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 […]
Vol. 29 No. 27 – TAKING DNA FROM ARRESTEES: A CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS
TAKING DNA FROM ARRESTEES: A CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS On December 3, 2014, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, unanimously held, in People v. Buza, that California’s law, enacted pursuant to Proposition 69, which allows taking DNA samples from all who are arrested for felonies, is unconstitutional. That decision is in conflict […]
Vol. 29 No. 26 PERUTA v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO: ALL APPLICATIONS TO INTERVENE ARE DENIED
The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which decided the Peruta case, has, finally after more than nine months, ruled on the applications from the State, the Brady Center, and CPCA and CPOA to intervene in the action, and denied all the motions. The denial of the motions by the […]
Vol. 29 No. 25 RECENT COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING POLICE PSYCHOLOGISTS
RECENT COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING POLICE PSYCHOLOGISTS [The following court decisions were presented by Martin Mayer at the 2014 International Association of Chiefs’ of Police Annual Conference to the Police Psychologists’ Section of IACP. They include appellate court cases from states other than California but are all relevant to the issues of Fitness for Duty Evaluations.] 1. […]
Vol. 29 No. 18 Public Employees Subpoened Testimony Alleging Illegal Activity at His Agency is Protected Under 1st Amendment
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S SUBPOENED TESTIMONY, ALLEGING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AT HIS AGENCY, IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT On June 19, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled, inLane v. Franks, that a state employee’s sworn testimony concerning alleged illegal activity within the agency at which he worked, constituted First Amendment protected speech. Previous court rulings […]
Vol. 30 No. 24 AGENCY MAY DISCIPLINE OFFICER FOR MISCONDUCT EVEN WHEN OFFICER IS ON UNPAID “RELIEVED OF DUTY” STATUS
AGENCY MAY DISCIPLINE OFFICER FOR MISCONDUCT EVEN WHEN OFFICER IS ON UNPAID “RELIEVED OF DUTY” STATUS On September 29, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, 2d District held, in the case ofNegron v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, that the LA County Sheriff could discharge a deputy sheriff for misconduct committed while the deputy […]