Client Alert Vol 38 No 1 INVENTORY SEARCH OF TRUCK PARKED ILLEGALLY BY DRIVER WITHOUT VALID LICENSE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WAS NOT FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHERE VEHICLE WAS IMPOUNDED FOR VALID COMMUNITY CARETAKING PURPOSE
In United States v. Anderson,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a District Court did not err in concluding that the government established that a valid community caretaking purpose existed for impounding and inventorying defendant’s truck before an inventory search was conducted. The Court determined that sheriff’s deputies had an objectively reasonable belief […]
Client Alert Vol 38 No 2 DEFENDANT WAS NOT DETAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD VIEW THE DEPUTY’S USE OF A SPOTLIGHT LACKING IN COERCIVE FORCE
The California Supreme Court, in People v. Tacardon,[1] concluded that shining a spotlight for illumination does not ipso facto constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that the proper inquiry instead requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the use of a spotlight. Background Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb was on […]
Client Alert Vol 38 No 3 A TRIAL COURT MAY CONSIDER HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN RULING ON A GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER PETITION
In San Diego Police Dept. v. Geoffrey S.,[1] the Fourth District held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a hearing on a gun violence restraining order (“GVRO”) under Penal Code section 18175. The Court applied its analysis from a previous case[2] in which the Fourth District had held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a […]
The Passing of Peter L. Wallin
Jones Mayer mourns the passing of Peter L. Wallin who passed away on July 25, 2022. Peter was extraordinary, not just as an attorney, but as a human being. No matter the circumstances, he approached each day and each problem with the most positive of attitudes and lived life to its fullest. Peter graduated from […]
Vol. 37 No. 11 AFTER DECISION REJECTING TIERED-SCRUTINY ANALYSIS IN SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, SUPREME COURT VACATES CIRCUIT COURT CASES UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATES’ LAWS INVOLVING FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS
In light of its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Bruen,[1] the United States Supreme Court issued an order vacating and remanding four Circuit Courts of Appeals judgments involving the Second Amendment’s application to various state laws. In Bruen, the Supreme Court deemed a New York state law’s […]
The Passing of Harold W. Potter on March 21, 2022
Jones Mayer mourns the passing of Senior Litigator Harold W. Potter, Jr., who passed away on March 21, 2022. “Harold was an inspiration to the firm, both as an attorney and as a person. He could work magic with juries and mentored other lawyers with a humor, intelligence and grace that is a rare combination,” […]
Vol. 37 No. 5 A JURY COULD INFER THAT A POLICE OFFICER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE NEGLIGENTLY LEFT HIS FIREARM IN HIS VEHICLE AFTER RETURNING HOME FROM WORK
In Perez v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 171 (1st Dist. Mar. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeal concluded that a jury could reasonably find a nexus between a police department’s enterprise of policing and the risk that one of its officers would negligently fail to secure a Department-approved firearm upon […]
Harold Potter’s “Celebration of Life” Service
There will be a “Celebration of Life” service for Harold W. Potter on Saturday, May 7, 2022, at 2:00 PM at Long Beach First Church of the Nazarene, 2280 Clark Ave., Long Beach, CA 90815. In lieu of flowers, there will be a scholarship established in his honor at his beloved alma mater, Point Loma […]
Vol. 37 No. 6 ARREST INFORMATION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE MANDATE IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING ARRESTS EXTENDED ONLY TO INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CONTEMPORANEOUS POLICE ACTIVITY
In Kinney v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 293 (5th Dist. Apr. 7, 2022), the Court of Appeal determined that arrestee name information was not subject to public disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f)(1), because the disclosure mandate regarding arrests extended only to information pertaining to contemporaneous police activity and the information sought, which […]
Vol. 37 No. 7 PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING THAT THE PROSECUTION ENDED WITHOUT A CONVICTION IS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE FAVORABLE TERMINATION ELEMENT OF A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 FOURTH AMENDMENT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM
In Thompson v. Clark, 212 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. […]