News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


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
August 19, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 26 NINTH CIRCUIT FINDS THAT CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 32310, WHICH BANS POSSESSION OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES (“LCMs”), VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT

On August 14, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncan v. Becerra,[1] held that a California statute that banned possession of large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”) holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, violated the Second Amendment.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court held that California Penal Code section 32310 burdened protected conduct and, applying…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 12, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 25 POLICE OFFICERS’ USE OF DEADLY FORCE WAS REASONABLE WHERE DRIVER ATTEMPTING TO FLEE IGNORED COMMANDS TO STOP AND DROVE NEAR, TOWARD, AND AMONGST THE OFFICERS

In the July 2020 case of Monzon v. City of Murrieta,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner in their use of deadly force on a driver of a van who posed an immediate threat to officers.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted that the driver…

READ FULL ARTICLE
August 4, 2020

Vol. 35 No. 24 THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE “CALIFORNIA RULE” IN CASE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION v. ALAMEDA COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

Background The California Supreme Court recently reviewed the validity of the “California Rule” in the context of the case entitled Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Ass’n.[1] The Court began its analysis with a discussion of the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”; Stats. 2012, ch. 296, section…

READ FULL ARTICLE
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