California State Sheriffs’ Association, Seconds in Command, “Current Legal Issues for Law Enforcement,” Rancho Mirage, CA.

November 5, 2015

You might also enjoy

Vol. 40 No. 9 BLOCKING CONSTITUENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA WAS A STATE ACTION WHERE PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAD ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON STATE’S BEHALF AND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY WHEN POSTING

In Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Vol. 40 No. 8 BECAUSE CALIFORNIA TORT LAW’S “REASONABLE CARE” STANDARD IS BROADER AND DISTINCT FROM THE FEDERAL FOURTH AMENDMENT’S REASONABLENESS STANDARD, NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT JURY’S MIXED VERDICTS – FINDING DEPUTIES DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE BUT WERE NEGLIGENT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW – WERE RECONCILABLE

In Alves v. Cnty. of Riverside,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court

Vol. 40 No. 7 NO FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHERE WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PLAINTIFF’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE HOT-PURSUIT EXCEPTION

In Newman v. Underhill,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals