Vol. 24 No. 6- “A personnel commission’s reduction of a penalty must be justified”
“A PERSONNEL COMMISSION’S REDUCTION OF A PENALTY MUST BE JUSTIFIED” February 17, 2009 While a personnel board, civil service commission, or hearing officer has discretion to alter the discipline imposed against a public sector employee, the exercise of that discretion has to be based on reason. On February 10, 2009, in the case of County of Santa Cruz v. […]
Vol. 24 No. 5-Lybarger lives! Spielbauer overturned by supreme court.
LYBARGER LIVES! SPIELBAUER OVERTURNED BY SUPREME COURT. On February 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara. In so doing, the Supreme Court reaffirmed numerous prior court decisions which held that “a public employee may be compelled, by threat […]
Vol. 23 No. 5- L. A. Times v. Post – Agreement Reached Regarding Procedure
L.A. TIMES v. POST – AGREEMENT REACHED REGARDING PROCEDURE February 11, 2008 As a result of the outstanding efforts of William Pettingill, Senior Deputy County Counsel for San Diego, and Kelli Sager, legal counsel for the L. A. Times, an agreement has been reached which eliminates the need for 500 – 600 law enforcement agencies […]
Vol. 24 No. 3- Federal Court Issues Tentative Order to Release 40,000 and 60,000 Inmates from State Prisons
Federal Court Issues Tentative Order to Release 40,000 and 60,000 Inmates from State Prisons As you may know, the Prison Release Litigation, in the Coleman and Plata cases, concluded testimony on December 19, 2008. Closing arguments were on February 3 and 4, 2009 and the Court then took the matter under submission. Immediately after the […]
Vol. 24 No. 3- Re: Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara
Re: Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara February 9, 2009 We are pleased to inform you that the California Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in the captioned case. The Supreme Court ruled that “insofar as the Court of Appeal held that plaintiff must receive an affirmative offer of formal immunity from criminal […]
Vol. 24 No. 10- Supreme Court Limits Searches Of Vehicles Pursuant To Arrest
SUPREME COURT LIMITS SEARCHES OF VEHICLES PURSUANT TO ARREST April 22, 2009 In a decision which changes the way “things have been” for almost thirty (30) years, the United States Supreme Court ruled, on April 21, 2009, that “police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if […]
Vol. 24 No. 11 – ADA and The Hiring Process
ADA AND THE HIRING PROCESS April 28, 2009 In the document entitled, “ADA Enforcement Guidance: Pre-employment Disability Related Questions and Medical Examinations, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that “under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a job offer is real if the employer has evaluated all relevant non-medical information which […]
Vol. 24 No. 12- Compulsory Binding Arbitration For Law Enforcement And Firefighters Declared Unconstitutional
COMPULSORY BINDING ARBITRATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIREFIGHTERS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL April 29, 2009 On April 24, 2009, the First District Court of Appeal, in the case of County of Sonoma v. Superior Court [Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association (SCLEA)], unanimously ruled that a 2003 law violates a county’s authority under the California Constitution to decide […]
Vol. 24 No. 21- The latest on badges from the Attorney General
THE LATEST ON BADGES FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL August 26, 2009 The question of whether one can give a badge to a non-peace officer, which resembles that of a full status peace officer, has been discussed and debated for years. In 2007, the California Attorney General (Opinion No. 06-307) concluded that giving an honorary badge […]
Vol. 24 No. 20- MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MUST MEET “PRIMARY CAREGIVER” REQUIREMENTS
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MUST MEET “PRIMARY CAREGIVER” REQUIREMENTS August 26, 2009 On August 18, 2009, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, issued an opinion in the case of People vs. Hochanadel, et al. holding, among other things, that the medical marijuana dispensary, CannaHelp, did not qualify as a “primary caregiver” nor was it a “cooperative” […]