News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


April 1, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 12 SHERIFF’S ISSUANCE OF MEMORANDUM RESTRICTING DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH ICE WAS A PROTECTED DISCRETIONARY ACT UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 820.2

In an opinion issued on March 25, 2019, in the case entitled Steinle v. City & Cnty. of S.F.[1], the Ninth Circuit determined that the question of discretionary immunity raised was controlled by California law, and concluded that Government Code section 820.2 barred plaintiffs’ negligence claim. The Sheriff’s issuance of the memorandum at issue, the…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 29, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 11 COURT FINDS THAT STATE LAW REQUIRING SHERIFFS TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

In an opinion filed on March 18, 2019, the California Second District Court of Appeal in Boyer v. Cnty. of Ventura[1] held that certain law enforcement experience and education requirements for a person to be elected county sheriff as specified in Government Code section 24004.3 were constitutional.  The Court determined that constitutional, statutory, and case…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 29, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 10 WARRANTLESS PLACEMENT OF A GPS TRACKER ON A PAROLEE’S CAR WAS PERMISSIBLE IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON

In the March 15, 2019, in the case of United States v. Korte,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s denial of a defendant parolee’s motions to suppress. The Court of Appeals held that the warrantless placement of a GPS tracker on the parolee’s car did not violate the Fourth Amendment. While…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 18, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 9 DISTRICT COURT ORDERS INJUNCTION ENJOINING SHERIFF FROM USING BAIL SCHEDULE TO DETERMINE RELEASE OF DETAINEES WHO CANNOT AFFORD BAIL

In the March 4, 2019 case of Buffin v. City & Cnty. of S.F.,[1] the California Northern District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment challenging the use of San Francisco’s Felony and Misdemeanor Bail Schedule (the “schedule” or “Bail Schedule”) as a basis to release pre-arraignment detainees where the detainees could not afford…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 6, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 8 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE AIRTIME CREDIT WAS NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACT CLAUSE AND THEREFORE COULD BE ELIMINATED BY THE LEGISLATURE

On March 4, 2019, the California Supreme Court, in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ determinations that the opportunity to purchase additional retirement service (ARS) credit, also known as “air time” credit, was not a benefit of employment protected by the constitutional contract clause. Therefore, the Court…

READ FULL ARTICLE
February 22, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 7 EIGHTH AMENDMENT’S PROHIBITION ON EXCESSIVE FINES APPLIES TO THE STATES

On February 20, 2019 in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1350 (Feb. 20, 2019), the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause was “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” with “dee[p] root[s] in [our] history and tradition.”  The Court concluded that the Excessive Fines Clause…

READ FULL ARTICLE
February 4, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 6 COLLECTION OF DEFENDANT’S DNA SAMPLE WAS UNLAWFUL UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS DNA WAS COLLECTED AS PART OF A ROUTINE BOOKING PROCEDURE

In the case of People v. Marquez, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 48 (4th Dist. Jan. 15, 2019), the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the 2006 collection of Daniel Joseph Marquez’s DNA sample was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment, but also concluded that the trial court properly admitted 2008 DNA evidence from a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
January 30, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 5 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE OF INMATE DISTURBANCES AND LOCKDOWNS JUSTIFIED JAIL OFFICIALS’ DENYING PRETRIAL DETAINEE PLAINTIFF A BED AS OFFICIALS WERE PRIORITIZING SECURITY NEEDS

On January 11, 2019 in the case of Olivier v. Baca, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1019 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2019), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exigent circumstance of inmate disturbances and lockdowns justified denying a plaintiff a bed for his three-and-a-half day stay at the inmate processing center. Background In…

READ FULL ARTICLE