Vol. 23 No. 4- L. A. Times v. Post – change in procedure
L.A. TIMES v. POST – CHANGE IN PROCEDURE February 05, 2008 On February 4, 2008, we published a client alert memo based upon information contained in a memorandum issued by Paul Cappitelli, the Executive Director of POST. The POST memorandum directed agencies to notify POST “if an agency seeks to exclude names from the report, […]
Vol. 23 No. 3- L. A. Times v. Post – disclosure of officer’s names
L. A. TIMES v. POST – DISCLOSURE OF OFFICER’S NAMES February 04, 2008 The attached information from POST requires your immediate attention. In order to avoid the disclosure of the names of officers whose identity must be withheld in order to protect their safety, all law enforcement agencies must respond to POST within the next 10 […]
CPOA Newsletter Article- Status of Litigation Regarding Potential Release of 40,000 State Prisioners
“STATUS OF LITIGATION REGARDING POTENTIAL RELEASE OF 40,000 STATE PRISONERS” February, 2008 By: Martin J. Mayer General Counsel to CPOA The following is a status report as of February 2008, regarding the litigation involving the potential release of thousands of felon from our state prison system. History Two class action law suits (Coleman v. California […]
CSSA Magazine Article- The Use of Medical Marijuana and One’s Job
“THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND ONE’S JOB“ February, 2008 By: Martin J. Mayer General Counsel California State Sheriffs’ Association Your employee goes to your Human Resources department and informs them that he has been advised by his doctor to use a particular medication in order to treat a medical condition from which he suffers. […]
Vol. 23 No. 2- Smoking Medical Marijuana can cost you your Job
SMOKING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CAN COST YOU YOUR JOB January 28, 2008 The California Supreme Court ruled, on January 24, 2008, in the case of Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., that it does not violate one’s right of privacy, nor is it discriminatory, to fire an employee who uses marijuana for medical reasons. Ross’ doctor recommended marijuana to […]
Vol. 23 No. 1- Coleman/Plata Update
COLEMAN/PLATA UPDATE January 4, 2008 In our last update on the prisoner release litigation [Coleman v. Schwarzenegger/ Plata v. Schwarzenegger], we informed you that we were preparing to file a joint Motion for Reconsideration/Motion for Clarification on behalf of all Intervenor-Defendants, excepting the County Intervenors (Sheriff, Police Chief, and Chief Probation and Corrections Intervenors; Republican […]
Vol. 22 No. 10- Issuing Honorary Badges
“ISSUING HONORARY BADGES” August 1, 2007 On July 30, 2007, the Office of the Attorney General issued an official opinion (No. 06-307) addressing three questions regarding the issuance of honorary badges. Although the questions posed focused on the actions of a sheriff, the analysis would be applicable to anyone authorized to issue a badge (for […]
Vol. 16 No. 9 Brady Rift Between Prosecutors And Law Enforcement Agencies
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM November 14, 2001 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer BRADY RIFT BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIESTHE CONFLICT A significant impact has been caused by the United States Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, upon law enforcement agencies and prosecutors […]
Vol. 15 No. 2- Re: Labor Code Section 96 – Update
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM February 2, 2000 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer Re: LABOR CODE SECTION 96 – UPDATE As many of you are aware, we recently brought to your attention concerns regarding amendments to Labor Code Section 96 which, in essence, gave jurisdiction to the State Labor Commissioner regarding “claims […]
Vol. 15 No. 1- Re: Pitchess Motions
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM January 24, 2000 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: J. Scott Tiedemann PITCHESS MOTIONS We write to draw your attention to a change in the law which, although seemingly mundane, is very important to your handling of requests for peace officer personnel records, i.e., “Pitchess Motions.” Code of Civil Procedure § […]