Vol. 39 No. 2 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED RESTRAINING CALIFORNIA DOJ FROM ENFORCING REGULATION MANDATING “GENDER OF OFFICER” REPORTING PENDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
Background The California Police Chiefs Association (“CPCA”), California State Sheriffs’ Association (“CSSA”), Peace Officers Research Association of California (“PORAC”), California Association of Highway Patrolmen (“CAHP”), Brian Marvel, and Jake Johnson recently filed an action against the California Attorney General and the Department of Justice seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief preventing the DOJ from enforcing […]
Vol. 39 No. 3 TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM POLICE DRONE PROGRAM WAS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS AS “RECORDS OF INVESTIGATIONS”
In a case 1 in which petitioner made a request for information pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920.000 et seq.; “CPRA”) related to a city’s use of drones, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that a trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that all video […]
Vol. 39 No. 4 DELIVERING EVENING MEAL FOUR HOURS BEFORE PRISONER COULD BREAK RELIGION-BASED FAST WAS A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN ON THE PRISONER’S FREE EXERCISE
In ruling on a prisoner’s First Amendment free exercise claim in Long v. Sugai,1 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the delivery of a fasting Muslim prison inmate’s evening meal four hours before he could break his fast during Ramadan substantially burdened his free exercise of his religion. The Court remanded to permit […]
Vol. 38 No. 13 NINTH CIRCUIT GRANTS CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY PENDING APPEAL OF PENAL CODE SECTION 32310’S BAN ON LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES
Penal Code section 32310(a) creates criminal liability for “any person . . . who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives” a large-capacity magazine (“LCM”), which is defined as “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity […]
Vol. 38 No. 12 AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 TO EMPLOYEES’ HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
In July 2023, the California Supreme Court in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.[1] answered two certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court concluded: (1) if an employee contracts COVID-19 at the workplace and brings the virus home to a spouse, the derivative-injury rule of California’s workers’ compensation law does not […]
Vol. 38 No. 6 LETHAL FORCE USED BY OFFICERS AGAINST PERSON ARMED WITH REPLICA GUN WAS JUSTIFIED WHERE THEY REASONABLY BELIEVED THE GUN WAS REAL AND PRESENTED AN IMMEDIATE THREAT WHEN POINTED AT THEM
In Estate of Strickland v. Nevada Cnty.,[1] the Ninth Circuit concluded that it was objectively reasonable for officers to believe a black toy airsoft replica rifle pointed in their direction by a person known to have mental health issues presented an immediate threat justifying the use of deadly force. Background In December 2019, Gabriel Strickland […]
Vol. 38 No. 7 SUPREME COURT LIMITS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 821.6 IMMUNITY FOR INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
On June 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued a published opinion in Leon v. County of Riverside, Supreme Court Case No. S269672, which greatly limits Government Code section 821.6 immunity for the instituting of prosecuting a judicial proceeding. This case will have an important impact on the liability exposure concerning law enforcement officers or […]
Vol. 38 No. 8 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY APPLIED TO OFFICERS’ WARRANTLESS IN-HOME ARREST WHERE OFFICERS WERE RESPONDING TO A POTENTIAL KIDNAPPING
In Hill v. City of Fountain Valley,[1] the Ninth Circuit concluded that although officers likely did not have probable cause to arrest a plaintiff for obstruction, qualified immunity shielded the officers from liability because there was no clearly established law at the time forbidding their actions, given the plaintiff’s evasive behavior that appeared to interfere […]
Vol. 38 No. 9 USE OF FORCE PREDICATED ON SUSPICION OF IMPENDING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR DENYING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM CLAIMS BASED ON THOSE ACTS BECAUSE IT WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
In Hopson v. Alexander,[1] the Ninth Circuit held that police detectives were entitled to qualified immunity in an action alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The detectives had approached a parked vehicle with guns pointed and forcibly removed the occupants without first identifying themselves as law enforcement officers because of their suspicion of […]
Vol. 38 No. 10 A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MUST HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A PERSON IS ON ACTIVE PAROLE BEFORE CONDUCTING A SUSPICION-LESS SEARCH OR SEIZURE PURSUANT TO A PAROLE CONDITION
In United States v. Estrella,[1] the Ninth Circuit held that a law enforcement officer must have probable cause to believe that a person is on active parole before conducting a suspicionless search or seizure pursuant to a parole condition, but that officer need not have ongoing day-by-day awareness of person’s parole status. Background In 2015, […]