The CTIA -The Wireless Association has petitioned the United
States Supreme Court to hear their case against the City of Berkeley’s cell
phone “right to know” ordinance.
The CTIA argues that the ordinance
forces cell-phone retailers to deliver a misleading and controversial message
to customers. The city asserts that the message is “literally true”; moreover, the
city has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of its
residents.
Berkeley’s ordinance which was adopted in May, 2015, has been in effect since March,
2016. The law requires cellphone retailers to provide consumers with the
following notification:
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell
phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your
phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and
connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for
exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user
manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”
The appeals court ruled that government may compel commercial speech, absent any alleged false or deceptive communication, as long as the mandated message is “reasonably related to” any “more than trivial” governmental interest and is “literally true.”
The city prevailed in the federal district court and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In October of last year, the appeal courts denied the CTIA’s request for a hearing before the full court.
The case, “CTIA - The Wireless Association, Petitioner v.
City of Berkeley, California, et al.,” was filed on the Supreme Court docket on
January 9, 2018 as No. 17-976.
The CTIA is represented by Theodore Olson, a former U.S. Solicitor
General, from the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The city is represented by Harvard constitutional
law professor Lawrence Lessig, Amanda Shanor, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law
School, and Farimah Brown and Savith Iyengar of the Berkeley city attorney’s
office.
The CTIA’s petition
and appendix
can be downloaded from the Supreme Court’s web site.
October 18, 2017
Yesterday the CTIA submitted a statement to the federal district court regarding future management of the case. The CTIA indicated that it may petition the Supreme Court for a hearing even though the appeals court denied an en banc hearing.
According to the statement, both parties to the case have agreed that discovery and a trial is unnecessary, and neither party is willing to settle the case. The CTIA has until January 9, 2018 to petition the Supreme Court for a hearing.
October 11, 2017 (updated Oct 12, 2017)
The city of Berkeley won a decision in the federal appeals court today. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its April decision to uphold a Berkeley ordinance that requires cell phone retailers to warn customers about possible radiation exposure.
The court rejected arguments made by the CTIA--The Wireless Association which argued for an en banc hearing of the case by a panel of eleven appeals court judges.
The majority opinion stated that upholding the court’s prior decision is consistent with four other circuit courts that have held government's right to compel “purely factual” commercial speech to serve a compelling government interest, even in the absence of consumer deception.
The minority opinion argued that because the Federal Communications Commission already requires radiation disclosures in new cellphone user manuals, Berkeley’s “misleading” disclosure is “completely unnecessary.”
“The decision of the district court was
correct — twice. The decision of the court of appeals was correct — now
twice,” Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who argued for the city
in the case, said in an email to The Recorder. “We are hopeful that this will bring an
end to this case, and the City of Berkeley will again be free to govern
its citizens as its citizens demand.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a brief to support the City of Berkeley. The Association of National Advertisers, the American Beverage Association, and the Chamber of Commerce submitted briefs in support of the CTIA.
April 21, 2017
Today the city of Berkeley won a major decision in a federal
appeals court. The court denied a request by the CTIA--The Wireless Association to
block Berkeley’s landmark cell phone “right to know” ordinance.
Berkeley’s ordinance which has been in effect since March
21 of last year requires cellphone retailers in the city to provide consumers
with the following notification:
“To
assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet
radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a
pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected
to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF
radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for
information about how to use your phone safely.”
The three judges who heard the case on September 13, 2016
for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s denial of
the industry association’s request for a preliminary injunction. The panel
determined that “there was no irreparable harm based on the First Amendment or preemption,
that the balance of equities tipped in Berkeley’s favor, that the ordinance was
in the public interest, and that an injunction would harm that interest.”
Although the
federal appeals court hearing only addresses the industry's request for a
preliminary injunction, the ruling bodes well for the City because the industry’s argument in the overall case for killing the ordinance is based upon
the First Amendment and federal preemption. The court rejected those arguments
stating that that the ordinance is in the public interest as it complements and
reinforces existing Federal law and policy.
A summary of
the ruling follows:
“The
panel affirmed the district court’s order denying a request for a preliminary
injunction seeking to stay enforcement of a City of Berkeley ordinance
requiring cell phone retailers to inform prospective cell phone purchasers that
carrying a cell phone in certain ways may cause them to exceed Federal
Communications Commission guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation
….
… the
panel held that the City’s compelled disclosure of commercial speech complied
with the First Amendment because the information in the disclosure was
reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and was purely
factual. Accordingly, the panel concluded that plaintiff had little likelihood
of success on its First Amendment claim that the disclosure compelled by the
Berkeley ordinance was unconstitutional.
