Journal of California Law Enforcement- Americans With Disabilities Act: Some Do’s and Dont’s

January 1, 1992

Vol. 26, No.1

You might also enjoy

Vol. 39 No. 6 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHIELDED OFFICER BECAUSE, EVEN IF HER FIFTH AND SIX SHOTS AT DECEDENT WERE UNREASONABLE, IT WAS NOT AN OBVIOUS SITUATION IN WHICH EVERY REASONABLE OFFICER WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LAW FORBADE FIRING ADDITIONAL SHOTS AT ALREADY WOUNDED ARMED DECEDENT AS HE CONTINUED TO TRY TO GET UP

In March 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court in Est. of

Vol. 39 No. 5 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO PREVENTS SOMEONE FROM COMMENTING ON THE OFFICIAL’S SOCIAL-MEDIA PAGE ENGAGES IN STATE ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 ONLY IF THE OFFICIAL BOTH POSSESSED ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON THE STATE’S BEHALF ON A PARTICULAR MATTER, AND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY WHEN SPEAKING IN THE RELEVANT SOCIAL-MEDIA POSTS

On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued

Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier SCOTUS Clarifies Standard for Plaintiffs to Sue Public Officials for Social Media Restraint

On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in