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 […]
Vol. 29 No. 19 Ninth Circuit Rules L. A. Muni Code Which Prohibits Use of Vehicle as “Living Quarters,” Unconstitutional
NINTH CIRCUIT RULES L.A. MUNI CODE, WHICH PROHIBITS USE OF VEHICLE AS “LIVING QUARTERS,” UNCONSTITUTIONAL On June 19, 2014, a three judge panel held, in the case of Desertrain et. al. v. City of Los Angeles et. al., that L.A. Municipal Code Section 85.02, which prohibits the use of a vehicle as living quarters, “provides […]
Vol. 29 No. 24 PROPOSITION #47 – BIG IMPACT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROPOSITION 47 – BIG IMPACT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT Although it will not be known until Election Day next week whether or not Proposition 47 passes, it appears from current polls that the likelihood is great that it will. As such, since it will take effect immediately (12:01 a.m. 11/5/14), and will have a significant impact […]
Vol. 30 No. 1 IF A SHERIFF IS ENTITLED TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE 31000.6, COURT CANNOT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
IF A SHERIFF IS ENTITLED TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, PURSUANT TO GOV. CODE 31000.6, COURT CANNOT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION. On January 6, 2015, the California Court of Appeal ordered that good cause existed to publish the case of Rivero v. Lake County Board of Supervisors. The case involved a dispute between the Lake County […]
Vol. 29 No. 29 COURT OF APPEAL RULES THAT LAPD POLICY ON IMPOUNDING VEHICLES IS LEGAL
COURT OF APPEAL RULES THAT LAPD POLICY ON IMPOUNDING VEHICLES IS LEGAL On December 26, 2014, the California Second District Court of Appeal held, in LAPPL v. City of Los Angeles, et al, that the LAPD “Special Order 7,” regarding when officers could impound vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers, was lawful. Harold Sturgeon, a Los Angeles […]
Vol. 29 No. 28 USE OF “PITCHESS” MOTIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY APPEALS IS PERMITTED
USE OF “PITCHESS” MOTIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY APPEALS IS PERMITTED On December 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court decided the case of Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz (Drinkwater) (E052807). California law enforcement has been anticipating this decision for the past year. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision permitting a “Pitchess” motion to […]