You are misinformed. Boston has not been challenged; Brookline and Watertown have been. Because Brookline uses the "Boston Test," the logic of the Brookline decision would apply directly to Boston. I have even heard that Boston no longer requires the test, but have not had that claim confirmed.
Maybe not so much misinformed, but perhaps I misstated my
question... The point I was trying to make, was how many
bitch-slaps does it take before the IA will stop asking for illegal
things? Since IAs have been known to abuse the system, it
would not surprise me in the least if some of them maintain these
unlawful requirements despite being slapped a few times over
it....
The costs of defending a policy declared to be unlawful is not something finance committees like to see on the budget.
Even if this is true, there is nothing preventing an IA
from saying "we require a range test" and then just backing
down (at that moment) when the client says he's going to bring
them to court over it, thus avoiding any BS higher up, but still
allowing them to (generally) maintain an illegal policy. (well, at
least for any person that doesn't question it!)
To top it off, I get the impression that for big cities like Brookline
and Boston that the legal costs for coping with the PD's illegal
policy probably end up amounting to mouse milk compared to the
rest of the legal costs they have. (eg, people suing the PD/town
for other things, etc). EG, these costs get swept under
the rug or get justified. Of course, if a shit-ton of people
started taking them to court, that might change because then
it starts showing up on the radar as a lot of red ink.
As for the invertebrates who comply with a "requirement" already deemed outside the chief's powers, they deserve what they get for undermining the achievements of their predecessors.
Are they still invertebrates if they can't afford to obtain
competent counsel?
Given that the cost of a "bitch-slap" letter to the chief citing the court's decision would likely be sufficient, the minor cost of an attorney drafting that letter would probably not exceed the asinine "range test."
And roughly, what does one of those letters cost?
I agree that the range test has a "cost" at least if one is
currently employed; because basically you'd have to take a half
day of work off or something just to take it. Of course, if
the client is in a lower income bracket, say, making 10 bucks
an hour or something, you mean to tell me you'd write someone
a letter for $40 or less?
At worst, the letter would make a marvelous exhibit to the Petition for Judicial Review, as well as part of the story should the local paper cover it (as both the Brookline and Watertown Tab did).
That I can agree with, the only way to get rid of these thugs
ultimately is to make them unpopular.
-Mike