Vol. 39 No. 17 BECAUSE COUNTY’S ONLINE “MUGSHOT LOOKUP,” WHICH INCLUDED DETAINEES’ PHOTOS AND PERSONAL INFORMATION, SERVED AS A PUNISHMENT, IT IMPLICATED DETAINEE’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
The Ninth Circuit, in Houston v. Maricopa,[1] concluded that an arrestee plausibly pleaded a substantive due process claim against a county based on pretrial punishment when the county posted the arrestee’s photo on its publicly accessible website, along with certain identifying personal information. Background The Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff’s Office posts photographs of arrestees on […]
Vol. 39 No. 16 PERSONAL TEXT MESSAGES FROM A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE REGARDING A RACIST IMAGE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MATTER OF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC CONCERN AND THEREFORE WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
In Adams v. Cnty. of Sacramento,[1] a First Amendment retaliation case brought by a former Chief of Police, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s private text messages forwarding racist images (which she allegedly complained about) from an unknown sender to friends were not protected by the First Amendment. In reaching its conclusion, the Court […]
Vol. 39 No. 15 NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS IN PART AND REVERSES IN PART DISTRICT COURT ORDERS PRELIMINARY ENJOINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW THAT PROHIBITS PERSONS WITH CONCEALED-CARRY PERMITS FROM CARRYING FIREARMS ONTO VARIOUS TYPES OF PROPERTY
In Wolford v. Lopez,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs seeking to enjoin many portions of California Penal Code section 26230, which generally prohibits a person with a concealed-carry permit from carrying a firearm onto more than […]
Vol. 39 No. 14 LAPD OFFICERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AFTER CONDUCTING A HIGH-RISK VEHICLE STOP BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE VEHICLE WAS STOLEN
In Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to individual officers. In reaching its conclusion, the Court declared that precedent clearly established that officers can be held liable for conducting a high-risk vehicle stop based on nothing […]
Vol. 39 No. 13 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHIELDED OFFICERS FROM EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM WHERE OFFICERS DEFENSIVELY RETURNED FIRE DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTING, SERIOUSLY WOUNDING A PASSENGER WHO WAS NOT SUSPECTED OF ANY WRONGDOING
In Cuevas v. City of Tulare,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on qualified immunity grounds the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of police officers in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that the officers used excessive force by shooting into a vehicle following a high-speed felony chase, seriously […]
Vol. 39 No. 12 NON-CONVICTED INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING SERVICES FOR A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY TO SUPPLY MEALS WITHIN THE COUNTY JAILS AND RELATED CUSTODY FACILITIES DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM FOR MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME
In November 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals posited the following certified question to the California Supreme Court: “Do non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company to supply meals within the county jails and related custody facilities have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of […]
Vol. 39 No. 11 THE PRESENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ONE CHARGE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY DEFEAT A FOURTH AMENDMENT MALICIOUS-PROSECUTION CLAIM RELATING TO ANOTHER, BASELESS CHARGE
In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon,[1] the Supreme Court of the United States vacated a Circuit Court’s holding that a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim may not succeed when a baseless charge brought by a government official is accompanied by a valid charge. The high court held instead that any valid charges do not insulate the […]
Vol. 39 No. 10 SUPREME COURT REVERSES OREGON HOMELESSNESS CASE, FINDS PUBLIC CAMPING LAWS DO NOT CONSTITUTE “CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT” PROHIBITED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Today in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson,[1] the United States Supreme Court ruled that the City of Grants Pass did not violate the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when enforcing anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturns Martin v. Boise, a 2018 decision by the Court of Appeals […]
Significant Victory for Cities and Law Enforcement as Supreme Court Reverses Oregon Homelessness Case. Jones Mayer Was Proud to Represent Our Clients in Filing an Amici Brief That Assisted the Court in Making Its Ruling
Today in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the City of Grants Pass did not violate the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when enforcing anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturns Martin v. Boise, a 2018 decision by the Court of Appeals […]
Vol. 39 No. 8 OFFICER’S USE OF PAROLEE’S THUMB TO ACCESS HIS CELLPHONE DID NOT RENDER THE SEARCH UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT NOR VIOLATE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
In United States v. Payne,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a parolee’s motion to suppress evidence. The Court concluded that an officer’s use of a parolee’s fingerprint to unlock the parolee’s phone did not violate his constitutional rights under the circumstances presented and the parole conditions applicable here. Background In […]