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 […]
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 […]