Vol. 34 No. 12 SHERIFF’S ISSUANCE OF MEMORANDUM RESTRICTING DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH ICE WAS A PROTECTED DISCRETIONARY ACT UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 820.2
In an opinion issued on March 25, 2019, in the case entitled Steinle v. City & Cnty. of S.F.[1], the Ninth Circuit determined that the question of discretionary immunity raised was controlled by California law, and concluded that Government Code section 820.2 barred plaintiffs’ negligence claim. The Sheriff’s issuance of the memorandum at issue, the […]
Vol. 34 No. 11 COURT FINDS THAT STATE LAW REQUIRING SHERIFFS TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL
In an opinion filed on March 18, 2019, the California Second District Court of Appeal in Boyer v. Cnty. of Ventura[1] held that certain law enforcement experience and education requirements for a person to be elected county sheriff as specified in Government Code section 24004.3 were constitutional. The Court determined that constitutional, statutory, and case […]
Vol. 34 No. 10 WARRANTLESS PLACEMENT OF A GPS TRACKER ON A PAROLEE’S CAR WAS PERMISSIBLE IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON
In the March 15, 2019, in the case of United States v. Korte,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s denial of a defendant parolee’s motions to suppress. The Court of Appeals held that the warrantless placement of a GPS tracker on the parolee’s car did not violate the Fourth Amendment. While […]
Vol. 34 No. 9 DISTRICT COURT ORDERS INJUNCTION ENJOINING SHERIFF FROM USING BAIL SCHEDULE TO DETERMINE RELEASE OF DETAINEES WHO CANNOT AFFORD BAIL
In the March 4, 2019 case of Buffin v. City & Cnty. of S.F.,[1] the California Northern District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment challenging the use of San Francisco’s Felony and Misdemeanor Bail Schedule (the “schedule” or “Bail Schedule”) as a basis to release pre-arraignment detainees where the detainees could not afford […]
Vol. 34 No. 15 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REJECTS DEATH PENALTY CHALLENGE BY INDIVIDUAL WITH RARE DISEASE
In a 5-4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court majority in Bucklew v. Precythe, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2477 (Apr. 1, 2019), held that an inmate with a rare condition causing tumors with blood vessels to grow in his neck, head, and throat failed to satisfy the test that two prior Supreme Court cases established to […]
Vol. 34 No. 16 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC DENIED
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published an order in Martin v. City of Boise which denied a petition for panel rehearing, denied a petition for rehearing en banc on behalf of the Court, and declared that no further petitions would be entertained. The Court also provided a slightly amended opinion to its earlier opinion […]
Vol. 34 No. 17 “CHALKING” THE TIRES OF PARKED VEHICLES FOUND TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12412 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019) On April 25, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12412 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019), held that “chalking,” the practice of parking enforcement officers marking parked vehicles with chalk […]
Vol. 34 No. 26 NINTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS DECISION FINDING FORMER CITY MANAGER VIOLATED FORMER POLICE CHIEF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
In June 2019 in Greisen v. Hanken,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s decision upholding a jury verdict in favor of a former police chief plaintiff in his First Amendment retaliation suit against a former city manager. In reaching its conclusion, the Court also determined the former city manager was not […]
Vol. 34 No. 25 POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER OFFICER’S PREPROBATIONARY CONDUCT IN RESCINDING OFFICER’S PROBATIONARY PROMOTION
In June 2019, the California Second District Court of Appeal held, in Conger v. Cty. of L.A.,[1] that a police department’s decision to deny an officer a promotion was merit based. The officer had failed to report a use of force several months before his promotion to a probationary lieutenant position. The Court further concluded […]
Vol. 34 No. 24 TITLE VII’S CHARGE-FILING REQUIREMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL PRESCRIPTION AND MUST BE TIMELY ASSERTED BY A DEFENDANT
In a unanimous decision, entitled Fort Bend Cty. v. Davis,[1] the United States Supreme Court held that a certain Title VII requirement was a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prescription. Because such rules are subject to forfeiture if not timely raised and a County employer had been tardy in raising the issue, the employer’s […]