The
panel determined that there was little likelihood of success on plaintiff’s
contention that the Berkeley ordinance was preempted. The panel held that
Berkeley’s compelled disclosure did no more than alert consumers to the safety
disclosures that the Federal Communication Commission requires, and to direct
consumers to federally compelled instructions in their user manuals providing
specific information about how to avoid excessive exposure. The panel held that
far from conflicting with federal law and policy, the Berkeley ordinance
complements and reinforces it.
In
affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction, the panel further determined
that there was no irreparable harm based on the First Amendment or preemption, that
the balance of equities tipped in Berkeley’s favor, that the ordinance was in
the public interest, and that an injunction would harm that interest.
Dissenting
in part, Judge Friedland stated that Berkeley’s ordinance likely violates the
First Amendment and therefore should have been preliminarily enjoined. She
stated that taken as a whole, the most natural reading of the Berkeley disclosure
warns that carrying a cell phone in one’s pocket is unsafe. Yet Berkeley had
not attempted to argue, let alone to prove, that message was true.”
Feb 19, 2017
Although it has been five months since the federal appeals court hearing, the three-judge panel has yet to rule on the request by the CTIA to block enforcement of the Berkeley cell phone "right to know" ordinance until the CTIA's lawsuit against the city is adjudicated. In the meantime the law is in effect.
Judge Edward M. Chen has scheduled a case management conference in federal district court on March 23rd.
3:15-cv-02529-EMC - CTIA - The Wireless Association v. City of Berkeley et al Case Mgmt Conference (10:30 AM, March 23, 2017)
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CEO/cfd.aspx?7144#Notes
Sep 14, 2016
Video: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing: CTIA v. Berkeley
9/13/2016 (41 minutes)
CTIA - The Wireless Association appeals from the order dissolving a preliminary injunction in its suit challenging a Berkeley ordinance that requires cell phone retailers to provide a certain notice regarding radiofrequency energy emissions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU2IqWFM5KY
Sep 13, 2016
Audio: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing: CTIA v. Berkeley (case no.16-15141)
9/13/2016 (41 minutes; 28 MB file)
http://bit.ly/ctiaberkeley091216
Sep 12, 2016
To listen to the live audio feed from the courtroom tomorrow go to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov and click on the link listed at "Live Streaming Oral Arguments CR1." Due to media interest in this case, the hearing has been scheduled for 9:30 A.M. Pacific time.
Sep 1, 2016
On September 13, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals will hold a hearing to consider whether to overturn the district court's decision that denied the CTIA's request for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of Berkeley’s cellphone ordinance until the case was decided.
Berkeley's law has been in effect since March after the Circuit Court decided to uphold the federal district court's decision to deny the CTIA's request for a preliminary injunction.
This
landmark cellphone "right to know" law requires cellphone retailers in Berkeley to post a cellphone
safety notification or provide a copy to customers. The notification reminds the
consumer to read the manufacturer’s safety information in the cellphone’s user
manual.
The
case before the federal Court of Appeals is CTIA-The Wireless Association v.
City of Berkeley et al., case number 16-15141. The CTIA is
represented by former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, and the City is
represented by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. The hearing will be held
in the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco at 9:30 A.M. (95 Seventh Street, Courtroom
1, 3rd Floor, Rm 338).
Following
is a recap of key legal developments since March.
In March,
the CTIA appealed the Court's ruling that denied the CTIA's motion for a preliminary
injunction and allowed the City of Berkeley to implement its cellphone “right
to know” ordinance.
In
April, the City submitted a brief to the Court which argued that the CTIA’s
misinterpretation of the First Amendment would severely limit government’s
regulatory powers, and if the Court were to support the CTIA’s arguments,
numerous federal, state, and municipal laws would be ruled unconstitutional
(“Berkeley Defends Cellphone Warning Ordinance At 9th Circ.,” Law 360, Apr 5,
2016; https://www.law360.com/articles/780474).
California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted
amicus briefs in support of Berkeley’s position. Both the Attorney General and
the NRDC warned the Court against holding governments to a higher level of
First Amendment free speech protection scrutiny when they are simply mandating
disclosures. The Attorney General argued, “If the approach advocated by CTIA
were adopted by this Court, an array of consumer protection laws, long
recognized as a constitutional exercise of the state’s police powers under the
authority cited above, could be called into question.” (“Calif. AG Tells 9th
Circ. Phone Warning Rule Merits Leeway,” Law360, Apr 26, 2016; https://www.law360.com/articles/788952).
