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 […]

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 […]

Vol. 40 No. 2 NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM WHERE POLICE USED BODYWEIGHT FORCE ON THE BACK OF A PRONE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS MENTALLY ILL, NOT SUSPECTED OF A CRIME, AND DID NOT PRESENT A RISK TO OFFICERS OR OTHERS

In its July 2024 decision in Scott v. Smith,[1] a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel denied qualified immunity to police officers on an excessive force claim in which an officer temporarily used bodyweight compression on a prone individual’s back and neck.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted the individual was mentally ill, was […]

Amendments to the California Health & Safety Code §17980 that Could Assist Law Enforcement, Code Enforcement, Fire and Building in Addressing Illegal Activity at Commercial Buildings.

This memorandum addresses the substantive amendments to California Health & Safety Code §17980 enacted through Senate Bill 1465 (“SB 1465”), signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 22, 2024. The legislation took effect January 1, 2025. Historically, California Health & Safety Code §17980 has provided local enforcement agencies with statutory authority to petition courts for […]

JONES MAYER OBTAINS DISMISSAL WHERE COUNSEL FAILS TO SERVE COMPLAINT FOR FOUR YEARS

FULLERTON, CA—On November 18, 2024, the Orange County Superior Court entered a dismissal in favor of the City of Westminster in a personal injury lawsuit based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve her complaint within three years of filing. The case originated in May of 2019 when the plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she […]

Recent Ninth Circuit Arguments Highlight the Importance of Body-Worn Cameras

On October 23, 2024, Jones Mayer Certified Appellate Specialist Scott Davenport made oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the City of Fullerton in A.R.L. v. City of Fullerton (Docket no. 23-55751). The case, which arose from a fatal officer-involved shooting in April 2020, offers an example of the importance […]

Jones Mayer Wins Sonoma County Whistleblower Case

FULLERTON, CA—Jones Mayer is pleased to announce the successful defense of the Sonoma County Sheriff and his office in an overreach attempt by the local law enforcement review board. The case, In re Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach Whistleblower Case No. 23-W-001, Sonoma Superior Court Case No. 24CV04208, was brought by the […]

Vol. 39 No. 17 BECAUSE COUNTY’S ONLINE “MUGSHOT LOOKUP,” WHICH INCLUDED DETAINEES’ PHOTOS AND PERSONAL INFORMATION, SERVED AS A PUNISHMENT, IT IMPLICATED DETAINEE’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

The Ninth Circuit, in Houston v. Maricopa,[1] concluded that an arrestee plausibly pleaded a substantive due process claim against a county based on pretrial punishment when the county posted the arrestee’s photo on its publicly accessible website, along with certain identifying personal information. Background The Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff’s Office posts photographs of arrestees on […]

Vol. 39 No. 16 PERSONAL TEXT MESSAGES FROM A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE REGARDING A RACIST IMAGE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MATTER OF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC CONCERN AND THEREFORE WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

In Adams v. Cnty. of Sacramento,[1] a First Amendment retaliation case brought by a former Chief of Police, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s private text messages forwarding racist images (which she allegedly complained about) from an unknown sender to friends were not protected by the First Amendment.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court […]