Vol. 33 No. 25 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PUBLIC AGENCY PURSUIT IMMUNITY ACCORDED BY CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION 17004.7
On August 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of California held, in Ramirez v. City of Gardena, that a public agency’s pursuit policy must have California Vehicle Code section 17004.7’s written certification requirement, but 100 percent compliance with that requirement was not a prerequisite to receiving immunity for damages resulting from a vehicle pursuit. The Court’s […]
Vol. 33 No. 24 OFFICERS HAD REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT SUSPECT WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
In a decision entitled United States v. Luckett, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18456 (9th Cir. July 6, 2018), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence because police had reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances that defendant was engaged in criminal conduct. Though each of […]
Vol. 33 No. 23 POBRA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ACCRUAL DATE NOT APPLICABLE AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN A SENIOR OFFICER, WHO WAS NOT A PERSON “AUTHORIZED TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION”, RECEIVED EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT
In Daugherty v. City and County of San Francisco, 24 Cal. App. 5th 928 (1st Dist. 2018), published in July 2018, the California First District Court of Appeal found disciplinary charges were timely where a senior officer aware of officer misconduct was not deemed “a person authorized to initiate an investigation.” Alternatively, the Court also […]
Vol. 33 No. 22 NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY OF FIREARM
On July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided, in the case of Young v. State of Hawaii, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20525, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to openly bear arms in public for self-defense. The Court held that a Hawaii statute that required an individual […]
Vol. 33 No. 21 DISTRICT COURT ORDER IN IMMIGRATION CASE DENIES, IN PART, AND GRANTS, IN PART, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
In the case of United States v. California, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112055 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2018), a motion by the United States of America (“United States” or “Plaintiff”) for a preliminary injunction was denied in part and granted in part by the California Eastern District Court. The United States had sought to enjoin […]
Vol. 33 No. 20 ABOOD OVERTURNED; PUBLIC SECTOR AGENCY-SHOP ARRANGEMENT REQUIRING DUES FROM NON-MEMBERS CONTRAVENES FIRST AMENDMENT
On June 27, 2018, in the case of Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4028 (U.S. June 27, 2018), the Supreme Court of the United States held that public sector employees who are represented by a union but who have refused to join as members are not required to pay a fee to […]
Vol. 33 No. 19 NINTH CIRCUIT GRANTS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR USE OF FORCE, BUT PERMITS ADA AND REHABILITATION ACT CLAIMS TO PROCEED
On June 11, 2018, in the case of Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15633 (U.S. June 11, 2018), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a reasonable jury could conclude the officers’ deadly use of force constituted excessive force thereby violating the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the Court […]
Vol. 33 No. 7 CONSENT EXCEPTION TO WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO OCCUPANTS HOME UNREASONABLE AS TO AN OCCUPANT WHO IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT AND EXPRESSLY REFUSES CONSENT TO ENTRY
Bonivert v. City of Clarkston, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4625 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2018) Facts In January 2012, City of Clarkston, Washington (the “City”) police officers, Sergeant Danny Combs and Officer Paul Purcell, received a “physical domestic” dispatch to the home of Ryan Bonivert. The dispatcher relayed to the officers that an argument between […]
Vol. 34 No. 7 EIGHTH AMENDMENT’S PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE FINES APPLIES TO THE STATES
On February 20, 2019 in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1350 (Feb. 20, 2019), the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause was “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” with “dee[p] root[s] in [our] history and tradition.” The Court concluded that the Excessive Fines Clause […]
Vol. 35 No. 8 RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO SB 1421
In January 2020 in the case of Becerra v. Superior Court[1], the California First District Court of Appeal held that California Penal Code section 832.7, as recently amended by SB 1421, generally requires in response to a California Public Records Act request the disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the California Department […]