Vol. 30 No. 9 U.S. Supreme Court Limits Detaining Person In Routine Traffic Stop

U.S. SUPREME COURT LIMITS DETAINING PERSON IN ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Rodriguez v. United States, that “(a)bsent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” The Court found that “(b)eyond determining whether to […]

Vol. 30 No. 14 Public Resources and Elections: Used to Educate or Advocate?

Can public funds or resources be used to distribute material which is political in nature in an effort to urge the public to support or oppose an initiative on the ballot? The case law and statutory law governing these issues is clear on when and how a local agency or official can use public funds […]

CSSA Magazine- Jail Security Restrictions – Who Decides if They are Reasonable, Judges or Sheriffs?

By: Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel California State Sheriffs’ Association In 1987, the United States Supreme Court established criteria to be considered when deciding if restrictions on inmates by correctional facilities were constitutionally justified. Restrictions could include, but are not limited to, banning contact visits with attorneys and family; requiring shackling of inmates when they […]

Vol. 30 No. 19- ICE Detainers Put Sheriffs’ in Untenable Position

On several days during July, 2015, the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets have published news stories regarding crimes committed by persons who had been identified as individuals who were in the country illegally. In addition, it was noted that in the tragic murder of a young woman in San Francisco, the accused killer […]

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance That Did Not Include Findings of a Nexus Between a Development Project and The Need for Additional Affordable Housing Upheld by California Supreme Court

I. Summary Relying on a city’s broad power to regulate land use, the California Supreme Court recently upheld the City of San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance that requires new developments to set aside 15% of for-purchase units at affordable housing. In California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (Cal. […]