Vol. 20 No. 20- Pers Retirees and 960 Hours
Pers Retirees and 960 Hours December 27, 2005 Recently, Sacramento implemented several changes regarding definitions and procedures affecting public employees and retirees who fall under the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). AB 1166 imposed changes which appear to be relatively innocuous in nature, however, the one which has created a significant amount of concern among […]
Vol. 20 No. 19- Police Task Force Subject to Open Meeting Rules
Police Task Force Subject to Open Meeting Rules December 2, 2005 The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, published an opinion on November 28, 2005, in the case of McKee vs. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (L.A. Impact), holding that the task force is a “local agency” and, therefore, must comply […]
Vol. 20 No. 18 Chaker v. Crogan: the federal court of appeals (ninth circuit) holds penal code section 148.6 unconstitutional
Chaker v. Crogan The Federal Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) Holds Penal Code Section 148.6 Unconstitutional November 9, 2005 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has just issued an opinion in Chaker v. Crogan , Case No. 03-56885, that California Penal Code Section 148.6, knowingly filing a false complaint of peace officer misconduct, is unconstitutional. […]
Vol. 20 No. 2- SB 1439 – Pers Retirees
SB 1439 – PERS RETIREES January 4, 2005 A retired member of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) is not permitted to work for an employer under PERS without reinstatement from retirement. An exception exists to allow such retiree to work no more than 960 hours a year for such an employer, without penalty. According […]
Vol. 22 No. 9- Local Laws Authorizing Vehicle Seizures Unlawful
“LOCAL LAWS AUTHORIZING VEHICLE SEIZURES UNLAWFUL” July 30, 2007 A divided California Supreme Court ruled, on July 26, 2007, that local ordinances which allow for the seizure of vehicles of those arrested on suspicion of buying drugs or soliciting prostitutes were unconstiutional. In the case of O’Connell v. City of Stockton, the Court ruled that […]
Vol. 23 No. 25- Massachusetts Marijuana Law Creates Concern
MASSACHUSETTS MARIJUANA LAW CREATES CONCERN December 29, 2008 The following article indicates the concern Massachusetts law enforcement has about the potential impact their new marijuana law might have on testing and/or disciplining employees for use of marijuana. Although this is not dealing with medical marijuana, their concerns are similar to those expressed in California and […]
Vol. 23 No. 15- Employee E-mails, Cell Phones & Text Messages – A Matter of Privacy
EMPLOYEE E-MAILS, CELL PHONES & TEXT MESSAGES – A MATTER OF PRIVACY AUGUST 25, 2008 Recently, the Ninth Circuit, U. S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling, in the case of Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co. (June 18, 2008), where it held, among other things, that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in […]
Vol. 23 No. 14 California’s Medical Marijuana Id Card Program Is Not Unconstitutional
CALIFORNIA’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA ID CARD PROGRAM IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL August 4, 2008 On July 31, 2008, the California Court of Appeal ruled, in County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, that the requirement of the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”), that counties provide medicinal marijuana identification cards to qualified patients, did not violate the Federal […]
Vol. 23 No. 13- Coleman/Plata Update
COLEMAN/PLATA UPDATE July 17, 2008 In our last update on the prisoner release litigation [Coleman v. Schwarzenegger/Plata v. Schwarzenegger], we informed you that all parties, including intervenors, were actively engaged in the settlement process. While all of the parties worked tirelessly at reaching a resolution, settlement was not able to be achieved. On June 23, […]
Vol. 23 No. 12- State Will Appeal Medical Marijuana Ruling
STATE WILL APPEAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA RULING June 9, 2008 Just last week, on May 27, 2008, we published a Client Alert Memo (Vol. 23, No. 10) regarding a Court of Appeal decision in the case of People v. Kelly. In that case, the Court ruled that the statutory cap established by the legislature in SB […]