Ryan M. Allein Joins Jones Mayer
Jones Mayer is thrilled to announce that Ryan Allein has joined the firm. Ryan comes to Jones Mayer from the California Court of Appeal, 5th District. While serving as an appellate attorney for the court, Ryan prepared and drafted over fifty opinions. Ryan started his career at the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office. During his […]
Vol. 40 No. 19 NINTH CIRCUIT FINDS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION IN CASE WHERE OFFICERS SHOT INTO VEHICLE KILLING BOTH KIDNAPPER AND SECONDS LATER A MINOR HOSTAGE
In Hawatmeh v. City of Henderson,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims in a case where, tragically, a minor hostage was shot by officers and died. Background In November 2020, Dianne Hawatmeh and her daughter Yasmeen had returned to their apartment complex when their neighbor, Jason […]
Vol. 40 No. 18 WHEN OFFICERS LOSE A SUSPECT’S TRAIL FOR EIGHTEEN MINUTES, THERE IS NO HOT PURSUIT
In Jones v. City of N. Las Vegas,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a District Court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant police officers in plaintiffs’ action alleging that defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights when the officers physically intruded into plaintiffs’ backyard without permission while searching […]
Vol. 40 No. 17 DESPITE DEFENDANT RETAINING A PRIVACY INTEREST IN ABANDONED IPHONE, BECAUSE SUBSEQUENT SEARCH WAS WARRANT-BASED AND REASONABLE, THERE WAS NO FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
In United States v. Hunt,[1]the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that in considering whether the abandonment principle applies to a person’s cell phone, courts should analyze the intent to abandon the digital device separately from the intent to abandon the device’s data—and not conflate the two. Finding that the defendant here did not abandon […]
Vol. 40 No. 16 OFFICER’S USE OF LESS-LETHAL FORCE THAT SERIOUSLY INJURED BYSTANDER FILMING NEAR A PROTESTING CROWD NOT UNREASONABLE GIVEN THAT PROTESTERS OBJECTIVELY POSED AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF OFFICERS, CITIZENS, AND PROPERTY
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Cheairs v. City of Seattle,[1] that the use of force by an officer – who threw a blast ball diversionary device that injured a bystander who was filming protestors – was not excessive. In reaching its conclusion, the Court concluded that the protesters at the front of […]
Vol. 40 No. 14 CALIFORNIA’S LAW PROHIBITING THE PURCHASE OF MORE THAN ONE FIREARM IN A 30-DAY PERIOD VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Nguyen v. Bonta[1] that a California law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period violates the Second Amendment. Background In 1999, the California Legislature enacted a “one-gun-a-month” law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a […]
Vol. 40 No. 15 CALIFORNIA’S AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECK REGIME, WHICH REQUIRES FIREARM OWNERS TO COMPLETE BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE EACH AMMUNITION PURCHASE, VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT
In Rhode v. Bonta,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that California’s background check regime for ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment. Background California voters approved Proposition 63, which created a background check regime for ammunition sales. This regime went into effect July 1, 2019. California requires residents to purchase ammunition through licensed ammunition […]
Vol. 40 No. 13 GENERALIZED CONCERNS ABOUT VICTIM TRAUMA AND FAIR-TRIAL PUBLICITY WERE INSUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT “ACTIVE INVESTIGATION” EXEMPTION TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ABSOLVED POLICE OF THEIR DUTY TO RELEASE BODYCAM FOOTAGE
In Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Superior Court,[1] a Court of Appeal concluded that the record did not disclose substantial evidence for a superior court’s finding that the “active investigation” exemption to disclosure of recordings involving the discharge of a firearm by police applied, explaining that the few facts presented to the superior court lacked […]
Vol. 40 No. 12 BECAUSE AN OFFICER CONTINUED TO SHOOT A FALLEN AND INJURED SUSPECT ARMED ONLY WITH A BLADED INSTRUMENT WHO WAS ON HIS BACK WITH HIS KNEES CURLED UP TO HIS CHEST WHILE ROLLING AWAY FROM THE OFFICER, A JURY COULD REASONABLY FIND THAT THE OFFICER EMPLOYED CONSTITUTIONALLY EXCESSIVE FORCE
In Est. of Hernandez v. City of L.A.,[1] an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that although a police officer acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment when firing the first four rounds at an individual armed with a knife who approached the officer, there was a triable issue of fact […]
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, […]