News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement May 30, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 5 WHERE STATE ACTORS LEFT TEN-MONTH-OLD TWINS IN A MORE DANGEROUS SITUATION THAN THE ONE IN WHICH THEY FOUND THEM, THE STATE-CREATED DANGER EXCEPTION APPLIED

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs adequately stated their 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims against a police sergeant under the state-created danger exception.  In Murguia v. Langdon,[1] the majority found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a police sergeant knew that a mother’s mental health crisis posed a serious…

READ FULL ARTICLE
News May 8, 2023

Jones Mayer Successfully Defends City of Whittier in Trip and Fall Case

FULLERTON, CA—Jones Mayer is pleased to announce the successful defense of the City of Whittier in a trip-and-fall personal injury case brought in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case, Sanchez v. City of Whittier, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV35671, was brought by a plaintiff who claimed she was injured after stepping into…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement March 6, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 4 PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE AND FALSE ARREST CLAIMS WERE NOT BARRED BY THE HECK DOCTRINE BECAUSE HIS NO CONTEST PLEA WAS NOT ENTERED AS AN ACTUAL CONVICTION

In Duarte v. City of Stockton,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that that Heck v. Humphrey bar did not apply when criminal charges were dismissed after entry of a plea that was held in abeyance pending the defendant’s compliance with certain conditions. Background In May 2015, Francisco Duarte was in a public area…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 24, 2023

Client Alert Vol 38 No 3 A TRIAL COURT MAY CONSIDER HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN RULING ON A GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER PETITION

In San Diego Police Dept. v. Geoffrey S.,[1] the Fourth District held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a hearing on a gun violence restraining order (“GVRO”) under Penal Code section 18175.  The Court applied its analysis from a previous case[2] in which the Fourth District had held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 23, 2023

Client Alert Vol 38 No 2 DEFENDANT WAS NOT DETAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD VIEW THE DEPUTY’S USE OF A SPOTLIGHT LACKING IN COERCIVE FORCE

The California Supreme Court, in People v. Tacardon,[1] concluded that shining a spotlight for illumination does not ipso facto constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment.  The Court explained that the proper inquiry instead requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the use of a spotlight. Background Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb was on…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 20, 2023

Client Alert Vol 38 No 1 INVENTORY SEARCH OF TRUCK PARKED ILLEGALLY BY DRIVER WITHOUT VALID LICENSE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WAS NOT FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION WHERE VEHICLE WAS IMPOUNDED FOR VALID COMMUNITY CARETAKING PURPOSE

In United States v. Anderson,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a District Court did not err in concluding that the government established that a valid community caretaking purpose existed for impounding and inventorying defendant’s truck before an inventory search was conducted.  The Court determined that sheriff’s deputies had an objectively reasonable belief…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement November 16, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 18 UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH EXCEPTION, TIRE CHALKING IS NOT A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, MUNICIPALITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN WARRANTS PRIOR TO CHALKING TIRES

In Verdun v. City of San Diego,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that municipalities are not required to obtain warrants before chalking tires as part of enforcing time limits on city parking spots.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court stated that even assuming the temporary dusting of chalk on a tire constitutes a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement November 8, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 17 DEPUTIES THAT DID NOT SHOOT AND KILL DECEDENT WERE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT INTEGRAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

In Peck v. Montoya,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that three deputies who did not shoot at a decedent, and who was shot by two other deputies, were not liable under the integral-participant doctrine.  The Court of Appeals consequently reversed as to the excessive force claim against these three deputies. Background 65-year-old Paul…

READ FULL ARTICLE