Vol. 35 No. 12 REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR A TRAFFIC STOP MAY EXIST WHEN AN OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT THE REGISTERED OWNER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE HAS BEEN REVOKED
In an 8-1 decision, in Kansas v. Glover,[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that when an officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is […]
Vol. 35 No. 11 HIPAA DISCLOSURES – COVID 19 – FIRST RESPONDERS
A recurrent question of late has been what, if any, information can be relayed to first responders – Police and Fire Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) concerning potential COVID-19 exposure from a given person and/or location. Fortunately, guidance has now been had from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in an online bulletin received […]
Vol. 35 No. 10 EXECUTIVE ORDER N-40-20 – POBR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED
By Executive Order dated March 30, 2020, Governor Newsom extended the statute of limitations under Govt. Code §3304(d) by 60 days. Govt. Code §3304(d) reads in pertinent part[1] as follows: Except as provided in this subdivision and subdivision (g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken for […]
Vol. 35 No. 19 A CITY’S EFFORTS TO REDACT ELECTRONIC DATA PRIOR TO DELIVERING RESPONSIVE RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST IS NOT COMPENSABLE
On May 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued the long-awaited opinion in National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward (S252445). The Court rejected the argument that staff time and effort spent editing and redacting confidential or exempt data from responsive video footage could be charged to the Public Records […]
Vol. 35 No. 20 CURFEW ENFORCEMENT
California and the nation are experiencing large-scale community reaction following the tragic death, at the hands of law enforcement, of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Many people have been responsible in how they have exercised their rights to free assembly and free speech and in the way they have expressed their perspectives concerning law enforcement agency […]
Vol. 35 No. 21 ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS IMPERMISSIBLE TO SEARCH PREMISES IF PRIMARY MOTIVATION IS SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
In the case entitled U.S. v. Grey, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16788 (9th Cir. May 27, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his property. The Court held that when law enforcement officers are asked […]
Vol. 35 No. 30 BAIL DETERMINATIONS MUST BE BASED UPON CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUALIZED CRITERIA
On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of California issued an order[1] making a part of the California First District Court of Appeal’s 2018 case, In re Humphrey,[2] binding on trial courts pending final resolution of the case. In Part III of that opinion, the First District emphasized that bail determinations must be based upon […]
Vol. 35 No. 29 COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS RUBEN LONA DECISION DENYING APPELLANT’S PETITION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SHARED GANG DATABASE
On August 24, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed[1] the decision of the Orange County Superior Court which denied Ruben Lona’s petition to be removed from the Shared Gang Database. The Court of Appeal determined that Ruben Lona’s own admissions made in the declaration he provided […]
Vol. 35 No. 28 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE PLAINTIFFS’ EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR THE INJURIES THEY SUSTAINED IN RESPONDING TO PEACE OFFICER’S REQUEST TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
On August 27, 2020, in the case of Gund v. County of Trinity,[1] the California Supreme Court found that plaintiffs, who were injured by an attacker in the course of responding to a peace officer request to provide assistance to their neighbor who had called 911 requesting help, were limited to workers’ compensation benefits for […]
Vol. 35 No. 27 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PROVIDES SEVEN-FACTOR TEST THAT A TRIAL COURT SHOULD USE IN RULING ON A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO A THIRD PARTY
In the August 2020 case of Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Stephan),[1] the California Supreme Court directed trial courts to explicitly consider and balance seven factors in ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to a third party. Background In May 2018 in Facebook v. Superior Court (Hunter),[2] the California Supreme […]