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 […]
Vol. 30 No. 23 FORMER STATE JUDGE DENIED PENSION AFTER FELONY CONVICTION
On September 29, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held in the case of Danser v. California Public Employee Retirement System et al., that former Superior Court Judge William Danser was not eligible to receive a pension as a result of his being convicted of a felony offense in the course and […]
Vol. 30 No. 22 Agencies May Recover Certain Costs of Training if Officers Leave Employment Shortly After Graduating From the Academy
AGENCIES MAY RECOVER CERTAIN COSTS OF TRAINING IF OFFICERS LEAVE EMPLOYMENT SHORTLY AFTER GRADUATING FROM THE ACADEMY On August 31, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, certified for publication In Re: Acknowledgment Cases. The case involved a coordinated action involving 43 former officers of the LAPD who were successfully sued by the city […]
Vol. 30 No. 21 Can Negative Comments In A Supervisor’s Daily Log Be Kept From The Employee?
On August 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court addressed the question, in Poole v. Orange County Fire Authority, “whether [Gov. Code] section 3255 gives an employee the right to review and respond to negative comments in a supervisor’s daily log, consisting of notes that memorialize the supervisor’s thoughts and observations concerning an employee, which the […]