News & Information

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
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement October 26, 2022

Vol. 37. No. 16 WHERE OFFICER SHOOTS AT SUSPECT RESULTING IN NO INJURIES BUT THEN STOPS, AND THE SUSPECT LATER KILLS HIS HOSTAGES, THERE IS NO ACTIONABLE DEADLY FORCE TORT CLAIM

California Court of Appeal found that County defendants were not liable in a case where after a deputy sheriff exchanged gunfire with an armed intruder who had taken hostages, the intruder subsequently killed the hostages.  In Golick v. State of California,[1] the California Court of Appeal found that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement October 19, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 15 EN BANC NINTH CIRCUIT COURT CONCLUDES THAT ASSEMBLY BILL 32 VIOLATES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

In Geo Grp., Inc. v. Newsom,[1] the en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared California enacted Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”), which states that a “person shall not operate a private detention facility within the state,” is in violation of the Supremacy Clause.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement September 22, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 14 POLICE OFFICER’S PERSONAL FACEBOOK POSTS DENIGRATING RELIGION AND ADHERENTS WARRANTED FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION BECAUSE THEY QUALIFIED AS SPEECH ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hernandez v. City of Phoenix,[1] found that although it seemed like a police officer’s social media posts expressing hostility toward and denigrating a major religious faith and its adherents could impede the performance of his job duties and interfere with the police department’s ability to effectively carry out…

READ FULL ARTICLE