Vol. 16 No. 9 Brady Rift Between Prosecutors And Law Enforcement Agencies
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM November 14, 2001 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer BRADY RIFT BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIESTHE CONFLICT A significant impact has been caused by the United States Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, upon law enforcement agencies and prosecutors […]
Vol. 15 No. 2- Re: Labor Code Section 96 – Update
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM February 2, 2000 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer Re: LABOR CODE SECTION 96 – UPDATE As many of you are aware, we recently brought to your attention concerns regarding amendments to Labor Code Section 96 which, in essence, gave jurisdiction to the State Labor Commissioner regarding “claims […]
Vol. 15 No. 1- Re: Pitchess Motions
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM January 24, 2000 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: J. Scott Tiedemann PITCHESS MOTIONS We write to draw your attention to a change in the law which, although seemingly mundane, is very important to your handling of requests for peace officer personnel records, i.e., “Pitchess Motions.” Code of Civil Procedure § […]
Vol. 14 No. 18- URGENT!! Re: Labor Code Section 96
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM December 17, 1999 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer and J. Scott Tiedemann URGENT !!! Re: LABOR CODE SECTION 96 With little fanfare, the Governor recently signed legislation likely to have a significant impact on law enforcement. AB 1689, authored by Assemblyman Richard Floyd, amends Labor Code ’96 […]
Vol. 14 No. 17 – Administrative Hearings & Creating the Record
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM December 7, 1999 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Paul R. Coble Administrative Hearings & Creating the Record You have an administrative adjudicatory hearing . . . disciplinary, permit revocation, land use, etc. . . . where testimony and evidence are taken. The appellant decides to challenge the decision resulting from […]
Vol. 14 No. 16- Follow-Up to Vol. 14 No. 14 Client Alert dated November 17, 1999
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM December 3, 1999 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Paul R. Coble Follow-Up to Vol. Fourteen No. Fourteen Client Alert dated November 17, 1999 URGENT !!! Our recent Client Alert Memorandum on the Ninth Circuit decision in California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, et al. v. City of Santa Monica, et. al. […]
Vol. 14 No. 15 – Brady v. Maryland – Attorney General’s Memo of November 2, 1999
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM November 24, 1999 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Martin J. Mayer “Brady v. Maryland” — Attorney General’s Memo of November 2, 1999 The California Attorney General recently issued a memo to all California District Attorneys stating that prosecutors do not have a duty to learn of exculpatory information which might […]
Vol. 14 No. 14- Ninth Circuit Prohibition of Interrogations “Outside” Miranda
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM November 17, 1999 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Paul R. Coble NINTH CIRCUIT PROHIBITION OF INTERROGATIONS “OUTSIDE” MIRANDA On November 8, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, acting in the case of California Attorneys For Criminal Justice, et al. vs. City of Santa Monica, et […]
Vol. 14 No. 13 Check Us Out!! Mayer & Coble Is On The WEB With Even More Information!
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM October 28, 1999 To: All Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, City Attorneys and County Counsels From: Martin J. Mayer We have just finalized including on our website our most recent Client Alerts and Case Updates. We have included all of the 1999 Client Alerts and the 1999 Case Updates and, as new issues are […]
Vol. 15 No. 3- Re: Further Amendments To Penal Code 832.5 – Removal of Certain Citizen Complaints
CLIENT ALERT MEMORANDUM March 15, 2000 To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs From: Paul R. Coble FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO PENAL CODE ‘832.5 – REMOVAL OF CERTAIN CITIZEN COMPLAINTS In 1997 we issued a Client Alert Memo regarding the then current amendments to Penal Code ‘832.5(c), which dealt with the removal, from an officer’s primary personnel […]