Vol. 35 No. 16 SUPREME COURT “DUCKS” CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK CITY ORDINANCE IMPOSING TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS UPON HANDGUN LICENSEES VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT
In a 6-3 decision on April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of N.Y.[1] dismissed as moot a claim for relief alleging that a New York City (“City”) rule violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. In a relatively concise opinion, the Court majority concluded that, […]
Vol. 35 No. 15 LAW ENFORCEMENT EVALUATION OF COVID-19 HEALTH ORDER PROTESTS
The COVID-19 pandemic has altered many of the most fundamental expectancies of our democratic republic. Personal liberty, economic activity, and views about how to best provide for our collective care and health are continuously being adapted. As part of the role of government in guiding the way we jointly move forward, law enforcement leadership is […]
Vol. 35 No. 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GRANTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENJOINING AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECK AND AMMUNITION ANTI-IMPORTATION LAWS
On April 23, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in Rhode v. Becerra,[1] granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction enjoining what the Court called California’s “onerous and convoluted new laws” requiring ammunition purchase background checks and implementing ammunition anti-importation laws. Writing for the Southern District, Judge Roger T. […]
Vol. 35 No. 13 GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-54-20 AND ITS EFFECT ON REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR A TRAFFIC STOP FOR REGISTRATION VIOLATIONS
On April 22, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-54-20 (“the Order”) in which are addressed the suspension for sixty (60) days the period within which to perform certain duties. Among these, at paragraphs 1 through 7, are time limits related to registration of vehicles, the most important of which are paragraphs 3 and 5 […]
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FOR A TRAFFIC STOP MAY EXIST WHEN AN OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT THE REGISTERED OWNER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE HAS BEEN REVOKED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traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is […]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 […]