Vol. 28 No. 26 – Firefighter Entitled To See Notes, Kept By Supervisor, Regarding Firefighter’s Activity
FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO SEE NOTES, KEPT BY SUPERVISOR, REGARDING FIREFIGHTER’S ACTIVITY On November 4, 2013, the California Court of Appeal held, in the case of Poole et al. v. Orange County Fire Authority, that daily activity logs, which included notes about “whether firefighters complied with instructions and adhered to rules,” and which “were intended to be […]
Vol. 28 No. 25 – U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Denial of Qualified Immunity
U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSES DENIAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY On November 4, 2013, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a decision by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denying qualified immunity for an officer. In the case of Stanton v. Sims, the lower court held that Officer Stanton’s warrantless entry into Sims’ yard was […]
Vol. 28 No. 15 – Warrantless Seizure Was Lawful, Warrantless Search Was Not.
WARRANTLESS SEIZURE WAS LAWFUL; WARRANTLESS SEARCH WAS NOT On June 27, 2013, the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held in the case of Robey v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (People), 2013 DAR 8422, that “although a container‘s mobility may constitute exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless seizure, it cannot alone justify […]
CSSA Magazine Article – Two Fatal OIS’s Involving Vehicles – One Is Good, One Is Not
TWO FATAL OIS’s INVOLVING VEHICLES – ONE IS GOOD; ONE IS NOT By: Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel California State Sheriffs’ Association Within one month, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, issued rulings in two cases which involved officers killing drivers of vehicles, based on their belief that there was an immediate threat to […]
Vol. 28 No. 14 – A Non Custodial Suspect Must Invoke the Fifth Amendment For It To Apply
A NON CUSTODIAL SUSPECT MUST INVOKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FOR IT TO APPLY On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court, once again addressed the protections of the Fifth Amendment and, in the case of Salinas v. Texas, ruled that “a witness who ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim […]
Vol. 28 No. 13 – Peaceful Labor Picketers Cannot Be Removed From Private Property By Police Unless the Picketers’ Activity Includes Unlawful Conduct
PEACEFUL LABOR PICKETERS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY BY POLICE UNLESS THE PICKETERS’ ACTIVITY INCLUDES UNLAWFUL CONDUCT In 2012, the California Supreme Court, in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 55 Cal. 4th 1083, upheld the constitutionality of two state laws that protect a union’s right to peacefully […]
Vol. 28 No. 12 – Supreme Court Rules that DNA Can Be Taken From Arrestees Without A Warrant
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT DNA CAN BE TAKEN FROM ARRESTEES WITHOUT A WARRANT On June 3, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held, in the case ofMaryland v. King, that “(w)hen officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to […]
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] […]