Vol. 33 No. 17 PEACE OFFICERS MUST GENERALLY OBTAIN A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE BEFORE OBTAINING HISTORICAL CELL-SITE LOCATION INFORMATION

In the course of executing its various functions, a cell phone continually searches for the best signal and typically connects to the nearest site of radio antennas on towers or other locations, called cell sites. With every connection, a time-stamped record is created. The record generated is called “cell-site location information” or CSLI. This information […]

Vol. 33 No. 27 PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO NEW TRIAL WHERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWS JAIL OFFICIALS NOT ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE BY JURY ON CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AND EXCESSIVE SEARCH CLAIMS

In a case entitled Shorter v. Baca, (9th Cir. 2018) 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19491, the Ninth Circuit recently determined that jail officials were not entitled to deference by a jury on their decisions concerning conditions of confinement and excessive search claims.  The Court remanded the matter for a new trial. Background Lecia Shorter was […]

Vol. 33 No. 26 WARRANTLESS ENTRY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS INTO AN INHABITED DWELLING DEEMED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ INJURIES SUSTAINED FOLLOWING SHOOTING INCIDENT

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Mendez v. Cnty. of L.A., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20907 (9th Cir. July 27, 2018), that law enforcement officials’ unlawful entry into a residence – absent a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances – was the proximate cause of the […]

Vol. 33 No. 25 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PUBLIC AGENCY PURSUIT IMMUNITY ACCORDED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 17004.7

On August 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of California held, in Ramirez v. City of Gardena, that a public agency’s pursuit policy must have California Vehicle Code section 17004.7’s written certification requirement, but 100 percent compliance with that requirement was not a prerequisite to receiving immunity for damages resulting from a vehicle pursuit. The Court’s […]

Vol. 33 No. 23 POBRA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ACCRUAL DATE NOT APPLICABLE AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN A SENIOR OFFICER, WHO WAS NOT A PERSON “AUTHORIZED TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION”, RECEIVED EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT

In Daugherty v. City and County of San Francisco, 24 Cal. App. 5th 928 (1st Dist. 2018), published in July 2018, the California First District Court of Appeal found disciplinary charges were timely where a senior officer aware of officer misconduct was not deemed “a person authorized to initiate an investigation.”  Alternatively, the Court also […]