News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


July 29, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 23 DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BARRING DOJ FROM USING THREE NEW CONDITIONS AS FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS

In the July 2020 case of City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Barr,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a permanent injunction barring the United States Department of Justice from imposing certain conditions for providing funding for state and local criminal justice programs through Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants.  However, the Court determined…

READ FULL ARTICLE
July 9, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 22 POLICE OFFICERS’ FAILURE TO PRECISELY COMPLY WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWING POLICY’S INVENTORY SEARCH DIRECTION DID NOT RENDER SEARCH INVALID

In United States v. Magdirila,[1] filed on June 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress contraband found during an inventory search of a vehicle he was driving.  In reaching its decision, the Court held that police officers’ failure to precisely comply with…

READ FULL ARTICLE
June 8, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 21 ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANTS IMPERMISSIBLE TO SEARCH PREMISES IF PRIMARY MOTIVATION IS SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

In the case entitled U.S. v. Grey, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16788 (9th Cir. May 27, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his property.  The Court held that when law enforcement officers are asked…

READ FULL ARTICLE
June 2, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 20 CURFEW ENFORCEMENT

California and the nation are experiencing large-scale community reaction following the tragic death, at the hands of law enforcement, of George Floyd in Minneapolis.  Many people have been responsible in how they have exercised their rights to free assembly and free speech and in the way they have expressed their perspectives concerning law enforcement agency…

READ FULL ARTICLE
June 1, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 19 A CITY’S EFFORTS TO REDACT ELECTRONIC DATA PRIOR TO DELIVERING RESPONSIVE RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST IS NOT COMPENSABLE

On May 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued the long-awaited opinion in National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward (S252445).  The Court rejected the argument that staff time and effort spent editing and redacting confidential or exempt data from responsive video footage could be charged to the Public Records…

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 14, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 18 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL’S EMERGENCY RULE 4’s BAIL SCHEDULE SETS PRESUMPTIVE BAIL AMOUNT FOR COVERED OFFENSES AND VIOLATIONS, WHICH MAY BE MODIFIED BY SUPERIOR COURT

As part of California’s response to the COVID-19 crisis, the Judicial Council, on April 6, 2020, adopted Emergency Rule 4, which establishes a statewide Emergency Bail Schedule that sets bail for all misdemeanor offenses, many felony offenses, and violations of post-conviction supervision at zero dollars ($0 bail), except as specified in the rule. On April…

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 4, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 17 EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS PRISON OFFICIALS FROM DISREGARDING KNOWN SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SERIOUS HARM TO INMATE

On April 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Wilk v. Neven,[1] held that prison officials violated a prison inmate’s constitutional right to protection from violence under the Eighth Amendment.  The Court found that all of the officials were aware, through firsthand information or through representatives, that there was a substantial risk of…

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 4, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 16 SUPREME COURT “DUCKS” CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK CITY ORDINANCE IMPOSING TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS UPON HANDGUN LICENSEES VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT

In a 6-3 decision on April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of N.Y.[1] dismissed as moot a claim for relief alleging that a New York City (“City”) rule violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.  In a relatively concise opinion, the Court majority concluded that,…

READ FULL ARTICLE