News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement July 2, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 26 NINTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS DECISION FINDING FORMER CITY MANAGER VIOLATED FORMER POLICE CHIEF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

In June 2019 in Greisen v. Hanken,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s decision upholding a jury verdict in favor of a former police chief plaintiff in his First Amendment retaliation suit against a former city manager. In reaching its conclusion, the Court also determined the former city manager was not…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement July 2, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 25 POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER OFFICER’S PREPROBATIONARY CONDUCT IN RESCINDING OFFICER’S PROBATIONARY PROMOTION

In June 2019, the California Second District Court of Appeal held, in Conger v. Cty. of L.A.,[1] that a police department’s decision to deny an officer a promotion was merit based. The officer had failed to report a use of force several months before his promotion to a probationary lieutenant position. The Court further concluded…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 25, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 24 TITLE VII’S CHARGE-FILING REQUIREMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL PRESCRIPTION AND MUST BE TIMELY ASSERTED BY A DEFENDANT

In a unanimous decision, entitled Fort Bend Cty. v. Davis,[1] the United States Supreme Court held that a certain Title VII requirement was a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prescription. Because such rules are subject to forfeiture if not timely raised and a County employer had been tardy in raising the issue, the employer’s…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 24, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 23 TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT PROVIDE OFFICERS WITH THE REQUISITE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO STOP DEFENDANT

In June 2019, United States v. Brown,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the combination of an anonymous tip suggesting no crime and a defendant’s flight from officers, who did not previously communicate with the suspect, did not provide officers with a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity when they stopped and frisked…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 20, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 22 UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 11362.1, POSSESSION OF LESS THAN AN OUNCE OF CANNABIS IN PRISON IS NO LONGER A CRIME

In People v. Raybon,[1] the California Third District Court of Appeal held the plain language of Health & Safety Code section 11362.1 demonstrated the electorate’s clear intent to decriminalize possession of less than ounce of marijuana, even in prison. In reaching its conclusion, the Court reversed the superior court’s rulings dismissing five inmate defendants’ petitions…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 12, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 21 SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFEATS FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIM

On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Nieves v. Bartlett, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3557 (May 28, 2019) held that a plaintiff’s retaliatory arrest claim must pass a threshold showing of the absence of probable cause.  The Court held the presence of probable cause will defeat most claims, except where a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 3, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 20 OFFICERS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WHERE NO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW DEMONSTRATED THAT PROBATIONARY OFFICER’S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED

On May 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Perez v. City of Roseville, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14927 (9th Cir. May 21, 2019) held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on each of the probationary officer’s First Amendment claims because the law was not clearly established that the defendants violated…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement April 29, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 19 DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION DENIED TO EMPLOYEE WHO SETTLED A PENDING TERMINATION FOR CAUSE BY RESIGNATION

The California First District Court, in Martinez v. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 311 (1st Dist. Apr. 4, 2019), affirmed a trial court’s denial of a petition for mandate relief challenging the denial of a former State agency employee’s application for disability retirement from state service.  The Court, agreeing with precedent, concluded…

READ FULL ARTICLE