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 […]
Vol. 34 No. 39 SOUTHERN DISTRICT FINDS CITY SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY ORDINANCE PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW
On November 19, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the case of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 v. City of San Diego, granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by two plaintiffs, each a sex offender subject to a lifetime requirement to register with local […]
Vol. 35 No. 7 CHARTER CITIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7284.6, WHICH PROHIBITS STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN ACTS RELATED TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In January 2020, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra[1] held that Section 7284.6 of the California Values Act (Government Code section 7284 et seq. (the “CVA”)) is constitutional as applied to charter cities because Section 7284.6 addresses matters of statewide concern, is reasonably related to resolution of […]
Vol. 35 No. 6 EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TERMINATED DURING HIS EXTENDED PROBATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
The California Second District Court of Appeal, in Amezcua v. L.A. Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm’n,[1] held that there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff was “absent from duty” and had “time away” from duty, such that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was permitted to extend his period of probation […]
Vol. 35 No. 5 PENAL CODE SECTION 632.7 PROHIBITS ONLY THIRD-PARTY EAVESDROPPERS, NOT THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PHONE CALL THEMSELVES, FROM INTENTIONALLY RECORDING TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.,[1] that a plaintiff failed to state a claim in arguing that a defendant business violated a provision in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“Privacy Act”) (Penal Code section 630, et seq.) by recording its call with the plaintiff. The Court concluded […]
Vol. 35 No. 4 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT A SECRET RECORDING OF A PHONE CONVERSATION WAS NOT BARRED BY A PRIVACY PROVISION BECAUSE THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN REPEALED BY THE “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE” PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION
In the case of People v. Guzman,[1] the Supreme Court of California found that a surreptitious recording was properly admitted into evidence in a defendant’s trial for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child. The Court concluded that the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision in the state constitution enacted as a result of the […]
Vol. 35 No. 3 GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM APPROVES ASSEMBLY BILL 1600 AMENDING PITCHESS MOTION REQUIREMENTS
On October 8, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill 1600 (“AB 1600”) to amend California Evidence Code Sections 1043 and 1047 related to motions to discover peace officer or custodial officer personnel records, more commonly known as Pitchess motions. The amendment effectively shortens notice requirements and accelerates the timeframe for responding to such motions […]
Vol. 35 No. 2 PLAINTIFF’S STATE RETALIATION CLAIM NOT PRECLUDED BY STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S DECISION
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Bahra v. Cnty. of San Bernardino[1] that a state administrative agency’s ruling did not preclude a plaintiff’s California Labor Code section 1102.5 action alleging retaliation for whistleblowing activities. Background Plaintiff Eric Bahra worked as a social services practitioner for Defendant San Bernardino County’s Department of Children and […]