In May,
the CTIA submitted a brief to the Appeals Court which argued that the FCC does
not require radio frequency disclosures. The City pointed out in its response
that the CTIA had previously agreed that the FCC required these disclosures,
and that the Appeals Court should not consider new arguments. Moreover, the City
claimed that the CTIA’s current assertion was false (“Berkeley Rips Group's FCC
Radiation Rule Claims At 9th Circ.,” Law360, May 13, 2016; https://www.law360.com/articles/796300).
In
August, the Appeals Court ruled that it would consider the CTIA’s new argument
and asked the City to submit its rebuttal (“City Can't Block FCC Radiation Rule
Arguments, 9th Circ. Says,” Law360, Aug 12, 2016; http://www.law360.com/telecom/articles/8277850).
On
August 25, the City of Berkeley submitted to the Court a rebuttal to the CTIA’s
new claim. The CTIA argues that it is not
mandatory for cellphone manufacturers to report SAR values and the minimum separation
distance in user manuals. Their argument is based on two Knowledge Database
(KDB) publications that the FCC issued in October, 2015: KDB 212821 and KDB
447498.
KDB documents, however, are issued
by FCC staff
to clarify existing FCC rules, not to alter them. Such documents are not
subject to public review and do not have the force of law. Hence, the Court is unlikely
to consider the CTIA’s new argument to be valid. (“Berkeley Slams CTIA's
Flip-Flop In Cellphone Warning Row,” Law360, Aug 29, 2016; http://www.law360.com/telecom/articles/833616).
The FCC’s
website indicates that provisions made in KDB documents do not “constitute
rules”:
“the KDB is intended
to assist the public in following Commission requirements and does not
constitute rules. Accordingly, the guidance is not binding on the Commission
and will not prevent the Commission from making a different decision in any
matter that comes to its attention for resolution.”
According to the City’s latest brief:
“The FCC’s stated policy is
that manufacturers ‘must’ provide manual disclosures. And CTIA cannot
reasonably assert that its members could ignore the FCC’s disclosure regime as
‘merely suggestive’.”
Mar 23, 2016
Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request
by the CTIA--The Wireless Association to halt enforcement of Berkeley's cell
phone "right to know" ordinance according to the San
Francisco Chronicle.
The CTIA appealed to the Circuit Court because Judge Edward
Chen of the Federal District Court allowed the ordinance to take effect while
the case is being litigated. Judge Chen rejected the industry's arguments that
the city was violating retailers’ free speech rights by requiring them to
communicate a message they opposed.
The Circuit Court vote was 2-1 with Judges Milan Smith and
Morgan Christen voting to keep the ordinance in effect during CTIA’s appeal
whereas Judge Carlos Bea dissented.
Mar 21, 2016
Since the Berkeley cell phone ordinance took effect today, I conducted a small observational study around 4:30 PM to see which downtown cell phone stores were in compliance.
The ordinance allows retailers to choose between posting the official Berkeley cell phone notice or providing customers with a handout containing the same information.
I visited six cellphone stores in downtown Berkeley. At each store I asked to see the posted notice or the handout. Four of the six stores
were in compliance.
The four major cell phone retailers, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, were all in compliance. All four posted the official notice on the counter or on a wall (Sprint). None opted to provide handouts to consumers.
The two authorized cellphone resellers were not in compliance. The sales clerks were unaware of the new law. In one store after I described the ordinance, the clerk volunteered that the law was a good idea and asked me how to get a copy of the official notice.
Max Anderson, the Council member who sponsored this ordinance stated to NBC News, "The people selling these products are not selling them for your good, They're selling them for profit. They play fast and
loose with regulations." The goal is to get people thinking about keeping phones away from their body.
Mar 8, 2016
The Association of National Advertisers filed a brief in support of the CTIA which sued the city of Berkeley over its cell phone "right to know" ordinance (Tom Lochner. "Advertisers group weighs in against Berkeley cellphone hazards disclosure requirement." Contra Costa Times, Mar 8, 2016).
The advertisers association argues, "While the city is entitled to hold or express its own opinions about cellphone safety, it may not require others to mouth its words or be its microphone." The advertisers recommend that the City buy advertising if it wishes to inform consumers to read the cellphone manufacturers' safety instructions.
Last year the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a nonprofit environmental and public health advocacy organization with more than 2 million members including 1,244 members who reside in Berkeley filed a brief in support of the City,
Last September, Consumer Reports published an article entitled, "Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?" The article highlights the importance of the Berkeley cell phone ordinance and calls on manufacturers to prominently display advice on steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation.
Mar 2, 2016
Because the Federal Court refused to block implementation of Berkeley's landmark cell phone "right to know" ordinance, the CTIA has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect.
