Vol. 30 No. 3 ACLU PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
ACLU PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST In response to a request for our thoughts regarding the attached demand (click here to view the demand) from the ACLU regarding information involving officer involved shootings, please be advised that how agencies respond is not only a matter of law, but a matter of policy and up to individual jurisdictions. […]
Vol. 30 No. 8 GPS TRACKING OF CONVICTED PERSON MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
GPS TRACKING OF CONVICTED PERSON MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL On March 30, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held, in Grady v. North Carolina, that placing a GPS on a recidivist sex offender may be an unconstitutional search. However, the Court noted, “(t)he Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches.” Therefore the issue is whether the placement […]
Vol. 30 No. 7 CCW Case To Be Reheard By “En Banc” Panel
CCW CASE TO BE REHEARD BY “EN BANC” PANEL On March 26, 2015, the full Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal voted to have an “en banc” rehearing (11 justices of the Court) of the case of Peruta v. County of San Diego. Previously, a three judge panel split 2 – 1 and held that […]
Vol. 30 No. 6 Must Law Enforcement “Reasonably Accommodate” Violent, Mentally Ill, Suspects When Taking Them Into Custody?
MUST LAW ENFORCEMENT “REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE” VIOLENT, MENTALLY ILL, SUSPECTS WHEN TAKING THEM INTO CUSTODY? On March 23, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case ofSan Francisco v. Sheehan, involving the interaction between police and a mentally ill person. The issue presented focused on whether or not law enforcement, when confronting […]
Vol. 30 No. 5 CAL SUPREME COURT RULES “JESSICA’S LAW” UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IN SAN DIEGO
CAL SUPREME COURT RULES “JESSICA’S LAW” UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IN SAN DIEGO On March 2, 2015, the California Supreme Court unanimously found that the application of “Jessica’s Law” in San Diego County violated the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders. The Court held that “the mandatory residency restrictions [are] unconstitutional as applied to all registered sex […]
Vol. 30 No. 2 – FEDS IMPLEMENT MAJOR CHANGE TO ASSET FORFEITURE RULES
FEDS IMPLEMENT MAJOR CHANGE TO ASSET FORFEITURE RULES On January 16, 2015, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that “effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons. . . .” The Justice Department’s civil asset forfeiture program, called Equitable Sharing, […]
Vol. 29 No. 23 RIGHTEOUS FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION VIOLATES NO EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
RIGHTEOUS FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION VIOLATES NO EMPLOYEE RIGHTS On September 3, 2014, the First District CA Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the right of an employer to order an employee to cooperate in a fitness for duty evaluation (FFDE) when circumstances call for it. [The court refers to a “FFD” rather than a FFDE.] In […]
VOL. 29 NO. 22 PROSECUTOR CAN REVIEW OFFICERS’ PERSONNEL FILES TO COMPLY WITH “BRADY” OBLIGATIONS
PROSECUTOR CAN REVIEW OFFICERS’ PERSONNEL FILES TO COMPLY WITH “BRADY” OBLIGATIONS On August 11, 2014, the California First District Court of Appeal held in The People v. The Superior Court of San Francisco (Johnson), that “(i)n fulfilling its federal constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant under Brady v. Maryland, (1963) 373 U.S. […]
Vol. 29 No. 21 ICE Detainers and ACLU Threat of Litigation
ICE Detainers and ACLU Threat of Litigation On July 3, 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU) sent letters to many city police chiefs and/or city attorneys referencing a recent federal court decision which held that ICE detainers are mere requests, not mandates, and honoring them violated the individuals’ constitutional rights. This letter […]
Vol. 29 No. 20 U. S. Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant to Search Smartphone
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES POLICE NEED WARRANT TO SEARCH SMARTPHONE On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, ruled unanimously (9-0) that “police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been […]