News & Information

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
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement April 29, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 18 NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS MUCH OF DISTRICT COURT DECISION NOT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION STATUTES AB 450, AB 103, AND SB 54

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. California, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11275 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) rejected arguments by the United States on appeal in several aspects pertaining to its request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of three California immigration-related laws. Background “The Government of the United States has…

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

Vol. 34 No. 17 “CHALKING” THE TIRES OF PARKED VEHICLES FOUND TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12412 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019) On April 25, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12412 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019), held that “chalking,” the practice of parking enforcement officers marking parked vehicles with chalk…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement April 17, 2019

Vol. 34 No. 16 MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC DENIED

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published an order in Martin v. City of Boise which denied a petition for panel rehearing, denied a petition for rehearing en banc on behalf of the Court, and declared that no further petitions would be entertained. The Court also provided a slightly amended opinion to its earlier opinion…

READ FULL ARTICLE