Vol. 20 No. 11- U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review in Smith v. Hemet
U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW IN SMITH v. HEMET June 22, 2005 On June 20, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the City of Hemet ‘s request for the Court to grant certiorari (review) in the case of Smith v. Hemet. Previously, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc , ruled that […]
Vol. 20 No. 10- Medical Marijuana Sample Ordinances
MEDICAL MARIJUANA SAMPLE ORDINANCES June 15, 2005 Last week we sent out a Client Alert Memo regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision on California ‘s medical marijuana law. Since then, we have been asked to provide samples of ordinances which regulate or prohibit the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries in a jurisdiction. Therefore, we are […]
Vol. 20 No. 9 California Medical Marijuana Law “Trumped” By The Federal Law
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW “TRUMPED” BY THE FEDERAL LAW June 9, 2005 On Monday, June 6, 2005 the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, ruled that California ‘s law allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government […]
Vol. 20 No. 8 – “Pitchess” Discovery Made Easier
“PITCHESS” DISCOVERY MADE EASIER June 6, 2005 Last Thursday, June 2, 2005, the California Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, made it easier for criminal defendants to access personnel files of peace officers. In the case of Warrick v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles Police Department), 2005 DJDAR 6347, the Court reiterated that a defendant […]
Vol. 20 No. 7- Peace Officer Personnel Records Still Confidential
PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS STILL CONFIDENTIAL April 11, 2005 On April 7, 2005, the California Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) ruled, in the case ofCalifornia Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) v. Superior Court (L.A. Times), that data provided to POST by law enforcement agencies, regarding whether an officer is hired, promoted […]
Vol. 20 No. 5- Smith V. City Of Hemet, Et Al.
SMITH V. CITY OF HEMET, ET AL. Febuary 4, 2005 CURRENT STATUS You will recall from our earlier Client Alert (Vol 20 No. 3; January 21, 2005) that on January 10, 2005, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, ruled that Smith’s guilty plea to the criminal charge of Penal Code §148 […]
Vol. 20 No. 3- Smith V. City Of Hemet, Et Al.
SMITH V. CITY OF HEMET, ET AL. January 21, 2005 On August 16, 1999, Hemet police officers responded to the home of Thomas Smith because Cynthia Smith had called 911 to report that her husband was hitting her and had grabbed her breast very hard. While Cynthia Smith was on the telephone with the 911 […]
Vol. 20 No. 15- POBR and the one-year statute of Limitations
POBR AND THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS September 1, 2005 The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, ruled on August 29, 2005, in the case ofCastagna v. City of Seal Beach et al., that the Seal Beach Police Department did not violate any provisions of the Peace Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) […]
Vol. 20 No. 16- If a Peace Officer Chooses to Lie; Be Prepared to Say “Goodbye”
IF A PEACE OFFICER CHOOSES TO LIE; BE PREPARED TO SAY “GOODBYE.” September 19, 2005 On September 12, 2005, the California Court of Appeal published the case of Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission ( Berry ), where it ruled that it is justifiable to terminate the employment of a peace officer for […]
Vol. 20 No. 17- New Pursuit Legislation: A Successful Cooperative Effort
NEW PURSUIT LEGISLATION: A SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE EFFORT October 14, 2005 On October 6, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into legislation Senate Bill 719 which directly impacts upon law enforcement’s authority to pursue fleeing suspects. Senate Bill 719 was sponsored by Senator Gloria Romero and was drafted with the cooperation of diverse law enforcement stake holders. […]