News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


August 6, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 31 WHEN OFFICERS HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT THAT A CRIME IS BEING PERPETRATED, OR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN INJURED, A WARRANTLESS ENTRY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

In the July 2019 case of People v. Rubio,[1] the California First District Court of Appeal held that a warrantless entry into a locked garage/apartment conversion by officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers reasonably believed that an injured person or a shooter might be inside. Background In October 2016, East Palo…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 6, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 30 WARRANTLESS SEIZURE OF FIREARMS DID NOT VIOLATE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR SECOND AMENDMENT

In July 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Rodriguez v. City of San Jose,[1] held that a wife’s Second Amendment claim, arising from seizure of firearms from her home, was barred by issue preclusion as the matter had already been considered and rejected by state courts. The Court also found that the wife’s…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 6, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 29 COUNTY’S FEE FOR COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS REASONABLE WHERE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT “INDIRECT COSTS” VIOLATED GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27366

In Cal. Pub. Records Research, Inc. v. Cnty. of Alameda,[1] the California First District Court of Appeal held that a county could consider a wide range of indirect costs under Government Code section 27366. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the County’s ordinance charging $3.50 per page for copies of official records was…

READ FULL ARTICLE
July 17, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 28 THE DOJ’S INCLUSION OF IMMIGRATION-RELATED SCORING FACTORS IN IMPLEMENTING THE COPS GRANT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY

In July 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in City of L.A. v. Barr,[1] reversed a District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles in an action challenging the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) use of illegal-immigration-related factors in determining scores for applicants to a competitive grant program. In reaching…

READ FULL ARTICLE
July 16, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 27 WHEN A DRIVER IS UNCONSCIOUS, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE GIVEN A BREATH TEST, THE EXIGENT-CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION WILL USUALLY PERMIT A BLOOD TEST WITHOUT A WARRANT

In a plurality opinion, the United States Supreme Court recently held, in the opinion entitled Mitchell v. Wisconsin[1], that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment will usually permit a blood draw from an unconscious drunk-driver suspect to secure blood alcohol content evidence. Background In May 2013, Sheboygan Police Department…

READ FULL ARTICLE
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
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
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