Vol. 33 No. 2 COMMUNITY CARETAKER EXCEPTION APPLIES TO SEARCH OF RESIDENCE OF REPORTEDLY SUICIDAL MAN
People v. Ovieda, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 34 (2nd Dist. Jan. 17, 2018) Facts In June 2015, the sister of plaintiff Ovieda told a 911 operator that Ovieda threatened to kill himself and had attempted suicide before. Santa Barbara Police Officer Mark Corbett responded to the 911 call. Another officer phoned Ovieda’s friend, Trevor Case, […]
Vol. 33 No. 1 PANEL OF FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DECLINES TO FOLLOW FELLOW PANEL’S ANALYSIS IN PENSION FORMULA CASE
On January 8, 2018, Division Four of the First District Court of Appeal, in Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association et al. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association et al.,[1] concluded that because the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA” or “AB 197”) effected substantive changes to the County Employees Retirement Law of […]
Vol. 32 No. 35 NEW STATE LAWS IN 2017 THAT IMPACT CALIFORNIA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Several new state laws were passed by the Legislature in 2017 that will impact California’s law enforcement agencies. Brief summaries of relevant new laws are outlined below for informational purposes. Unless otherwise stated, these new laws are effective January 1, 2018. Please consult with your legal counsel for additional details. ASSEMBLY BILLS AB 7 – […]
Vol. 32 No. 34 WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF PROBATIONER’S RESIDENCE REASONABLE DESPITE OBJECTION OF CO-OCCUPANT
On November 30, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Smith v. City of Santa Clara, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24307 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2017), that the search of a probationer’s residence was permissible under federal law, despite the objection of a co-occupant and the non-presence of the probationer. Facts In October […]
Vol. 32 No. 33 WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF VEHICLE DASHBOARD CONSOLE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE “AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION” WHEN SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE
On November 13, 2017, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District decided, in the case of People v. Zabala, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 996, that the removal of a dashboard console exceeds the scope of a permissible inventory search incident to an arrest without a warrant. However, the Court also held that […]
Vol. 32 No. 32 DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ICE OFFICERS’ PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS
In June 2017, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Roy v. County of Los Angeles,[1] concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not require judicial review of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers’ probable cause determinations. Background Plaintiffs Geraldo Gonzalez and Simon Chinivizyan (“Plaintiffs”) are both United States’ citizens. At […]
Vol. 32 No. 31 LAS VEGAS POLICE OFFICERS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR ARRESTEE’S DEATH FOLLOWING PROLONGED TASING
On October 20, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided, in the case of Jones v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 2017 U.S. App, LEXIS 20669, that police officers who repeatedly tased a suspect for 90 seconds were not entitled to qualified immunity and that the case could proceed to trial. The Ninth Circuit […]
Vol 32. No. 19 JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THE BRADY/PITCHESS DISCUSSION WAS OVER……..
The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles issued a 2-1 opinion on July 11, 2017 in the case of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (“ALADS”) v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department) (B280676) which will likely upset the careful balance which had been achieved in handling Brady & Pitchess issues in […]
Vol. 32 No. 18 POBAR PROVIDES THAT COPIES OF PRIOR INTERROGATION RECORDINGS MUST BE PROVIDED BEFORE SECOND INTERROGATION
On July 6, 2017, the California Court of Appeal published the case of Ana v. City of Santa Ana, Cal. App. LEXIS 608 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. June 13, 2017) where it held that two Santa Ana police officers’ suits against the City of Santa Ana Police Department (“Department”) can proceed after internal affairs investigators […]
Vol. 32 No. 9 OFFICER WHO SOUGHT AND RECEIVED DISABILITY RETIREMENT IS “HONORABLY RETIRED” NOTWITHSTANDING PENDING DISCIPLINARY ACTION
In an opinion dated March 24, 2017, the Fourth District of the Court of Appeal, acting in Bonome v. City of Riverside (2017 Cal.App. LEXIS 264), held that an officer who was facing serious disciplinary action, but who sought and received an industrial disability retirement prior to any discipline being imposed, was “honorably retired” within […]