Vol. 23 No. 18- Officers Have No “Right” To Consult Collectively With Legal Counsel Following A Critical Incident
OFFICERS HAVE NO “RIGHT” TO CONSULT COLLECTIVELY WITH LEGAL COUNSEL FOLLOWING A CRITICAL INCIDENT November 7, 2008 The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, recently ruled that officers do not have a constitutional or statutory right to confer, as a group, with legal counsel following an officer involved shooting. In the case of the Association […]
IACP Magazine- International Association of Chiefs of Police Smaller Police Department Program Managing Personnel Through Corrective Discipline
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SMALLER POLICE DEPARTMENT PROGRAM “MANAGING PERSONNEL THROUGH CORRECTIVE DISCIPLINE”” November, 2008 San Diego, California By: Martin J. Mayer JONES & MAYER A. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 1. Pre-Discipline Procedures B. ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS – PEACE OFFICER ADMONISHMENT OF RIGHTS C. ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS D. ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS: EMPLOYEE STATEMENTS E. AT WILL […]
Vol. 23 No. 17- Newest Medical Marijuana Decision
NEWEST MEDICAL MARIJUANA DECISION OCTOBER 22, 2008 On October 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court unanimously denied an application to review a Court of Appeal decision, in the case of San Diego County v. San Diego NORML. San Diego and San Bernardino counties had sued the state of California claiming that Proposition 215 was unconstitutional […]
CPOA Magazine Article- Drug Testing of All Applicants for Municipal Employment is Unconstitutional
“Drug Testing of All Applicants for Municipal Employment is Unconstitutional” May, 2008 By Martin J. Mayer, Esq. and Christopher F. Neumeyer JONES & MAYER As a result of a United States Court of Appeals decision, Lanier v. City of Woodburn (2008) 518 F. 3d 1147, cities and counties may no longer require all new candidates […]
Vol. 23 No. 9- Supervisors Not Responsible For Retaliation Under FEHA
SUPERVISORS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR RETALIATION UNDER FEHA April 10, 2008 A significant “victory” for California employers, and their supervisors, has come about as the result of a recent Supreme Court decision. Supervisors can now relax, to some extent, and stop worrying about whether they will face litigation, and possible personal liability, when an adverse personnel action against one of […]
Vol. 22 No. 18- Vehicles Can Be Towed If…
VEHICLES CAN BE TOWED IF.. October 12, 2007 There appears to be significant misunderstanding about the authority of law enforcement to tow/impound vehicles after citing the operator for driving without a license. Although there have been changes in the law, as a result of several recent case decisions, vehicles can still be towed and impounded […]
Vol. 22 No. 16 – Take Home Cars and the IRS
TAKE HOME CARS AND THE IRS An issue has arisen regarding whether or not officers who take home cars which belong to the department will be taxed for the value of the use of the vehicle during the commute back and forth from work. The IRS has always considered the personal use of a vehicle owned by any employer, […]
Vol. 22 No. 17- Garden Grove v. Superior court (Kha) – The Next Step
Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) – The Next Step. December 19, 2007 “Kudos” to the Garden Grove City Council! On December 11, 2007, just days after the California Court of Appeal denied the City’s writ petition, which attempted to reverse a superior court’s order to return marijuana to a subject, the City Council voted to ask […]
Vol. 22 No. 16- The Court to California Cops: “Give Back The Dope”
THE COURT TO CALIFORNIA COPS: “GIVE BACK THE DOPE.” December 3, 2007 On November 28, 2007, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) ruled, in the case of City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County (Kha) , that once a charge of possession of marijuana has been dismissed by a court, pursuant to […]
Vol. 22 No. 15 – Prisoner Release Update
PRISONER RELEASE UPDATE October 22, 2007 Previously, we published a Client Alert Memorandum entitled “40,000 INMATES RELEASED TO YOUR COMMUNITIES” regarding the prisoner release matter currently before a Three-Judge Court under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to decide whether to issue a prisoner release order that would potentially release up to 40,000 state prison […]