Jones Mayer Expands Northern California Presence with Appointment in Chico
Jones Mayer has been selected to serve as City Attorney for the City of Chico, adding to the firm’s growing presence across Northern California. Located in Butte County in the northern Sacramento Valley, Chico sits about 90 miles north of Sacramento and continues to serve as a regional center for education, business, and recreation. With […]
Vol. 41 No. 3 SUPREME COURT SUMMARILY REVERSES SECOND CIRCUIT, FINDING NO “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” VIOLATION IN OFFICER’S USE OF A PAIN-COMPLIANCE WRISTLOCK FOLLOWING A VERBAL WARNING
In Zorn v. Linton,[1] the United States Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion summarily reversed the Second Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity, holding that a law enforcement officer’s use of a routine wristlock on a non-compliant protester — following repeated verbal warnings — did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Background On the […]
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 […]