Vol. 17 No. 2- Confidentiality Of Background Information
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM April 2, 2002 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer CONFIDENTIALITY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION The California Supreme Court, on Friday, March 29, 2002, issued its opinion in the case ofCounty of Riverside v. Superior Court (Madrigal), 2002 DJDAR 3387, holding that a probationary peace officer may see his/her […]
Vol. 17 No. 1 Brady v. Maryland
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM March 25, 2002 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer Brady v. Maryland Approximately two weeks ago, we sent an e-mail to our clients in response to a question presented to us: is negative information contained in a background investigation, “Brady” material? We responded that it could be and, […]
Vol. 18 No. 2 Citizens Arrest Sample Policy
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM January 31, 2003 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer CITIZENS ARREST SAMPLE POLICY In our previous Client Alert Memo dated January 3, 2003 we explained the change in law regarding California Penal Code Sections 837 and 142. Subsequent to that update, there has been some confusion as to […]
Vol. 18 No. 3- Disabled Public Safety Officers To Receive Benefits In Historic Eeoc Settlement For Age Discrimination
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM February 5, 2003 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer DISABLED PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS TO RECEIVE BENEFITS IN HISTORIC EEOC SETTLEMENT FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION Until 1980, public safety officers disabled by a job injury were eligible for an Industrial Disability Retirement (“IDR”) equal to fifty (50) percent of […]
Vol. 18 No. 5- The Duty To Train Officers Is Unaffected By The Lack Of Reimbursement Sources
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM March 10, 2003 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer & Dean J. Pucci THE DUTY TO TRAIN OFFICERS IS UNAFFECTED BY THE LACK OF REIMBURSEMENT SOURCES Recently our office has been contacted by a large number of clients inquiring as to whether their duty to train peace officers […]
Vol. 18 No. 14- Medical Evaluations Of Employees Returning From Military Duty
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer MEDICAL EVALUATIONS OF EMPLOYEES RETURNING FROM MILITARY DUTY July 25, 2003 Recently a question was raised regarding the right, and/or obligation, of a law enforcement agency to evaluate the physical and psychological status of peace officers returning from military duty – especially those returning from […]
Vol. 18 No. 15- Latest “Miranda” Decision – People V. Neal
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer LATEST “MIRANDA” DECISION – PEOPLE v. NEAL July 16, 2003 The California Supreme Court issued a scathing decision on Monday, July 15, 2003, in the case of People v. Neal regarding the questioning of custodial suspects “outside Miranda.” That term refers to the continuation of […]
Vol. 18 No. 13- Civil Code Section 47.5 Is Alive
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer CIVIL CODE SECTION 47.5 IS ALIVE July 9, 2003 Two years ago, the California Court of Appeal held that Civil Code section 47.5(b) was unconstitutional; it allowed peace officers to sue a person civilly if that individual filed a complaint against the officer with his […]
Vol. 18 No. 12- Inyo County V. Paiute Shoshone Indians – 2003 Dar 5282
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer & Paul R. Coble INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE SHOSHONE INDIANS – 2003 DAR 5282 May 28, 2003 Paul R. Coble and Martin J. Mayer of the Law Offices of Jones & Mayer were pleased to provideamicus curiae briefing on behalf of the California State Sheriffs […]
Vol. 18 No. 11- Peer Support Counselor Privilege
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer & Dean J. Pucci AB 960 “PEER SUPPORT COUNSELOR PRIVILEGE” May 21, 2003 As a response to client concerns regarding proposed legislation, AB 960, we offer the following analysis of the impact of such legislation. AB 960, in short, will provide designated “peer supporters” (not […]