Vol. 30 No. 17 The District Attorney Must Serve A Pitchess Motion Before Accessing A Peace Officer’s Personnel File
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUST SERVE A PITCHESS MOTION BEFORE ACCESSING A PEACE OFFICER’S PERSONNEL FILE On July 6, 2015, the California Supreme Court unanimously overturned the case of People v. Superior Court (Johnson). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision, issued last fall, which held that when a peace officer was a material witness in […]
Vol. 30 No. 16 Objective Reasonableness Is The Standard Of Review For Uses Of Force On Pretrial Detainees
OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR USES OF FORCE ON PRETRIAL DETAINEES In a June 22, 2015, decision, the United States Supreme Court acted inKingsley v. Hendrickson, holding that uses of force on pretrial detainees will be evaluated on the standard of objective reasonableness, and not on the subjective knowledge or intent of an […]
Vol. 33 No. 6 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 20480: LIMITATIONS ON CALPERS EMPLOYEES WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION
Effective January 1, 2018, CalPERS contracting agencies and school employers are required to restrict “out of class appointments” to 960 hours in a fiscal year. Gov. Code § 20480. Government Code section 20480(f) defines “out of class appointment” as “an appointment of an employee to an upgraded position or higher classification by the employer or […]
Vol. 35 No. 32 GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT EXISTED AS TO WHETHER DEFENDANT USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN BRIEFLY KNEELING ON PLAINTIFF’S BACK
In a case filed on October 27, 2020, in Cortesluna v. Luna,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to an officer who the plaintiff claimed used excessive force. In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for briefly placing […]
Vol. 35 No. 31 OFFICER ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ventura v. Rutledge[1] concluded that an officer who used deadly force was entitled to qualified immunity. In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that no existing precedent squarely governed the specific facts here, where the officer shot and killed a man who (1) had a drawn knife as […]
Vol. 36 No. 3 FACTUAL DISPUTES PREVENTED COURT’S DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM UNDER PICKERING BALANCING TEST
In Moser v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a federal District Court did not adequately address the objective meaning of a police officer’s Facebook comment in its analysis under a United States Supreme Court test to weigh the officer’s First Amendment right against the government’s interest in […]
Vol. 36 No. 2 VOLUNTARY VACCINE AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
While the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine is advancing our effort to recover from the pandemic, one significant limitation is the degree of acceptance and level of trust placed in the vaccine and fear of an adverse reaction. This uncertainty has clear implications for law enforcement agencies. The purpose of this client alert is to […]
Vol. 36 No. 1 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS AND THE COVID-19 VACCINES
The availability of effective vaccines offers a major advancement in our emergence from the COVID-19 pandemic. As a component of this progress, the determination of how to optimize the benefits of the vaccine among public sector employees also raises important leadership questions regarding its use. Our great preference would be for members of our organizations […]
Vol. 35 No. 33 REASONABLE FACTFINDER COULD CONCLUDE THAT POLICE OFFICER VIOLATED PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY OBTAINING COURT ORDER TO DESTROY PLAINTIFF’S FIREARMS WITHOUT GIVING HIM NOTICE
In Wright v. Beck,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff, who continued to assert a claim of right to previously seized firearms and reasonably believed that the police department was still reviewing the matter, was entitled to notice under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause that police intended to seek a […]
Vol. 35 No. 18 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL’S EMERGENCY RULE 4’s BAIL SCHEDULE SETS PRESUMPTIVE BAIL AMOUNT FOR COVERED OFFENSES AND VIOLATIONS, WHICH MAY BE MODIFIED BY SUPERIOR COURT
As part of California’s response to the COVID-19 crisis, the Judicial Council, on April 6, 2020, adopted Emergency Rule 4, which establishes a statewide Emergency Bail Schedule that sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars ($0 bail), except as specified in the rule. On April […]