News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


January 7, 2021

Vol. 36 No. 1 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS AND THE COVID-19 VACCINES

The availability of effective vaccines offers a major advancement in our emergence from the COVID-19 pandemic.  As a component of this progress, the determination of how to optimize the benefits of the vaccine among public sector employees also raises important leadership questions regarding its use.  Our great preference would be for members of our organizations…

READ FULL ARTICLE
December 23, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 33 REASONABLE FACTFINDER COULD CONCLUDE THAT POLICE OFFICER VIOLATED PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY OBTAINING COURT ORDER TO DESTROY PLAINTIFF’S FIREARMS WITHOUT GIVING HIM NOTICE

In Wright v. Beck,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff, who continued to assert a claim of right to previously seized firearms and reasonably believed that the police department was still reviewing the matter, was entitled to notice under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause that police intended to seek a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
November 16, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 32 GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT EXISTED AS TO WHETHER DEFENDANT USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN BRIEFLY KNEELING ON PLAINTIFF’S BACK

In a case filed on October 27, 2020, in Cortesluna v. Luna,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to an officer who the plaintiff claimed used excessive force.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for briefly placing…

READ FULL ARTICLE
October 29, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 31 OFFICER ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ventura v. Rutledge[1] concluded that an officer who used deadly force was entitled to qualified immunity.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that no existing precedent squarely governed the specific facts here, where the officer shot and killed a man who (1) had a drawn knife as…

READ FULL ARTICLE
September 17, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 30 BAIL DETERMINATIONS MUST BE BASED UPON CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUALIZED CRITERIA

On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of California issued an order[1] making a part of the California First District Court of Appeal’s 2018 case, In re Humphrey,[2] binding on trial courts pending final resolution of the case.  In Part III of that opinion, the First District emphasized that bail determinations must be based upon…

READ FULL ARTICLE
September 17, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 29 COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS RUBEN LONA DECISION DENYING APPELLANT’S PETITION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SHARED GANG DATABASE

On August 24, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed[1] the decision of the Orange County Superior Court which denied Ruben Lona’s petition to be removed from the Shared Gang Database.  The Court of Appeal determined that Ruben Lona’s own admissions made in the declaration he provided…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 31, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 28 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE PLAINTIFFS’ EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR THE INJURIES THEY SUSTAINED IN RESPONDING TO PEACE OFFICER’S REQUEST TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE

On August 27, 2020, in the case of Gund v. County of Trinity,[1] the California Supreme Court found that plaintiffs, who were injured by an attacker in the course of responding to a peace officer request to provide assistance to their neighbor who had called 911 requesting help, were limited to workers’ compensation benefits for…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 25, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 27 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PROVIDES SEVEN-FACTOR TEST THAT A TRIAL COURT SHOULD USE IN RULING ON A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO A THIRD PARTY

In the August 2020 case of Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Stephan),[1] the California Supreme Court directed trial courts to explicitly consider and balance seven factors in ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to a third party. Background In May 2018 in Facebook v. Superior Court (Hunter),[2] the California Supreme…

READ FULL ARTICLE