News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


September 21, 2017

Vol. 32 No. 27 FAILURE TO PROVIDE AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER TO COUNTY JAIL INMATE MAY VIOLATE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

On August 31, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a suit could proceed that alleged an Oregon county jail discriminated against a deaf inmate by failing to provide an American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter during his pretrial detention.[1]  The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that by not providing a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
September 14, 2017

Vol. 32 No. 26 COURT OF APPEAL HOLDS THAT VEHICLE CODE SECTION 17004.7(b)(2) DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC AGENCY TO PROVE THAT EACH OF ITS OFFICERS HAS RECEIVED AND READ THE AGENCY’S PURSUIT POLICY

On August 23, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal, in Ramirez v. City of Gardena,[1] held that “promulgation” in California Vehicle Code section 17004.7(b)(2)[2] means that, to obtain immunity in a legal action resulting from a vehicle pursuit, a public agency must require its peace officers to certify in writing that they have received,…

READ FULL ARTICLE
September 8, 2017

Vol. 32 No. 25 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE SCANNER DATA

On August 31, 2017, the California Supreme Court, in ACLU of Southern Calif. v. Super Court of Los Angeles (County of LA, et. al. Real Parties), __ Cal. 5th ___ (2017), affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to exempt raw Automated License Plate Reader (“ALPR”) data from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”).  The…

READ FULL ARTICLE
September 1, 2017

Vol 32. No 24 CIRCUIT RULES NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WORKING AS PRIVATE SECURITY GUARD

On August 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Bracken v. Okura, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16105 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017), ruled that an “off-duty” Honolulu Police Department Officer working as a hotel security guard was not entitled to qualified immunity for failure to intervene to prevent an assault because…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 30, 2017

Vol. 32 No. 23 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS PROPOSITION 66 IS CONSTITUTIONAL

On August 24, 2017, the California Supreme Court denied a writ petition[1] challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 66 (“Prop 66”), which was approved by California voters in November 2016.  Prop 66, among other things, created a 5-year time limit to complete all post-trial appellate proceedings in death penalty cases. While the Court upheld the new…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 2, 2017

Vol. 32 No. 22 DISTRICT COURT RULES THAT A CRIMINAL SUSPECT HAD NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY REGARDING THE LOCATION OF HIS CELLPHONE

On May 16, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in United States v. Rosario, 2017 WL 2117534 (N.D. ILL. May 16, 2017), held that the Government’s acquisition of cell-site location information (CSLI) from a third-party provider did not constitute a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Background On…

READ FULL ARTICLE
July 21, 2017

Vol 32. No. 21 PROPOSITION 47’s RESENTENCING GUIDELINES DO NOT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE THREE STRIKES REFORM ACT

July 3, 2017, the California Supreme Court, in People v. Valencia, 2017 Cal. LEXIS 4893 (Cal. July 3, 2017), held that Proposition 47’s definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to the public” does not apply to resentencing proceedings under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act. Background In November 2012, California voters enacted Proposition 36,…

READ FULL ARTICLE
July 19, 2017

Vol. 32 No. 20 CLARIFICATION: STATEWIDE APPLICABILITY OF THE ALADS v. SUPERIOR COURT CASE

Yesterday’s client alert memorandum (Vol. 32, No. 19) erroneously suggested the new case of ALADS v. Superior Court only applied in Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.  That was an error.  The case applies in all superior courts in the State of California until the California Supreme Court depublishes it or…

READ FULL ARTICLE