Vol. 28 No. 11 – Responses to Limitations on Forcible Blood Draw in a Misdemeanor DUI
RESPONSES TO LIMITATIONS ON FORCIBLE BLOOD DRAW IN A MISDEMEANOR DUI On April 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8 – 1, in the case of Missouri v. McNeely, that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream [does not present] aper se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant […]
California Supreme Court Rules Local Governments May Ban Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
On May 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court put to rest a controversy raging around the scope of the Compassionate Use Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5 (the “CUA”), and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 11362.7 et seq. (the “MMP”). The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, […]
Vol. 28 No. 10 – California Supreme Court Rules Cities/Counties Can Ban Dispensaries
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES CITIES/COUNTIES CAN BAN DISPENSARIES On May 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court put to rest a controversy raging around the scope of the Compassionate Use Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5 (the “CUA”), and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 11362.7 et seq. (the “MMP”).[1] […]
Vol. 28 No. 9 – Pending California Legislation Which Will Reduce Law Enforcement Accountability
PENDING CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION WHICH WILL REDUCE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY In 2000, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) issued a publication regarding, among other things, police accountability. In discussing accountability, the publication stated that, “(a)ccountability is built and maintained through diligent attention to many facets of the police enterprise, ranging from entry-level selection practices, to ethics and […]
Vol. 28 No. 16 – Names of UC Davis Officers Involved in Pepper Spray Case Are Subject to Disclosure
NAMES OF UC DAVIS OFFICERS INVOLVED IN PEPPER SPRAY CASE ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE On July 23, 2013, the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal held, in the case of The Federated University Police Officers’ Association v. Superior Court of Alameda County (LA Times Communications, et al.), that the names of the […]
Vol. 28 No. 17 – An Unpaid Volunteer Is Not an Employee for Purposes of Discrimination Claim
AN UNPAID VOLUNTEER IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF DISCRIMINATION CLAIM On July 24, 2013, the California Court of Appeal, 2d Appellate District, ruled in Estrada v. City of Los Angeles, 2013 DAR 9621, that a reserve police officer, who serves without compensation, may not sue a city for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment […]
Vol. 28 No. 18 – Marijuana Which “Exceeds Reasonable Amount Needed for Personal Medical Use” Can Be Destroyed
MARIJUANA WHICH “EXCEEDS REASONABLE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR PERSONAL MEDICAL PURPOSES” CAN BE DESTROYED On June 28, 2013, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held in the case ofLittlefield v. County of Humboldt, that law enforcement can destroy marijuana when it can be shown that the arrestee did “not posses [the] marijuana for his […]
Vol. 28 No. 24 – Federal Court of Appeals Delays Ban On New York’s “Stop and Frisk” Law
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS DELAYS BAN ON NEW YORK’S “STOP AND FRISK” LAW On October 31, 2013, in an unprecedented move, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted New York City’s motion to stay a district court’s decision, restricting the use of the City’s stop and frisk policy, until the 2nd Circuit hears the City’s […]
Vol. 28 No. 23 – New Law Limits Employer Agency’s Actions If D.A. Declares An Officer Is A “Brady” Officer
NEW LAW LIMITS EMPLOYER AGENCY’S ACTIONS IF D.A. DECLARES AN OFFICER IS A “BRADY” OFFICER Senate Bill 313, authored by State Senator Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles, has significantly altered California law regarding what actions a police chief or sheriff can take after the county district attorney declares a peace officer to be a […]
Vol. 28 No. 22 – A Warrant Can Now Be Secured To Draw Blood From A Misdemeanor DUI Suspect
A WARRANT CAN NOW BE SECURED TO DRAW BLOOD FROM A MISDEMEANOR DUI SUSPECT On April 18, 2013, JONES & MAYER published a Client Alert Memo, Vol. 28, No. 8, regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that law enforcement must, in most cases, first secure a search warrant before drawing blood from a […]