News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement April 2, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 11 HIPAA DISCLOSURES – COVID 19 – FIRST RESPONDERS

A recurrent question of late has been what, if any, information can be relayed to first responders – Police and Fire Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) concerning potential COVID-19 exposure from a given person and/or location.  Fortunately, guidance has now been had from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in an online bulletin received…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement April 2, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 10 EXECUTIVE ORDER N-40-20 – POBR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED

By Executive Order dated March 30, 2020, Governor Newsom extended the statute of limitations under Govt. Code §3304(d) by 60 days. Govt. Code §3304(d) reads in pertinent part[1] as follows: Except as provided in this subdivision and subdivision (g), no punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken for…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement March 20, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 9 GUIDANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DURING COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY

The pandemic circumstances we all face are placing tremendous demands on law enforcement personnel. Among organizational priorities is determining how to apply law enforcement authority under conditions not ordinarily encountered during general agency operations.  This alert is intended to bring together statutory authority and Executive Orders as an accessible reference for law enforcement leaders. Existing…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement February 12, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 8 RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO SB 1421

In January 2020 in the case of Becerra v. Superior Court[1], the California First District Court of Appeal held that California Penal Code section 832.7, as recently amended by SB 1421, generally requires in response to a California Public Records Act request the disclosure of all responsive records in the possession of the California Department…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement February 12, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 7 CHARTER CITIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7284.6, WHICH PROHIBITS STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN ACTS RELATED TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

In January 2020, the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra[1] held that Section 7284.6 of the California Values Act (Government Code section 7284 et seq. (the “CVA”)) is constitutional as applied to charter cities because Section 7284.6 addresses matters of statewide concern, is reasonably related to resolution of…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement February 12, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 6 EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TERMINATED DURING HIS EXTENDED PROBATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

The California Second District Court of Appeal, in Amezcua v. L.A. Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm’n,[1] held that there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff was “absent from duty” and had “time away” from duty, such that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was permitted to extend his period of probation…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 14, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 5 PENAL CODE SECTION 632.7 PROHIBITS ONLY THIRD-PARTY EAVESDROPPERS, NOT THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PHONE CALL THEMSELVES, FROM INTENTIONALLY RECORDING TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS

The California Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.,[1] that a plaintiff failed to state a claim in arguing that a defendant business violated a provision in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“Privacy Act”) (Penal Code section 630, et seq.) by recording its call with the plaintiff.  The Court concluded…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 14, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 4 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT A SECRET RECORDING OF A PHONE CONVERSATION WAS NOT BARRED BY A PRIVACY PROVISION BECAUSE THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN REPEALED BY THE “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE” PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION

In the case of People v. Guzman,[1] the Supreme Court of California found that a surreptitious recording was properly admitted into evidence in a defendant’s trial for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child.  The Court concluded that the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision in the state constitution enacted as a result of the…

READ FULL ARTICLE