Vol. 34 No. 36 DISTRICT COURT DECLINES TO RECOGNIZE A PER SE RULE THAT AUTOMATICALLY PERMITS A PAT-SEARCH FOR EVERY LAWFULLY DETAINED ROBBERY SUSPECT
On October 18, 2019, in the case of In re Jeremiah S.,[1] the California First District Court of Appeal determined that an officer who conducted a pat-down search of a robbery suspect did not present specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous. In reaching its conclusion, […]
Vol 34 No 35 9th CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DOJ’s USE OF NOTICE AND ACCESS CONDITIONS REGARDING BYRNE JAG GRANT FUNDING
On October 31, 2019 in the case of City of Los Angeles v. Barr,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court order entering a preliminary injunction against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The Court concluded that the DOJ lacks statutory authority to require recipients of a formula grant under the […]
Vol. 34 No. 34 THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD THE DISCLOSURE OF “BRADY TIP LISTS” TO THE PROSECUTION
On August 26, 2019 the California Supreme Court, unanimously, overturned the Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 413. The Court of Appeal had held that the mere disclosure of a list of deputies’ names who had been identified by […]
Vol. 34 No. 33 CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR SIGNS ASSEMBLY BILL 392 INTO LAW, MANDATING STANDARD FOR USE OF DEADLY FORCE
On August 19, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 392 into law. Of note, Governor Newsom’s office and members of the legislature took significant input from a variety of law enforcement associations and their legal counsel in amending AB 392’s original language. AB 392 effectively updates California’s legal standard governing when force can be used, […]
Vol. 34 No. 32 PEOPLE V. RAY’S FINDING OF COMMUNITY CARETAKING EXCEPTION IN ABSENCE OF EXIGENCY IS DISAPPROVED
In People v. Ovieda,[1] the California Supreme Court held that the community caretaking exception does not apply in the absence of exigency. In reaching its conclusion, the Court disapproved of its previous decision in People v. Ray.[2] Background In June 2015, five Santa Barbara police officers, responding to a report by family members of Willie […]
Vol. 34 No. 31 WHEN OFFICERS HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT THAT A CRIME IS BEING PERPETRATED, OR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN INJURED, A WARRANTLESS ENTRY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
In the July 2019 case of People v. Rubio,[1] the California First District Court of Appeal held that a warrantless entry into a locked garage/apartment conversion by officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers reasonably believed that an injured person or a shooter might be inside. Background In October 2016, East Palo […]
Vol. 34 No. 30 WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF FIREARMS DID NOT VIOLATE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR SECOND AMENDMENT
In July 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Rodriguez v. City of San Jose,[1] held that a wife’s Second Amendment claim, arising from seizure of firearms from her home, was barred by issue preclusion as the matter had already been considered and rejected by state courts. The Court also found that the wife’s […]
Vol. 34 No. 29 COUNTY’S FEE FOR COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS REASONABLE WHERE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT “INDIRECT COSTS” VIOLATED GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27366
In Cal. Pub. Records Research, Inc. v. Cnty. of Alameda,[1] the California First District Court of Appeal held that a county could consider a wide range of indirect costs under Government Code section 27366. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the County’s ordinance charging $3.50 per page for copies of official records was […]
Vol. 34 No. 37 OFFICERS’ SEARCH OF A HOME LAWFUL BASED ON THEIR REASONABLE, THOUGH MISTAKEN, BELIEF THAT PAROLEE SUBJECT TO SEARCH CONDITION LIVED THERE
On November 15, 2019, in the case of United States v. Ped,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a District Court did not err in denying a defendant’s motion to suppress firearm evidence found in a warrantless search of his home. The Court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe that […]
Vol. 34 No. 38 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PERMIT SEARCHING A VEHICLE TO LOCATE A DRIVER’S IDENTIFICATION FOLLOWING A TRAFFIC STOP ABSENT WARRANT OR OTHER EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT
On November 25, 2019 in the case of United States v. People v. Lopez,[1] the California Supreme Court concluded that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement permitting a search of a vehicle. In reaching its conclusion, the […]