Vol. 40 No. 11 IN RESOLVING FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIMS, COURTS MAY NOT APPLY THE MOMENT-OF-THREAT RULE BECAUSE THAT RULE CONSTRICTS THE PROPER INQUIRY INTO THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
In Barnes v. Felix, the United States Supreme Court concluded that, in evaluating a police shooting, a rule used by the Fifth Circuit that looks only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot improperly narrows the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. In rejecting this “moment-of-threat” rule, […]
Vol. 40 No. 10 OFFICERS WHO ENGAGED IN AN UNNECESSARY HIGH-SPEED CHASE THAT KILLED BYSTANDERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
In Est. of Soakai v. Abdelaziz,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied qualified immunity to police officers involved in a high-speed chase in which innocent bystanders were injured and one was killed by a fleeing suspect. Despite allegedly witnessing the crash, the officers neither stopped to render aid nor summoned emergency services. Background In […]
Vol. 40 No. 9 BLOCKING CONSTITUENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA WAS A STATE ACTION WHERE PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAD ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON STATE’S BEHALF AND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY WHEN POSTING
In Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a public official’s blocking of individuals on her social media accounts constituted state action under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). The Court of Appeals concluded that the official possessed actual […]
Vol. 40 No. 7 NO FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHERE WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PLAINTIFF’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE HOT-PURSUIT EXCEPTION
In Newman v. Underhill,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the hot-pursuit exception to the warrant requirement applied in affirming summary judgment for deputies where they entered a plaintiff’s home without a warrant while pursuing a fleeing suspect. In reaching its conclusion, the Court held that, as a matter of law, (1) the […]
Vol. 40 No. 8 BECAUSE CALIFORNIA TORT LAW’S “REASONABLE CARE” STANDARD IS BROADER AND DISTINCT FROM THE FEDERAL FOURTH AMENDMENT’S REASONABLENESS STANDARD, NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT JURY’S MIXED VERDICTS – FINDING DEPUTIES DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE BUT WERE NEGLIGENT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW – WERE RECONCILABLE
In Alves v. Cnty. of Riverside,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a jury’s mixed verdicts finding deputies did not use excessive force under the Fourth Amendment but were nonetheless negligent under California law were reconcilable on a reasonable theory consistent with the evidence. In reaching its conclusion, the Court explained that California […]
JONES MAYER OBTAINS DISMISSAL IN HUMAN SEXUAL TRAFFICKING CASE
After a woman discharged herself against medical advice from an in-patient substance abuse treatment program, her family contacted the Costa Mesa Police Department to file a missing persons’ report. According to the complaint, the woman’s family was allegedly told that the report could not be taken over the phone. Shortly thereafter, the family appeared in […]
Defense Jury Verdict in LAPD Officer-Involved Shooting Case: Jones Mayer Secures Win for Officer William Jones, Jr., in Civil Rights Litigation.
FULLERTON, CA — In a high-profile civil rights lawsuit stemming from an officer-involved shooting inside a Burlington Coat Factory store in North Hollywood, defendants, Officer William Jones Jr. and the City of Los Angeles, obtained a defense verdict following a jury trial in federal district court. Jones Mayer successfully defended the case on behalf of […]
Vol. 40 No. 4 PENAL CODE SECTION 148(A)(1) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW THEY RESISTED, DELAYED, OR OBSTRUCTED A PEACE OFFICER. IT IS ENOUGH FOR A TRIER OF FACT TO FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE PERSON THEY RESISTED WAS A PEACE OFFICER
In People v. Serna,[1] a California Court of Appeal held that Penal Code section 148(a)(1) does not require that a defendant have actual knowledge they are resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer. It is sufficient for trier of fact to find the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person they resisted […]
Jones Mayer Secures Defense Verdict for County of San Bernardino and Deputies in Civil Rights Use of Force Case
FULLERTON, CA — Jones Mayer is proud to announce a complete defense victory in a Federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the County of San Bernardino and two of its deputies. The case involved claims of excessive use of force and false arrest, with the plaintiff seeking $5-10 million in damages following an incident […]
Vol. 40 No. 3 FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCESSED CELL PHONE DATA FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF A WARRANT OR ANY SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
In Olson v. Cnty. of Grant,[1] a case where a law enforcement agency accessed the cell phone contents of a person arrested in another jurisdiction though the accessing agency lacked a warrant, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the agency violated the person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Despite this conclusion, however, the Court affirmed […]