The CTIA claims that cell phone retailers would be harmed by delivering a message they don't believe, and that the ordinance is likely to be eventually overturned by the courts. (Patrick Boyle. "CTIA urges 9th Circ. to halt Berkeley's cellphone warning law." Law 360. March 2, 2016. http://bit.ly/1TSD8i2).
According to the Berkeley City Attorney's office, the law will go into effect on March 21.
Feb 1, 2016
On January 27, the Federal Court (Judge Chen) lifted the ban on the Berkeley cell phone ordinance. The city is now allowed to enforce the amended cell phone law which requires cell phone retailers to notify their customers about the safety warnings in their cell phone or cell phone manual.
The judge affirmed Berkeley's right to warn its citizens about potential health risks based on federal safety standards. In his ruling, the judge rejected the CTIA's argument that the city's mandated
disclosure is controversial and therefore bound by a stricter
constitutional analysis.
According to the ruling, "CTIA's beef should be with the FCC ... If CTIA believes that the safety margin is too generous because there
is no real safety concern at that level, it should take that matter up
with the FCC administratively."
See Courthouse News Service for a summary of the January 21 hearing and the subsequent ruling.
Dec 23, 2015
A hearing on the CTIA's motion to sustain the court's preliminary injunction is scheduled for January 21, 2016 in Courtroom 5 in the federal district court in San Francisco. Judge Chen will hear the motion.
Oct 29, 2015
On October 27, the second reading of the amended cell phone ordinance which appeared on the consent calendar was unanimously adopted by the Council.
Next the city will submit a motion to the court to dissolve the injunction. This would enable the revised law to take effect.
Oct 7, 2015
Last night the Berkeley City Council adopted a minor amendment to the city's cell phone ordinance. The Council deleted from the 82-word official notification the 7-word sentence regarding children's risk of exposure due to Judge Chen ruling that because the FCC failed to recognize that children's exposure to cell phone radiation is greater than adults, this sentence was "controversial." The peer-reviewed research which demonstrates that this is factual apparently is irrelevant to the court.
Since there were no objections to the modified language, the item was moved to the consent calendar. A second reading of the ordinance will occur on October 27.
Sep 25, 2015 (updated Oct 2, 2015)
On October 6 the Berkeley City Council will consider a minor amendment to the city's cell phone "right to know" ordinance at its regular meeting.
The amendment will make the ordinance consistent with the order issued by the U.S. District Court in CTIA v City of Berkeley (USDC ND CA C-14-2529). Seven words pertaining to children's safety will be deleted from the city's consumer safety notification: "This potential risk is greater for children."
The revised ordinance will retain the remainder of the 82-word official consumer safety notification:
“The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:
To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”
Assuming the revised ordinance is adopted by the Council, the City will ask the court to dissolve the injunction.
The Interim City Manager's memo to Council members which includes the U.S. District Court ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1KHAF2F.
Amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 9.96 Regarding Point of Sale Cell Phone Warnings in Response to District Court Order
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first
reading of an Ordinance amending Section 9.96.030.A consistent with the order
issued by the U.S. District Court in CTIA v. City of Berkeley (USDC ND CA
C-15-2529 EMC).
Financial Implications: None
Contact: Zach Cowan, City Attorney, 981-6950
Sep 21, 2015
On September 21, Federal District
Court Judge Edward Chen gave the City of Berkeley a green light to implement
the City’s landmark cell phone “right to know” law after deleting one sentence from the safety notification. Cell
phone vendors in the City will soon be required to provide customers with a safety warning
either by giving the customer a handout or or by posting the following notice in the store:
“The
City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:
To
assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio
frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants
or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a
wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation.
Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about
how to use your phone safely.”
Judge Chen denied the CTIA's request for a preliminary injunction that would have completely blocked enforcement of the ordinance until the case was fully resolved.
The Court required the City to strike the
following seven words from the 82-word safety warning: “This potential
risk is greater for children.” The judge ruled that although this sentence may be factual, it can be argued that it is controversial because the FCC does not acknowledge that children's exposure to cell phone radiation is greater than adults. For the facts supporting this assertion, see "Children are more exposed to cell phone radio-frequency radiation than adults."
Kriss Worthington, the Berkeley City Council Member who co-sponsored the ordinance, issued the following statement today via email:
"I am pleased to report that in spite of massive attacks by the corporations they were unable to persuade the judge from taking away the consumer’s right to know in a drastic injunction. Instead the judge requested one simple sentence to be modified. The City is moving rapidly to vote on October 6th on that one sentence modification. Thank you all for your incredible efforts on behalf of the consumer’s right to know."
Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates declared victory in an interview with SFGate. He called the warning
about children, a “relatively small problem” that the City Council
will remedy:
“Judge Chen’s order upholding the main part of our
cell phone ordinance confirms that the cell phone industry’s claims were
ill founded,” Bates said.
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, the attorney representing the City of Berkeley on this case, told Ars Technica he was pleased with the ruling:
"The rest of the ordinance survived First Amendment review, which was a very important victory and I couldn't find a single sentence in Judge Chen's opinion that I disagreed with, so I'm quite happy," he said.
"Judge Chen has issued a very careful and well crafted opinion
upholding almost every part of the Berkeley “right to know” ordinance.
(The one part he found preempted was the part that said that the risk of
overexposure was greater for children.) Importantly, the Court rejected
the First Amendment claims made by CTIA. Really happy to have had a
chance to participate in getting this corner of the law right."
The Court's ruling on the injunction stipulates:
“ … the Court grants in part and denies in part CTIA’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion is granted to the extent the Court finds a likely successful preemption claim with respect to the sentence in the City notice regarding children’s safety. The motion is denied to the extent the Court finds that a First Amendment claim and preemption claim are not likely to succeed on the remainder of the City notice language.”
“’A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’”
“ … the thrust of CTIA’s complaint is twofold: (1) the Berkeley ordinance is preempted by federal law and (2) the ordinance violates the First Amendment.”
“This disclosure, for the most part, simply refers consumers to the fact that there are FCC standards on RF energy exposure – standards which assume a minimum spacing of the cell phone away from the body – and advises consumers to refer to their manuals regarding maintenance of such spacing. The disclosure mandated by the Berkeley ordinance is consistent with the FCC’s statements and testing procedures regarding spacing … the ordinance does not ban something the FCC authorizes or mandates. And CTIA has failed to point to any FCC pronouncement suggesting that the agency has any objection to warning consumers about maintaining spacing between the body and a cell phone. Moreover, the City ordinance, because it is consistent with FCC pronouncements and directives, does not threaten national uniformity.”
“There is, however, one portion of the notice required by the City ordinance that is subject to obstacle preemption – namely, the sentence ’This potential risk is greater for children.’ Notably, this sentence does not say that the potential risk may be greater for children; rather, the sentence states that the potential risk is greater. But whether the potential risk is, in fact, greater for children is a matter of scientific debate … the FCC has never made any pronouncement that there is a greater potential risk for children, and, certainly, the FCC has not imposed different RF energy exposure limits that are applicable to children specifically … Thus, the content of the sentence – that the potential risk is indeed greater for children compared to adults – threatens to upset the balance struck by the FCC between encouraging commercial development of all phones and public safety, because the Berkeley warning as worded could materially deter sales on an assumption about safety risks which the FCC has refused to adopt or endorse.”
“ … CTIA completely ignores the fact that the speech rights at issue here are its members’ commercial speech rights …. CTIA’s members are being compelled to communicate a message, but the message being communicated is clearly the City’s message, and not that of the cell phone retailers… (providing that the notice shall state 'The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice” and that “the notice shall include the City’s logo'). In other words, while CTIA’s members are being compelled to provide a mandated disclosure of Berkeley’s speech, no one could reasonably mistake that speech as emanating from a cell phone retailer itself. Where a law requires a commercial entity engaged in commercial speech merely to permit a disclosure by the government, rather than compelling speech out of the mouth of the speaker, the First Amendment interests are less obvious. Notably, at the hearing, CTIA conceded that there would be no First Amendment violation if the City handed out flyers or had a poster board immediately outside a cell phone retailer’s store."
“While CTIA has argued that being forced to engage in counter-speech (i.e., speech in response to the City notice) is, in and of itself, a First Amendment burden … that is not necessarily true where commercial speech is at issue.”
August 21, 2015
On August 20, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco held a hearing on the CTIA's motion for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the Berkeley cell phone "right to know" ordinance. The CTIA was represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, and the City of Berkeley was represented by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig.
The presiding judge is Edward M. Chen. Of the 240-plus federal district judges appointed in the U.S. in the past five years, Judge Chen is considered one of the "rising stars," because he is the fourth most-cited judge. Judge Chen is likely to issue a decision about the CTIA's injunction within the next few weeks.
I took six pages of notes at the hearing. In my opinion the following news stories provide the most accurate summary of the hearing:
Bob Egelko, SF Gate, Aug 20, 2015 (This article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 21, 2015.)
Jessica Aguirre, NBC Bay Area, Aug 20, 2015
Lance Knobel, Berkeleyside, Aug 21, 2015
