City’s officials took these actions without considering the Ordinance’s potential constitutional implications, despite repeated requests by RCB for a legal consultation and an offer by the City’s solicitor to provide legal advice. Cfi Saints Constantine, 396 F.3d at 899 (“The repeated legal errors by the City’s officials casts doubt on their good faith.”). The City Council did not even wait for the report of its own study committee before approving the District. At the City Council hearing, one councilor accused RCB’s counsel of lying about RCB’s decisionmaking process in closing the Church, suggesting dissatisfaction with that religiously motivated decision. Cf. Rector, Wardens, & Members of the Vestry of Saint Bartholomew’s Church v. City of New York, 914 F.2d 348, 355 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In the end, however, these troubling facts
holding in these circumstances we think the police remained within the range of activities they may permissibly engage in when they have reasonable suspicion to believe an automobile contains narcotics emphasis added holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that under mayfield the exercise of discretion based on a mistaken premise of law can be a failure to properly exercise discretion holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction holding that landmarking laws can permissibly single out individual parcels absent proof of the discriminatory exercise of discretion  in identifying such parcels emphasis added