Vol. 16 No. 11- People V. Mooc
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM December 28, 2001 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer PEOPLE v. MOOC The California Supreme Court gave a well deserved, and most appropriate, Christmas present to peace officers throughout the State of California, on December 24, 2001. The Court overruled a Court of Appeal decision in the […]
Vol. 24 No. 1.- Police Negligence Does Not Always Trigger The Exclusonary Rule
POLICE NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT ALWAYS TRIGGER THE EXCLUSONARY RULE The United States Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that “if an officer reasonably believes there is an outstanding arrest warrant, but that belief turns out to be wrong because of a negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee,” then the “contraband found during […]
Vol. 28 No. 7 – Federal Court Uphold’s Maryland’s “Good Cause” Requirement For CCW Permit
FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS MARYLAND’S “GOOD CAUSE” REQUIREMENT FOR CCW PERMIT On March 21, 2013, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Woolard; Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., v. Gallagher; et al., held that “section 5–306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a […]
Vol. 28 No. 1 – All Peace Officers Need To Be Able To Perform Emergency Field Duties
ALL PEACE OFFICERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM EMERGENCY FIELD DUTIES On December 11, 2012, the California 1st District Court of Appeal held, in the case of Lui v. City and County of San Francisco, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1248, that it may not be discriminatory to terminate a peace officer who cannot perform all the […]
CSSA Magazine Article – When Is Government Seizure of Personal Property and/or Restricting Speech Unconstitutional?
WHEN IS GOVERNMENT SEIZURE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND/OR RESTRICTING SPEECH UNCONSTITUTIONAL? By: Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel California State Sheriffs’ Association Several recent court decisions involving law enforcement activity are extremely significant and require law enforcement agencies to address the issues before the situations arise. These involve constitutional rights of freedom from unreasonable seizures and/or […]
Vol. 27 No. 23 – Federal Appellate Court Voids Illinois’ Ban On Concealed Weapons
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT VOIDS ILLINOIS’ BAN ON CONCEALED WEAPONS On December 12, 2012, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled, in Moore et al. v. Madigan (which consolidated two cases for oral argument) that the total ban on carrying concealed weapons, in public, is unconstitutional. The State of Illinois had a law which prohibited virtually […]
Vol. 27 No. 22 – Hot Pursuit of Misdemeanants and Warranteless Entry Into A Home and/or Its Curtilage
HOT PURSUIT OF MISDEMEANANTS AND WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO A HOME AND/OR ITS CURTILAGE On December 3, 2012, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held, in Sims v. Stanton, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24803 (9th Cir. Cal.), that the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement to enter a home, generally requires the fleeing suspect […]
Vol. 27. No. 21 — Controlling Disruptive Behavior At Public Meetings
CONTROLLING DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AT PUBLIC MEETINGS Two recent cases have addressed what cities or counties can do when a person becomes “disruptive” at a city council or board of supervisors meeting. Both decisions have an impact on efforts by local legislative bodies to control disruptive behavior at public meetings, and how law enforcement can respond to […]
Vol. 27 No. 20 – California Attorney General Says Compliance With “ICE” Detainers Is Optional
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS COMPLIANCE WITH “ICE” DETAINERS IS OPTIONAL Concerns regarding whether local law enforcement has a duty to cooperate with the federal government, and detain arrestees when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issues an immigration “hold,” was addressed by the California Department of Justice (CalDOJ) yesterday, December 4, 2012, in an Information Bulletin issued […]
Vol. 27 No. 19 – U.S. Supreme Court to Decide DNA Case
U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE DNA CASE On November 10, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case of Maryland v. King for review. At issue is the question of whether it is constitutional for states and the federal government to require that persons arrested on felony charges provide a DNA sample immediately after arrest? […]