Vol. 34 No. 20 OFFICERS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WHERE NO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW DEMONSTRATED THAT PROBATIONARY OFFICER’S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
On May 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Perez v. City of Roseville, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14927 (9th Cir. May 21, 2019) held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on each of the probationary officer’s First Amendment claims because the law was not clearly established that the defendants violated […]
Vol. 34 No. 19 DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION DENIED TO EMPLOYEE WHO SETTLED A PENDING TERMINATION FOR CAUSE BY RESIGNATION
The California First District Court, in Martinez v. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 311 (1st Dist. Apr. 4, 2019), affirmed a trial court’s denial of a petition for mandate relief challenging the denial of a former State agency employee’s application for disability retirement from state service. The Court, agreeing with precedent, concluded […]
Vol. 34 No. 18 NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS MUCH OF DISTRICT COURT DECISION NOT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION STATUTES AB 450, AB 103, AND SB 54
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. California, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11275 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) rejected arguments by the United States on appeal in several aspects pertaining to its request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of three California immigration-related laws. Background “The Government of the United States has […]
Vol. 34 No. 8 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE AIRTIME CREDIT WAS NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACT CLAUSE AND THEREFORE COULD BE ELIMINATED BY THE LEGISLATURE
On March 4, 2019, the California Supreme Court, in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ determinations that the opportunity to purchase additional retirement service (ARS) credit, also known as “air time” credit, was not a benefit of employment protected by the constitutional contract clause. Therefore, the Court […]
Vol. 22 No. 8- Rent to a Pot Dispensary – Go to Jail
“RENT TO A POT DISPENSARY-GO TO JAIL” July 18, 2007 Recently, the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration notified approximately 150 Los Angeles landlords that if they rent properties for use as medical marijuana dispensaries they face arrest, incarceration and loss of those properties. Timothy J. Landrum, DEA special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office, […]
Vol. 21 No. 15- Sheriffs And Attorney’s Fees- The Latest Decision
SHERIFFS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES- THE LATEST DECISION October 27, 2006 As many of you will recall, the Kern County Board of Supervisors sued retired Sheriff Carl Sparks (2 ½ years after his retirement) alleging that he had filed false claims when he authorized premium pay for various commanders in his department. The premium pay was […]
Vol. 21 No. 14- Peace Officer Personnel Information And The Public Records Act
PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT September 11, 2006 On August 31, 2006 , the California Supreme Court, affirmed that peace officer personnel information is confidential, even if the officer appeals discipline administratively. In the case ofCopley Press v.Superior Court (County of San Diego), 2006 DAR 11839, the Supreme Court reversed the […]
Vol. 21 No. 13- Getting Paid For Getting Dressed?
GETTING PAID FOR GETTING DRESSED? August 15, 2006 Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson (“RL&W”) is a highly respected labor law firm, which represents numerous law enforcement officers and associations, and is based in northern California . On August 1, 2006, it published a “Client News Bulletin” entitled “Getting Paid for Getting Dressed” and concludes that, “the […]
Vol. 21 No. 11- U.S. Supreme Court Rules On Parolee Searches And “No Knock” Violations
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES ON PAROLEE SEARCHES AND “NO KNOCK” VIOLATIONS June 26, 2006 I. PAROLEES On June 19, 2006 , the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Samson v. California , 2006 U.S. Lexis 4885, and held that under California law a parolee can be subjected to a search by […]
Vol. 21 No. 10- Public Employee Speech And The First Amendment
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SPEECH AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT June 5, 2006 On May 30, 2006 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006 DJDAR 6495, holding that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not protect statements, made by a public sector employee, which were made pursuant […]