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 […]

Vol. 38 No. 14 NEW LAW AFFECTING CALIFORNIA EMPLOYEES WHO USE MARIJUANA OFF-DUTY RAISES QUESTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination, abridgment, or harassment on account of race, religion, gender, physical or mental disability amongst other protected statuses. On September 18, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill […]

Vol. 38 No. 15 DISTRICT COURT ENTERS INJUNCTION CONCERNING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SB 2 CONCERNING “SENSITIVE PLACES”

On December 20, 2023, United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District Court’s Southern Division issued an order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of certain challenged provisions of Senate Bill 2 against any individuals with permits to carry a concealed weapon.  The Court found the challenged provisions unconstitutional pursuant to N.Y. […]

Vol. 39 No. 1 RETIRED PEACE OFFICERS AND THE IMPACT OF SENATE BILL 2 (2023-2024)

The passage of SB-2 (2023-2024) has raised a number of questions about the security of retired peace officers and the continued ability to carry a concealed firearm.  The purpose of this Client Alert is to explain the limits of SB-2 and affirm the authority of retired peace officers to carry a concealed firearm. Among the […]

Vol. 39 No. 2 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED RESTRAINING CALIFORNIA DOJ FROM ENFORCING REGULATION MANDATING “GENDER OF OFFICER” REPORTING PENDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING

Background The California Police Chiefs Association (“CPCA”), California State Sheriffs’ Association (“CSSA”), Peace Officers Research Association of California (“PORAC”), California Association of Highway Patrolmen (“CAHP”), Brian Marvel, and Jake Johnson recently filed an action against the California Attorney General and the Department of Justice seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief preventing the DOJ from enforcing […]

Vol. 39 No. 3 TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM POLICE DRONE PROGRAM WAS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS AS “RECORDS OF INVESTIGATIONS”

In a case 1 in which petitioner made a request for information pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920.000 et seq.; “CPRA”) related to a city’s use of drones, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that a trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that all video […]

Vol. 38 No. 13 NINTH CIRCUIT GRANTS CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY PENDING APPEAL OF PENAL CODE SECTION 32310’S BAN ON LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES

Penal Code section 32310(a) creates criminal liability for “any person . . . who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives” a large-capacity magazine (“LCM”), which is defined as “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity […]

Vol. 38 No. 12 AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 TO EMPLOYEES’ HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

In July 2023, the California Supreme Court in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.[1] answered two certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court concluded: (1) if an employee contracts COVID-19 at the workplace and brings the virus home to a spouse, the derivative-injury rule of California’s workers’ compensation law does not […]

Vol. 38 No. 6 LETHAL FORCE USED BY OFFICERS AGAINST PERSON ARMED WITH REPLICA GUN WAS JUSTIFIED WHERE THEY REASONABLY BELIEVED THE GUN WAS REAL AND PRESENTED AN IMMEDIATE THREAT WHEN POINTED AT THEM

In Estate of Strickland v. Nevada Cnty.,[1] the Ninth Circuit concluded that it was objectively reasonable for officers to believe a black toy airsoft replica rifle pointed in their direction by a person known to have mental health issues presented an immediate threat justifying the use of deadly force. Background In December 2019, Gabriel Strickland […]