Category: Client Alerts — Law Enforcement

Vol. 32 No. 13 NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL HOLD THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT-WIDE COURTROOM SHACKLING POLICY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL HOLD THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT-WIDE COURTROOM SHACKLING POLICY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL On May 31, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, issued an opinion in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez wherein the defendants challenged the Southern District’s policy of routinely shackling in-custody defendants without an individualized determination that they pose […]

Vol. 30 No. 4 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS DNA CASE FOR REVIEW

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS DNA CASE FOR REVIEW I am most pleased to inform you that the California Supreme Court has granted review in the case of People v. Buza, regarding the constitutionality of California’s DNA Act.  The California Court of Appeal held, last year, that the taking of DNA samples from those arrested for […]

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 […]