Jones & Mayer Files Several Amicus Briefs in Appellate Courts, Including U.S. Supreme Court

JONES & MAYER, as counsel to the California Police Chiefs’ Association (CPCA), the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), and the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA) has submitted the following:

1. City of Los Angeles v. Patel.   Amicus brief filed with United States Supreme Court on 12/19/14. The case concerns a municipal ordinance requiring hotel and motel guest registry information be maintained and allowing law enforcement to access such information without a warrant in order to impede crimes including, but not limited to, human trafficking and prostitution.   The Ninth Circuit ruled that, although the guest has no right of privacy in the information provided, the hotel has a commercial right of privacy and, therefore, law enforcement needs consent or a warrant to review the information.

2.    Peruta v. County of San Diego, et al.  Amicus brief filed with the full Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, at its request, on 12/22/14 urging acceptance of the case for rehearing “en banc.” The case concerns California’s law requiring the stating of “good cause” for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW).  A divided three judge panel declared the requirement to be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to “keep and bear arms.”

3.    ACLU / EFF v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al. Amicus brief filed with the California Court of Appeal on 1/19/15. The case concerns law enforcement use of automated license plate readers (ALPR’s) and a demand by the ACLU/EFF that all such information be made public pursuant to the California Public Records Act.  The Superior Court denied the request and the ACLU/EFF appealed. The City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles also requested that Martin J. Mayer provide oral argument to the Court of Appeal which is scheduled for 3/11/15.

4.    People v. Buza. An amicus letter supporting the Attorney General’s petition to the California Supreme Court for review is being prepared for submission. An amicus brief will be drafted if the Court accepts the case and following submittal of briefs by the parties. The case concerns the taking of DNA from felony arrestees pursuant to Proposition 69.  The California Court of Appeal declared the action to be an unconstitutional invasion of the arrestee’s right of privacy.  Previously, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal, in the case ofHaskell v. Harris, held it was not unconstitutional.

JONES & MAYER successfully represented the Sheriff of Lake County in the case of Rivero v. Lake County Board of Supervisors. The California Court of Appeal unanimously ruled in favor of a Sheriff’s right to independent counsel pursuant to Gov Code 31000.6, for the duration of the underlying issue being contested, when a conflict prevents the county counsel from serving as the Sheriff’s attorney.