News & Information

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
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
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
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
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
September 6, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 13 A STATE OFFICIAL VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT BY CREATING A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE RELATED TO HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THEN BLOCKING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM THAT PAGE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR COMMENTS

In Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that members of a school district’s board of trustees acted under color state law by using their social media pages as public forums in carrying out their official duties.  Then, applying First Amendment public forum criteria, the Court concluded that restrictions on certain individuals…

READ FULL ARTICLE
September 2, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 12 PERSONNEL RECORDS RELATING TO INVESTIGATION AGAINST A PEACE OFFICER WERE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION 832.7 BECAUSE THE OFFICER WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE FINDINGS

In Wyatt v. Kern High Sch. Dist., 80 Cal. App. 5th 1116 (5th Dist. 2022), a California Court of Appeal concluded that a peace officer’s personnel records were not subject to disclosure under the 2018 amendments to Penal Code sections 832.7 & 832.8.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court explained that the officer was never…

READ FULL ARTICLE
July 6, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 11 AFTER DECISION REJECTING TIERED-SCRUTINY ANALYSIS IN SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, SUPREME COURT VACATES CIRCUIT COURT CASES UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATES’ LAWS INVOLVING FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS

In light of its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Bruen,[1] the United States Supreme Court issued an order vacating and remanding four Circuit Courts of Appeals judgments involving the Second Amendment’s application to various state laws.  In Bruen, the Supreme Court deemed a New York state law’s…

READ FULL ARTICLE