Vol 31 No. 16- FEDERAL COURT PROHIBITS U.S. FROM PROSECUTING THOSE WHO COMPLY WITH A STATE’S LAWS ALLOWING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
On August 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, in United States v. McIntosh, vacated the orders of lower courts denying relief to the appellants. The appellants had been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and sought dismissal of their indictments, or to enjoin their prosecutions, on the basis of a congressional […]
Public Officers and employees can be guilty of misappropriation if they exercise a degree of material control over public funds
I. Summary The California Supreme court recently held in People v. Hubbard, 63 Cal. 4th 378 (2016) that a school superintendent was properly convicted of misappropriating public funds under Penal Code Section 424[1]. The Court reasoned that the superintendent was a public officer who exercised a degree of material control over public funds and could […]
Vol. 31 No. 15- EMPLOYERS MUST PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A DISABLED PERSON
Summary On April 4, 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 180 (2016) held that under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee who is associated with, and provides care to, a disabled […]
Vol. 31 No. 14 -THE “IN CAR” VIDEO OF AN ARREST, USED IN AN I.A. INVESTIGATION, DOES NOT BECOME A “PERSONNEL RECORD”
THE “IN CAR” VIDEO OF AN ARREST, USED IN AN I.A. INVESTIGATION, DOES NOT BECOME A “PERSONNEL RECORD” On July 19, 2016, the First District Court of Appeal held, in City of Eureka v. Superior Court of Humboldt County (Greenson), that even if an “arrest video was considered or relied upon during [an] internal affairs […]
Vol 31. No. 13- ARE RECORDS REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE CPRA IF THEY ARE ON PRIVATE CELL PHONES OR E-MAIL ACCOUNTS?
ARE RECORDS REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE CPRA IF THEY ARE ON PRIVATE CELL PHONES OR E-MAIL ACCOUNTS? On July 5, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in the case of Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science and Technology Policy (CEI v. OSTP) held that “an agency cannot […]
Vol. 31 No. 19- CITY’S BANKRUPTCY PLAN DOESN’T DISCHARGE PERSONAL DAMAGES AWARD AGAINST OFFICER
CITY’S BANKRUPTCY PLAN DOESN’T DISCHARGE PERSONAL DAMAGES AWARD AGAINST OFFICER On September 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held, in Deocampo v. Potts et al, that “. . . California’s indemnification statutes do not render a judgment or concomitant fee award against an indemnifiable municipal employee a liability of the municipal employer […]
Vol. 31 No. 20- HOW TO REPORT CHANGES IN ARREST STATUS TO DOJ
HOW TO REPORT CHANGES IN ARREST STATUS TO DOJ Recently, we issued a Client Alert Memo entitled “An Arrest Without the Filing of an Accusatory Pleading is Just a Detention.” In that Memo (Vol.31, No.17), which reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Schmidt v. California Highway Patrol, we quoted the relevant language in […]
Vol. 31 No. 21- LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATIONS
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATIONS Attached is a chapter in a newly published book entitled Police Psychology and Its Growing Impact on Modern Law Enforcement. I am most pleased to inform you that Chapter 5, “Current Issues in Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluations of Law Enforcement Officers” was co-authored by me and […]
Vol. 31 No. 27 SENATE BILL 1189 AMENDS REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AUTOPSIES
On September 28, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1189, which amends several California Government Code provisions and adds a new section to the Government Code relating to autopsies as set forth below. This legislation is effective January 1, 2017. Government Code Section 27491.4 SB 1189 amends Government Code section 27491.4 […]
Vol. 31 No. 26- OFFICERS’ PERSONNEL RECORDS MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY EVEN IF THEY DIDN’T OBSERVE OR PARTICIPATE IN MISCONDUCT
On December 12, 2016, the 2nd District Court of Appeal held, in Riske v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles), that Evidence Code 1043 and 1045 (“Pitchess motion”), governing the discovery of peace officer personnel records, is not limited to cases involving officers who either witnessed or committed misconduct. “If a plaintiff can demonstrate the […]