Vol. 31 No. 2- NEW “GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER” IN EFFECT AS OF 1/1/16
NEW “GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER” IN EFFECT AS OF 1/1/16 As of January 1, 2016, AB 1014, the “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (“GVRO”) went into effect. This new law pertains to individuals who own/possess/have access to any firearm or any ammunition and, by a finding of a court, who pose an immediate threat to themselves […]
Vol. 31 No 1. TASER USE RESTRICTED BY 4th CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
TASER USE RESTRICTED BY 4th CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS On January 11, 2016, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held, in the case of Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst et al, that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of a taser [an electronic control device (ECD)], unless the police can articulate an “immediate […]
Vol. 30 No. 27 CAN SPEECH ALONE BE A PENAL CODE 148 VIOLATION?
CAN SPEECH ALONE BE A PENAL CODE 148 VIOLATION? On December 18, 2015, the California Court of Appeal held, in the case of In re Chase C.,that a minor did not violate PC 148 when he encouraged others to not cooperate with a sheriff’s deputy. The court stated that “we are asked to decide a […]
Vol. 31 No. 4- NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND EXECUTIVE LIABILITY
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND EXECUTIVE LIABILITY Following is an article I wrote for the current issue of “The Police Chief” magazine, which is published by the International Association of Chiefs’ of Police (IACP) and distributed nationally and internationally to all members of IACP. As we all know, the current environment reflects open hostility by certain members […]
Vol. 31 No. 12- U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERRULES UTAH STATE COURT SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN SEARCH FOLLOWING WARRANT ARREST AFTER ILLEGAL DETENTION
U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERRULES UTAH STATE COURT SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN SEARCH FOLLOWING WARRANT ARREST AFTER ILLEGAL DETENTION In a June 20, 2016 decision, the United States Supreme Court acted by a five to three vote to overturn a Utah Supreme Court decision suppressing evidence found in a search incident to an arrest. The […]
Vol. 31 No. 11- U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS WARRANTLESS BREATH TESTS INCIDENT TO ARREST FOR DUI ARRESTS; REJECTS WARRANTESS BLOOD TESTS INCIDENT TO DUI ARREST
U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS WARRANTLESS BREATH TESTS INCIDENT TO ARREST FOR DUI ARRESTS; REJECTS WARRANTESS BLOOD TESTS INCIDENT TO DUI ARREST In a June 23, 2016 decision, the United States Supreme Court acted by a five to three vote to uphold warrantless BAC breath testing of persons lawfully arrested for DUI, and both civil and […]
Vol. 31 No. 10- NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT “GOOD CAUSE” REQUIREMENT FOR CCW PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT “GOOD CAUSE” REQUIREMENT FOR CCW PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT On June 9, 2016, an “en banc” panel (11 justices, in an 8-3 decision) of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal held, in Peruta v. County of San Diego, that there is no constitutional right to carry a […]
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] […]