Category: Client Alerts — Law Enforcement

Vol. 20 No. 15- POBR and the one-year statute of Limitations

POBR AND THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS September 1, 2005 The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, ruled on August 29, 2005, in the case ofCastagna v. City of Seal Beach et al., that the Seal Beach Police Department did not violate any provisions of the Peace Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) […]

Vol. 20 No. 17- New Pursuit Legislation: A Successful Cooperative Effort

NEW PURSUIT LEGISLATION: A SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE EFFORT October 14, 2005 On October 6, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into legislation Senate Bill 719 which directly impacts upon law enforcement’s authority to pursue fleeing suspects. Senate Bill 719 was sponsored by Senator Gloria Romero and was drafted with the cooperation of diverse law enforcement stake holders. […]

Vol. 21 No. 5- Kern County Vs. Sparks: Sometimes The Good Guy Wins

KERN COUNTY vs. SPARKS: “Sometimes the Good Guy Wins” March 15, 2006 As many of you already know, retired Kern County Sheriff Carl Sparks was sued by the Kern County Board of Supervisors and accused of filing false claims to justify authorizing premium pay for seven commanders covering a fourteen year period of time. The […]

Vol. 21 No. 3- Cost Recovery Of Expenses Responding To Dui Incidents

Cost Recovery of Expenses Responding to DUI Incidents February 14, 2006 On January 4, 2006, the California Court of Appeal clarified what expenses can be recovered as a result of emergency responses to incidents caused by individuals operating motor vehicles while under the influence of an intoxicant. In the case of California Highway Patrol v. […]

Vol. 21 No. 4- Pers Retired Annuitants: Interim Positions V. Extra Help

PERS RETIRED ANNUITANTS: Interim Positions v. Extra Help February 14, 2006 Questions have arisen regarding the manner and duration in which retired annuitants from the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) can work for PERS agencies after retirements. It is important to note that the PERS system does not permit an individual who has retired to […]

Vol. 21 No. 2- Impounding Vehicles Revisited

Impounding Vehicles Revisited January 17, 2006 The Ninth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals recently ruled, in the case of Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, that impounding vehicles, when the only charge is driving without a  license, was unconstitutional if there is no justification under the “community caretaker” doctrine (see Jones & Mayer Client Alert […]

Vol. 21 No. 1- IMPOUNDING A VEHICLE MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Impounding a Vehicle may be Unconstitutional January 4, 2006 Plaintiffs sued the City and a towing company for an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in the case of Miranda v. City of Cornelius; Acme Towing, Inc., granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants […]

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 […]