Vol. 21 No. 14- Peace Officer Personnel Information And The Public Records Act
PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT September 11, 2006 On August 31, 2006 , the California Supreme Court, affirmed that peace officer personnel information is confidential, even if the officer appeals discipline administratively. In the case ofCopley Press v.Superior Court (County of San Diego), 2006 DAR 11839, the Supreme Court reversed the […]
Vol. 21 No. 13- Getting Paid For Getting Dressed?
GETTING PAID FOR GETTING DRESSED? August 15, 2006 Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson (“RL&W”) is a highly respected labor law firm, which represents numerous law enforcement officers and associations, and is based in northern California . On August 1, 2006, it published a “Client News Bulletin” entitled “Getting Paid for Getting Dressed” and concludes that, “the […]
CSSA Magazine Article- Cost Recovery of Expenses Responding to DUI Incident
“COST RECOVERY OF EXPENSES RESPONDING TO DUI INCIDENTS” July, 2006 By: Martin J. Mayer JONES & MAYER There has been an ongoing debate surrounding the question of what expenses can law enforcement recover when responding to an incident caused by an intoxicated driver? The debate focused on how one defines an “incident” and, whether the […]
Vol. 21 No. 11- U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Parolee Searches And “No Knock” Violations
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES ON PAROLEE SEARCHES AND “NO KNOCK” VIOLATIONS June 26, 2006 I. PAROLEES On June 19, 2006 , the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Samson v. California , 2006 U.S. Lexis 4885, and held that under California law a parolee can be subjected to a search by […]
Vol. 21 No. 10- Public Employee Speech And The First Amendment
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT June 5, 2006 On May 30, 2006 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006 DJDAR 6495, holding that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not protect statements, made by a public sector employee, which were made pursuant […]
Vol. 21 No. 9- Penal Code Section Prohibiting False Citizens’ Complaints Against Peace Officers Unconstitutional
PENAL CODE SECTION PROHIBITING FALSE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS AGAINST PEACE OFFICERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. May 17, 2006 On May 15, 2006 , the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding California Penal Code Section 148.6 unconstitutional, Docket No. 05-1118. Section 148.6 provides that “[e]very person who files […]
Vol. 21 No. 8- Convicted Sex Offenders Are Not A “Protected Class”
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS ARE NOT A “PROTECTED CLASS” May 8, 2006 On April 27, 2006 , the California Attorney General (A.G.) published Opinion No. 05-301, in response to a question posed by a member of the Assembly: “Does the prohibition against the unauthorized use of registered sex offender identifying information, obtained from the “Megan’s Law” […]
Vol. 21 No. 7- SB 719- Requirements Of The New Pursuit Legislation
SB 719- REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW PURSUIT LEGISLATION April 11, 2006 It has come to our attention that information being generated regarding the requirements of Senate Bill 719, which deals with pursuit policies, appears to be incorrect and/or misleading. A recent notice sent out by a major law firm, apparently to all law enforcement agencies […]
Vol. 21 No. 16- Public Records Act Demand
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT DEMAND December 11, 2006 This will serve to provide a suggested response to the requests to examine documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) as set forth in emails of early last week. We have been provided with a list of items that in recent days have been requested of […]
Vol. 21 No. 17- Police Officer’s Procedural Bill Of Rights And The Tort Claims Act
POLICE OFFICER’S PROCEDURAL BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE TORT CLAIMS ACT December 19, 2006 We are most pleased to report that the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal just published a decision, in Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco, holding that an officer must first file a claim under the […]