News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


June 5, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 15 COMMUNICATIONS CONFIGURED BY SOCIAL MEDIA USERS TO BE PUBLIC FALL WITHIN THE LAWFUL CONSENT EXCEPTION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATION ACT, PRESUMPTIVELY PERMITTING SOCIAL MEDIA PROVIDER DISCLOSURE

Communications configured by social media users to be “public” fall within the lawful consent exception of Stored Communication Act’s section 2702(b)(3), according to the California Supreme Court unanimous ruling in Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco 2018 Cal. LEXIS 3635 (Cal. May 24, 2018).  The Court distinguished between a social media user’s public…

READ FULL ARTICLE
June 5, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 14 AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT DOES NOT PERMIT SEARCH OF VEHICLE LOCATED IN CURTILAGE OF HOME

On May 29, 2018, in the case of Collins v. Virginia, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3210 (U.S. May 29, 2018), the Supreme Court of the United States held that, the automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry into the curtilage of a home to search a vehicle located therein.  Here, the Court found the partially…

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 22, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 13 U.S. SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT A DRIVER IN OTHERWISE LAWFUL POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF A RENTAL CAR HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

On May 14, 2018, in the case of Byrd v. United States, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2803 (U.S. May 14, 2018), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a driver of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, even if the driver is not listed on the rental agreement…

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 22, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 12 U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS NINTH CIRCUIT’S RECOGNITION OF “CLASS-LIKE CLAIMS” IN A NON-CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CONCERNING APPLICATION OF SAFETY RESTRAINTS IN PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

On May 14, 2018, in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2804 (U.S. May 14, 2018), the United States Supreme Court held that a challenge to a district-wide policy of using “full restraints”[1] on in-custody criminal defendants was moot because the underlying criminal cases against Respondents had ended.  The high court…

READ FULL ARTICLE
April 9, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 11 OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WHERE OFFICER’S ACTIONS DO NOT VIOLATE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT THAT A REASONABLE OFFICER WOULD HAVE KNOWN

On April 2, 2018, in Kisela v. Hughes, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2245 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2018), the United States Supreme Court held that, even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, an officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the situation he faced was far from a case in which any competent officer would have known…

READ FULL ARTICLE
April 6, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 10 GUIDED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT COLLECTION OF DNA CHEEK SWAB IS REASONABLE WHEN REQUIRED OF A FELONY ARRESTEE

On April 2, 2018, in the case of People v. Buza, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 2245 (Cal. Apr. 2, 2018), the Supreme Court of California held that the DNA Act of California, which permits law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from a felony arrestee by means of swabbing the inside of a person’s cheek, was…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 30, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 9 CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL (1st DISTRICT) HOLDS CRIMINAL COURT’S BAIL DECISION UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR FAILING TO ACCOUNT FOR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTICULAR DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO PAY

On January 25, 2018, the First District, Division One of the California Court of Appeal, issued a published opinion in In re Humphrey, 19 Cal. App. 5th 1006 (2018).  The Court of Appeal found error in the Superior Court’s failure to consider an individual defendant’s ability to pay when it fixed bail as to the…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 16, 2018

Vol. 33 No. 8 A DEPUTY WHO POINTED A LOADED GUN AT A SUSPECT’S HEAD USED EXCESSIVE FORCE BUT WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

On March 13, 2018, in the case of Thompson v. Rahr, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6191 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that an officer who pointed a loaded gun at a suspect’s head used excessive force, but was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly…

READ FULL ARTICLE