The Passing of Harold W. Potter on March 21, 2022
Jones Mayer mourns the passing of Senior Litigator Harold W. Potter, Jr., who passed away on March 21, 2022. “Harold was an inspiration to the firm, both as an attorney and as a person. He could work magic with juries and mentored other lawyers with a humor, intelligence and grace that is a rare combination,” […]
Vol. 37 No. 5 A JURY COULD INFER THAT A POLICE OFFICER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE NEGLIGENTLY LEFT HIS FIREARM IN HIS VEHICLE AFTER RETURNING HOME FROM WORK
In Perez v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 171 (1st Dist. Mar. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeal concluded that a jury could reasonably find a nexus between a police department’s enterprise of policing and the risk that one of its officers would negligently fail to secure a Department-approved firearm upon […]
Harold Potter’s “Celebration of Life” Service
There will be a “Celebration of Life” service for Harold W. Potter on Saturday, May 7, 2022, at 2:00 PM at Long Beach First Church of the Nazarene, 2280 Clark Ave., Long Beach, CA 90815. In lieu of flowers, there will be a scholarship established in his honor at his beloved alma mater, Point Loma […]
Vol. 37 No. 6 ARREST INFORMATION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE MANDATE IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING ARRESTS EXTENDED ONLY TO INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CONTEMPORANEOUS POLICE ACTIVITY
In Kinney v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 293 (5th Dist. Apr. 7, 2022), the Court of Appeal determined that arrestee name information was not subject to public disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f)(1), because the disclosure mandate regarding arrests extended only to information pertaining to contemporaneous police activity and the information sought, which […]
Vol. 37 No. 7 PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING THAT THE PROSECUTION ENDED WITHOUT A CONVICTION IS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE FAVORABLE TERMINATION ELEMENT OF A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 FOURTH AMENDMENT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM
In Thompson v. Clark, 212 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. […]
Congratulations, Onerous California Bar Exam
Jones Mayer is proud to announce that attorneys Lauren L’Ecuyer and Marcellus Mosley have recently passed the California bar exam. Ms. L’Ecuyer, a University of Arizona College of Law graduate, is a labor and employment, litigation, and municipal law expert. Before joining Jones Mayer, Ms. L’Ecuyer worked in plaintiff and defendant litigation. Mr. Mosley, current […]
Jeremy Warren joins team as an Associate Attorney
Jones Mayer is excited to announce that Jeremy Warren has joined our team as an Associate Attorney, focusing on civil rights litigation, police representation, torts, and personal injury claims. Mr. Warren is a former Deputy District Attorney and has experience prosecuting severe and violent felonies, gang cases, and juvenile court cases. He received his law […]
Vol. 37 No. 8 CALIFORNIA LAW BANNING SALES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO YOUNG ADULTS VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT
In Jones v. Bonta, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12657 (9th Cir. May 11, 2022), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the California law prohibiting the sale of semiautomatic rifles to young adults was unconstitutional. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the laws burdened the right to home self-defense and did not reasonably […]
Vol 37. No. 9 SUPREME COURT EXPANDS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, STRIKING DOWN NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A CCW
In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court in, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Bruen,[1] determined that the State of New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry weapons permits must establish “proper cause” for issuance of the permit was unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because […]
Vol 37. No. 10 A VIOLATION OF MIRANDA RULES DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 CLAIM
In a 6-3 decision in Vega v. Tekoh,[1] the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Circuit Court decision holding that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the Fifth Amendment and may support a Section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. The Supreme […]