinity of a sex offender.

— Ariz. R. Stat. § 32-2156 (A).

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently looked at whether the statute allowing the omissions during home purchases is constitutional.  Lerner v. DMB/Currier, No. 1 CA-CV 11-0339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

The facts are a homeowner decided to sell her house because a sex offender moved next door.  While selling the house neither the homeowner nor the realtor disclosed to the couple who purchased the home about the registered sex offender.  The couple sued claiming the realtor had a fiduciary duty to disclose because a home buyer should not be reasonably expected to discover a sex offender living next door, and that they would not have purchased the house knowing about the sex offender.

The constitutionality of the statute hinges upon a clause in the Arizona Constitution.

The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.

Ariz. Const. art. 18 § 6.

To determine whether a statute violates the Anti-Abrogation clause courts look to see if “those wrongs” were permissible in the common law.  Specifically, when looking at the common law, courts look to judicial opinions at the state’s inception.  The court noted the duty to disclose was traditionally recognized by Arizona’s courts, but the Plaintiffs could not cite to an opinion from Arizona’s formation of where that duty was recognized.  “As applied here, a buyer in territorial Arizona who was not in a special relationship with the seller could not sue for failing to disclose a latent defect.” Lerner v. DMB/Currier, No. 1 CA-CV 11-0339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Since the court said the duty to disclose is a modern trend, thus there is not a violation of Arizona’s constitution.

If Arizona’s statute § 32-2156 did not exist, then it is most likely there would be a duty for a real estate agent or a seller to disclose material facts.  Since it does exist and is constitutional, home buyers beware and conduct due diligence into a home you are preparing to purchase.