Vol. 29 No. 3 – OC Ordinance Restricting Sex Offenders From Entering Parks Preempted by State law
ORDINANCES RESTRICTING SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING PARKS ARE PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW On January 10, 2014, the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three, ruledunanimously, in an unpublished opinion, People v. Godinez, that California’s “statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupies the field and therefore preempts [Orange] county’s efforts to […]
Vol. 29 No. 2 – Ninth Circut Rules That Cities Cannot Compel Motels To Provide Guest Information Without Consent Or A Warrant
NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT CITIES CANNOT COMPEL MOTELS TO PROVIDE GUEST INFORMATION WITHOUT CONSENT OR A WARRANT On December 24, 2013, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in Patel v. City of Los Angeles, ruled that an L.A. Municipal Code section which allows police officers to inspect hotel guest […]
Vol. 29 No. 1 – Federal Court Rules That A Warrantless Breathalyzer Test Of An Officer After An “OIS” Is Lawful
FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT A WARRANTLESS BREATHALYZER TEST OF AN OFFICER AFTER AN “OIS” IS LAWFUL On November 15, 2013, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled, inLynch v. City of New York, that the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) policy of administering a warrantless breathalyzer test to any officer who discharges a firearm, resulting […]
CPCA Magazine Article – Courts Listen to CPCA
COURTS LISTEN TO CPCA By: Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel California Police Chiefs’ Association The California Police Chiefs’ Association (CPCA) is well known for its legislative advocacy and the fact that its opinions are considered and respected in Sacramento. What might not be as well known is the extent of CPCA’s legal advocacy through the […]
Vol. 28 No. 28 – Negligent Supervisions, Chief Executives, and Personal Liability
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CHIEF EXECUTIVES, AND PERSONAL LIABILITY On November 20, 2013 it was reported that Los Angeles County settled a negligent supervision lawsuit, brought by a former county jail inmate, in the amount of $722,000. The inmate, Dion Starr, alleged that Sheriff Leroy Baca showed “deliberate indifference” to dangerous conditions in the county jail, resulting […]
Vol. 28 No. 27 – Police “Whistleblowers” and the First Amendment
The following article is in the current edition of the International Association of Chiefs’ of Police (IACP) magazine and addresses the issue of “whistle blowing” by law enforcement officers and when, and what, protections apply under the First Amendment. The case arose out of an incident with the Burbank Police Department and resulted in an […]
Vol. 29 No. 7 – TAKING DNA FROM ALL PERSONS ARRESTED FOR FELONIES IS UPHELD BY NINTH CIRCUIT
TAKING DNA FROM ALL PERSONS ARRESTED FOR FELONIES IS UPHELD BY NINTH CIRCUIT On March 20, 2014, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous en banc opinion (11 justices), rejected a challenge to California’s Proposition 69, which allows the collection of DNA from all arrested persons charged with felonies. In the case of […]
Vol. 29 No.8 – CalPERS Sends “Scary” Letter to Retired Annuitants
CalPERS Sends “Scary” Letter to Retired Annuitants On March 17, 2014, an article appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal about Circular Letter No. 200-002-14, dated January 14, 2014, sent by CalPERS to 5,800 retired state employees who collect a pension and work for the state. According to the article, the 5,800 annuitants earn approximately […]
Vol. 29 No. 9 – COMMUNICATIONS ON PRIVATE CELL PHONES NOT SUBJECT TO CPRA DISCLOSURE
COMMUNICATIONS ON PRIVATE CELL PHONES NOT SUBJECT TO CPRA DISCLOSURE On March 27, 2014, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, overturned a summary judgment ruling in the case of City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith), which had granted declaratory relief to Smith. The Court also ordered summary judgment to be granted to […]
Vol. 29 No. 16 California Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Red Light Cameras
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO RED LIGHT CAMERAS In the case of People v. Carmen Goldsmith, (Case Number S201443 (June 5, 2014)), the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld use of “red light cameras” and rejected a motorist’s demand for testimony from the camera’s manufacturer. History Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21455.5, local governmental agencies are […]