Vol. 31 No. 9 – A NEW FIRST AMENDMENT CASE INVOLVING A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
A NEW FIRST AMENDMENT CASE INVOLVING A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE On April 26, 2016, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6 – 2 decision, held in Heffernan v. Paterson, New Jersey et al. that a public sector employee’s First Amendment right was violated even though the employee had not, in fact, engaged in protected political […]
Vol. 31 No. 8 – IF A LOADED GUN IS IN A BACKPACK, IS IT BEING CARRIED “ON A PERSON?”
IF A LOADED GUN IS IN A BACKPACK, IS IT BEING CARRIED “ON A PERSON?” On May 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court held, in People v. Wade, that if a person is wearing a backpack which contains a loaded gun, he/she is carrying a loaded gun “on the person” in violation of Penal Code […]
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY’S INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST DOES NOT WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE
On March 17, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 1572, Case No. S223876 (Mar. 17, 2016), held that the City of Los Angeles’s inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents in response to a Public Records Act request did not waive the privilege under Government Code section 6254.5.[1] […]
Vol. 31 No. 7- JUSTIFIABLE USE OF A “TASER” IS AGAIN ANALYZED BY THE FEDERAL COURT
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF A “TASER” IS AGAIN ANALYZED BY THE FEDERAL COURT On April 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, inThomas v. Dillard & Palomar Community College District, that a “domestic violence call,” justifies a Terry stop but, with no more information, it does not by itself justify a […]
Vol. 31 No. 6- VEHICLE PURSUIT POLICY MUST BE “PROMULGATED,” AND ANNUAL TRAINING PROVIDED, IN ORDER FOR IMMUNITY TO APPLY
VEHICLE PURSUIT POLICY MUST BE “PROMULGATED,” AND ANNUAL TRAINING PROVIDED, IN ORDER FOR IMMUNITY TO APPLY On April 4, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held, inMorgan v. Beaumont Police Department, that law enforcement agencies will only get immunity from damages caused during a pursuit if they adopt a policy, promulgate it, and provide […]
Vol. 31 No. 5- NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HOLD THAT USE OF K-9 IS “SEVERE” USE OF FORCE
NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HOLD THAT USE OF K-9 IS “SEVERE” USE OF FORCE On April 1, 2016, the Ninth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals, in a 2 – 1 decision, held that summary judgment for the City was improper when “a reasonable jury could find that police officers responding to [a burglar […]
Vol. 33 No. 5 SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW OF SECOND AMENDMENT CASE
Silvester v. Becerra, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 897 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2018) On February 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Silvester v. Becerra. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari. The case was a challenge to California Penal Code sections 26815 and 27540, which […]
Vol. 32 No. 27 FAILURE TO PROVIDE AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER TO COUNTY JAIL INMATE MAY VIOLATE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
On August 31, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a suit could proceed that alleged an Oregon county jail discriminated against a deaf inmate by failing to provide an American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter during his pretrial detention.[1] The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that by not providing a […]
Vol. 32 No. 26 COURT OF APPEAL HOLDS THAT VEHICLE CODE SECTION 17004.7(b)(2) DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC AGENCY TO PROVE THAT EACH OF ITS OFFICERS HAS RECEIVED AND READ THE AGENCY’S PURSUIT POLICY
On August 23, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal, in Ramirez v. City of Gardena,[1] held that “promulgation” in California Vehicle Code section 17004.7(b)(2)[2] means that, to obtain immunity in a legal action resulting from a vehicle pursuit, a public agency must require its peace officers to certify in writing that they have received, […]
Vol. 32 No. 25 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE SCANNER DATA
On August 31, 2017, the California Supreme Court, in ACLU of Southern Calif. v. Super Court of Los Angeles (County of LA, et. al. Real Parties), __ Cal. 5th ___ (2017), affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to exempt raw Automated License Plate Reader (“ALPR”) data from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). The […]