Vol. 39 No. 5 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO PREVENTS SOMEONE FROM COMMENTING ON THE OFFICIAL’S SOCIAL-MEDIA PAGE ENGAGES IN STATE ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 ONLY IF THE OFFICIAL BOTH POSSESSED ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON THE STATE’S BEHALF ON A PARTICULAR MATTER, AND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY WHEN SPEAKING IN THE RELEVANT SOCIAL-MEDIA POSTS
On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in a case entitled Lindke v. Freed.1 In this case, the Court established a new standard to assess whether a social media account managed by a local, state, or federal government official subjects that public official to a potential First Amendment violation under […]
Vol. 37 No. 12 PERSONNEL RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTIGATION AGAINST A PEACE OFFICER WERE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 832.7 BECAUSE THE OFFICER WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE FINDINGS
In Wyatt v. Kern High Sch. Dist., 80 Cal. App. 5th 1116 (5th Dist. 2022), a California Court of Appeal concluded that a peace officer’s personnel records were not subject to disclosure under the 2018 amendments to Penal Code sections 832.7 & 832.8. In reaching its conclusion, the Court explained that the officer was never […]
Vol. 37 No. 13 A STATE OFFICIAL VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT BY CREATING A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE RELATED TO HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THEN BLOCKING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM THAT PAGE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR COMMENTS
In Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that members of a school district’s board of trustees acted under color state law by using their social media pages as public forums in carrying out their official duties. Then, applying First Amendment public forum criteria, the Court concluded that restrictions on certain individuals […]
Vol. 37 No. 14 POLICE OFFICER’S PERSONAL FACEBOOK POSTS DENIGRATING RELIGION AND ADHERENTS WARRANTED FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION BECAUSE THEY QUALIFIED AS SPEECH ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hernandez v. City of Phoenix,[1] found that although it seemed like a police officer’s social media posts expressing hostility toward and denigrating a major religious faith and its adherents could impede the performance of his job duties and interfere with the police department’s ability to effectively carry out […]
Vol. 37 No. 15 EN BANC NINTH CIRCUIT COURT CONCLUDES THAT ASSEMBLY BILL 32 VIOLATES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
In Geo Grp., Inc. v. Newsom,[1] the en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared California enacted Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”), which states that a “person shall not operate a private detention facility within the state,” is in violation of the Supremacy Clause. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that […]
Vol. 37. No. 16 WHERE OFFICER SHOOTS AT SUSPECT RESULTING IN NO INJURIES BUT THEN STOPS, AND THE SUSPECT LATER KILLS HIS HOSTAGES, THERE IS NO ACTIONABLE DEADLY FORCE TORT CLAIM
California Court of Appeal found that County defendants were not liable in a case where after a deputy sheriff exchanged gunfire with an armed intruder who had taken hostages, the intruder subsequently killed the hostages. In Golick v. State of California,[1] the California Court of Appeal found that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that […]
Vol. 37 No. 17 DEPUTIES THAT DID NOT SHOOT AND KILL DECEDENT WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT INTEGRAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION
In Peck v. Montoya,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that three deputies who did not shoot at a decedent, and who was shot by two other deputies, were not liable under the integral-participant doctrine. The Court of Appeals consequently reversed as to the excessive force claim against these three deputies. Background 65-year-old Paul […]
Vol. 37 No. 18 UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH EXCEPTION, TIRE CHALKING IS NOT A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, MUNICIPALITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN WARRANTS PRIOR TO CHALKING TIRES
In Verdun v. City of San Diego,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that municipalities are not required to obtain warrants before chalking tires as part of enforcing time limits on city parking spots. In reaching its conclusion, the Court stated that even assuming the temporary dusting of chalk on a tire constitutes a […]
Client Alert Vol 38 No 1 INVENTORY SEARCH OF TRUCK PARKED ILLEGALLY BY DRIVER WITHOUT VALID LICENSE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WAS NOT FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHERE VEHICLE WAS IMPOUNDED FOR VALID COMMUNITY CARETAKING PURPOSE
In United States v. Anderson,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a District Court did not err in concluding that the government established that a valid community caretaking purpose existed for impounding and inventorying defendant’s truck before an inventory search was conducted. The Court determined that sheriff’s deputies had an objectively reasonable belief […]
Client Alert Vol 38 No 2 DEFENDANT WAS NOT DETAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD VIEW THE DEPUTY’S USE OF A SPOTLIGHT LACKING IN COERCIVE FORCE
The California Supreme Court, in People v. Tacardon,[1] concluded that shining a spotlight for illumination does not ipso facto constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that the proper inquiry instead requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the use of a spotlight. Background Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb was on […]