Client Alert Vol 38 No 2 DEFENDANT WAS NOT DETAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD VIEW THE DEPUTY’S USE OF A SPOTLIGHT LACKING IN COERCIVE FORCE
The California Supreme Court, in People v. Tacardon,[1] concluded that shining a spotlight for illumination does not ipso facto constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that the proper inquiry instead requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the use of a spotlight. Background Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb was on […]
Client Alert Vol 38 No 3 A TRIAL COURT MAY CONSIDER HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN RULING ON A GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER PETITION
In San Diego Police Dept. v. Geoffrey S.,[1] the Fourth District held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a hearing on a gun violence restraining order (“GVRO”) under Penal Code section 18175. The Court applied its analysis from a previous case[2] in which the Fourth District had held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a […]
Vol. 37 No. 11 AFTER DECISION REJECTING TIERED-SCRUTINY ANALYSIS IN SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, SUPREME COURT VACATES CIRCUIT COURT CASES UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATES’ LAWS INVOLVING FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS
In light of its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Bruen,[1] the United States Supreme Court issued an order vacating and remanding four Circuit Courts of Appeals judgments involving the Second Amendment’s application to various state laws. In Bruen, the Supreme Court deemed a New York state law’s […]
Vol. 37 No. 5 A JURY COULD INFER THAT A POLICE OFFICER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE NEGLIGENTLY LEFT HIS FIREARM IN HIS VEHICLE AFTER RETURNING HOME FROM WORK
In Perez v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 171 (1st Dist. Mar. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeal concluded that a jury could reasonably find a nexus between a police department’s enterprise of policing and the risk that one of its officers would negligently fail to secure a Department-approved firearm upon […]
Vol. 37 No. 6 ARREST INFORMATION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE MANDATE IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING ARRESTS EXTENDED ONLY TO INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CONTEMPORANEOUS POLICE ACTIVITY
In Kinney v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 293 (5th Dist. Apr. 7, 2022), the Court of Appeal determined that arrestee name information was not subject to public disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f)(1), because the disclosure mandate regarding arrests extended only to information pertaining to contemporaneous police activity and the information sought, which […]
Vol. 37 No. 7 PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING THAT THE PROSECUTION ENDED WITHOUT A CONVICTION IS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE FAVORABLE TERMINATION ELEMENT OF A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 FOURTH AMENDMENT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM
In Thompson v. Clark, 212 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. […]
Vol. 37 No. 8 CALIFORNIA LAW BANNING SALES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO YOUNG ADULTS VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT
In Jones v. Bonta, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12657 (9th Cir. May 11, 2022), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the California law prohibiting the sale of semiautomatic rifles to young adults was unconstitutional. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the laws burdened the right to home self-defense and did not reasonably […]
Vol 37. No. 9 SUPREME COURT EXPANDS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, STRIKING DOWN NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A CCW
In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court in, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Bruen,[1] determined that the State of New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry weapons permits must establish “proper cause” for issuance of the permit was unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because […]
Vol 37. No. 10 A VIOLATION OF MIRANDA RULES DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 CLAIM
In a 6-3 decision in Vega v. Tekoh,[1] the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Circuit Court decision holding that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the Fifth Amendment and may support a Section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. The Supreme […]
Vol. 38 No. 4 PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE AND FALSE ARREST CLAIMS WERE NOT BARRED BY THE HECK DOCTRINE BECAUSE HIS NO CONTEST PLEA WAS NOT ENTERED AS AN ACTUAL CONVICTION
In Duarte v. City of Stockton,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that that Heck v. Humphrey bar did not apply when criminal charges were dismissed after entry of a plea that was held in abeyance pending the defendant’s compliance with certain conditions. Background In May 2015, Francisco Duarte was in a public area […]