Vol. 34 No. 36 DISTRICT COURT DECLINES TO RECOGNIZE A PER SE RULE THAT AUTOMATICALLY PERMITS A PAT-SEARCH FOR EVERY LAWFULLY DETAINED ROBBERY SUSPECT
On October 18, 2019, in the case of In re Jeremiah S.,[1] the California First District Court of Appeal determined that an officer who conducted a pat-down search of a robbery suspect did not present specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous. In reaching its conclusion, […]
Vol 34 No 35 9th CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DOJ’s USE OF NOTICE AND ACCESS CONDITIONS REGARDING BYRNE JAG GRANT FUNDING
On October 31, 2019 in the case of City of Los Angeles v. Barr,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court order entering a preliminary injunction against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The Court concluded that the DOJ lacks statutory authority to require recipients of a formula grant under the […]
California Supreme Court clarifies that to be liable in inverse condemnation, damage to private property must be substantially caused by inherent risks associated with the design, construction, or maintenance of a public improvement.
I. SUMMARY The California Supreme Court recently held1 that the City of Oroville (“City”) was not liable in inverse condemnation when untreated sewage backed up into a dental office because the property owner failed to demonstrate the resulting damage was substantially caused by inherent risks in the design, construction, or maintenance of the sewer system. […]
Vol. 34 No. 37 OFFICERS’ SEARCH OF A HOME LAWFUL BASED ON THEIR REASONABLE, THOUGH MISTAKEN, BELIEF THAT PAROLEE SUBJECT TO SEARCH CONDITION LIVED THERE
On November 15, 2019, in the case of United States v. Ped,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a District Court did not err in denying a defendant’s motion to suppress firearm evidence found in a warrantless search of his home. The Court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe that […]
Vol. 34 No. 38 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PERMIT SEARCHING A VEHICLE TO LOCATE A DRIVER’S IDENTIFICATION FOLLOWING A TRAFFIC STOP ABSENT WARRANT OR OTHER EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT
On November 25, 2019 in the case of United States v. People v. Lopez,[1] the California Supreme Court concluded that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement permitting a search of a vehicle. In reaching its conclusion, the […]
Vol. 34 No. 39 SOUTHERN DISTRICT FINDS CITY SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY ORDINANCE PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW
On November 19, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the case of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 v. City of San Diego, granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by two plaintiffs, each a sex offender subject to a lifetime requirement to register with local […]
Vol. 35 No. 7 CHARTER CITIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7284.6, WHICH PROHIBITS STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN ACTS RELATED TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In January 2020, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra[1] held that Section 7284.6 of the California Values Act (Government Code section 7284 et seq. (the “CVA”)) is constitutional as applied to charter cities because Section 7284.6 addresses matters of statewide concern, is reasonably related to resolution of […]
Vol. 35 No. 6 EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TERMINATED DURING HIS EXTENDED PROBATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
The California Second District Court of Appeal, in Amezcua v. L.A. Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm’n,[1] held that there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff was “absent from duty” and had “time away” from duty, such that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was permitted to extend his period of probation […]
Vol. 35 No. 5 PENAL CODE SECTION 632.7 PROHIBITS ONLY THIRD-PARTY EAVESDROPPERS, NOT THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PHONE CALL THEMSELVES, FROM INTENTIONALLY RECORDING TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.,[1] that a plaintiff failed to state a claim in arguing that a defendant business violated a provision in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“Privacy Act”) (Penal Code section 630, et seq.) by recording its call with the plaintiff. The Court concluded […]
Vol. 35 No. 4 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT A SECRET RECORDING OF A PHONE CONVERSATION WAS NOT BARRED BY A PRIVACY PROVISION BECAUSE THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN REPEALED BY THE “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE” PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION
In the case of People v. Guzman,[1] the Supreme Court of California found that a surreptitious recording was properly admitted into evidence in a defendant’s trial for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child. The Court concluded that the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision in the state constitution enacted as a result of the […]