Santa Clara County Chief Executives, “Current Legal Issues for Law Enforcement,” Monterey, CA.

November 13, 2015

You might also enjoy

Vol. 40 No. 10 OFFICERS WHO ENGAGED IN AN UNNECESSARY HIGH-SPEED CHASE THAT KILLED BYSTANDERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

In Est. of Soakai v. Abdelaziz,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court

Vol. 40 No. 9 BLOCKING CONSTITUENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA WAS A STATE ACTION WHERE PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAD ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON STATE’S BEHALF AND PURPORTED TO EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY WHEN POSTING

In Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Vol. 40 No. 8 BECAUSE CALIFORNIA TORT LAW’S “REASONABLE CARE” STANDARD IS BROADER AND DISTINCT FROM THE FEDERAL FOURTH AMENDMENT’S REASONABLENESS STANDARD, NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT JURY’S MIXED VERDICTS – FINDING DEPUTIES DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE BUT WERE NEGLIGENT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW – WERE RECONCILABLE

In Alves v. Cnty. of Riverside,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court