CSSA Magazine Article – POBRA, IA INTERROGATIONS AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
POBRA, IA INTERROGATIONS AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL By: Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel – California State Sheriffs’ Association On January 8, 2014, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, held, in Quezada et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., that although, pursuant to the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act […]
Vol. 31 No. 18- FEDERAL BAN ON THE SALE OF FIREARMS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD HOLDERS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
FEDERAL BAN ON THE SALE OF FIREARMS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD HOLDERS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT On August 31, 2016, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal in Wilson v. Lynch affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging that federal statutes, regulations and guidance including the Bureau of […]
J&M Successfully Defeats Motion in Murder Case
J&M Successfully Defeats Motion in Murder Case On September 2, 2016, Jones & Mayer successfully represented the County of Stanislaus and Sheriff Adam Christianson in the case of People v. Jauriqui. Jauriqui, is charged with murder and, while being detained in the County Jail, was involved in a serious assaults on another inmate (resulting in […]
Vol 31. No. 17- AN ARREST WITHOUT THE FILING OF AN ACCUSATORY PLEADING IS JUST A DETENTION
AN ARREST WITHOUT THE FILING OF AN ACCUSATORY PLEADING IS JUST A DETENTION On August 1, 2016, the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, held, in Schmidt v. California Highway Patrol, that if a person is arrested, but no accusatory pleading is filed with a court, the arrest shall be deemed a detention only. Further, […]
Vol 31 No. 16- FEDERAL COURT PROHIBITS U.S. FROM PROSECUTING THOSE WHO COMPLY WITH A STATE’S LAWS ALLOWING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
On August 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, in United States v. McIntosh, vacated the orders of lower courts denying relief to the appellants. The appellants had been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and sought dismissal of their indictments, or to enjoin their prosecutions, on the basis of a congressional […]
Public Officers and employees can be guilty of misappropriation if they exercise a degree of material control over public funds
I. Summary The California Supreme court recently held in People v. Hubbard, 63 Cal. 4th 378 (2016) that a school superintendent was properly convicted of misappropriating public funds under Penal Code Section 424[1]. The Court reasoned that the superintendent was a public officer who exercised a degree of material control over public funds and could […]
Vol. 31 No. 15- EMPLOYERS MUST PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A DISABLED PERSON
Summary On April 4, 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 180 (2016) held that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee who is associated with, and provides care to, a disabled […]
Vol. 31 No. 14 -THE “IN CAR” VIDEO OF AN ARREST, USED IN AN I.A. INVESTIGATION, DOES NOT BECOME A “PERSONNEL RECORD”
THE “IN CAR” VIDEO OF AN ARREST, USED IN AN I.A. INVESTIGATION, DOES NOT BECOME A “PERSONNEL RECORD” On July 19, 2016, the First District Court of Appeal held, in City of Eureka v. Superior Court of Humboldt County (Greenson), that even if an “arrest video was considered or relied upon during [an] internal affairs […]
Vol 31. No. 13- ARE RECORDS REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE CPRA IF THEY ARE ON PRIVATE CELL PHONES OR E-MAIL ACCOUNTS?
ARE RECORDS REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE CPRA IF THEY ARE ON PRIVATE CELL PHONES OR E-MAIL ACCOUNTS? On July 5, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in the case of Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science and Technology Policy (CEI v. OSTP) held that “an agency cannot […]
Vol. 31 No. 19- CITY’S BANKRUPTCY PLAN DOESN’T DISCHARGE PERSONAL DAMAGES AWARD AGAINST OFFICER
CITY’S BANKRUPTCY PLAN DOESN’T DISCHARGE PERSONAL DAMAGES AWARD AGAINST OFFICER On September 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held, in Deocampo v. Potts et al, that “. . . California’s indemnification statutes do not render a judgment or concomitant fee award against an indemnifiable municipal employee a liability of the municipal employer […]