News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement


June 30, 2022

Vol 37. No. 10 A VIOLATION OF MIRANDA RULES DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 CLAIM

In a 6-3 decision in Vega v. Tekoh,[1] the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded a Circuit Court decision holding that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the Fifth Amendment and may support a Section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement.  The Supreme…

READ FULL ARTICLE
June 30, 2022

Vol 37. No. 9 SUPREME COURT EXPANDS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, STRIKING DOWN NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A CCW

In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court in, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al., v. Bruen,[1] determined that the State of New York’s requirement that applicants for concealed carry weapons permits must establish “proper cause” for issuance of the permit was unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because…

READ FULL ARTICLE
June 30, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 8 CALIFORNIA LAW BANNING SALES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO YOUNG ADULTS VIOLATED THE SECOND AMENDMENT

In Jones v. Bonta, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12657 (9th Cir. May 11, 2022), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the California law prohibiting the sale of semiautomatic rifles to young adults was unconstitutional.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the laws burdened the right to home self-defense and did not reasonably…

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 5, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 7 PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING THAT THE PROSECUTION ENDED WITHOUT A CONVICTION IS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE FAVORABLE TERMINATION ELEMENT OF A 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 FOURTH AMENDMENT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM

In Thompson v. Clark, 212 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence….

READ FULL ARTICLE
May 4, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 6 ARREST INFORMATION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE MANDATE IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING ARRESTS EXTENDED ONLY TO INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CONTEMPORANEOUS POLICE ACTIVITY

In Kinney v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 293 (5th Dist. Apr. 7, 2022), the Court of Appeal determined that arrestee name information was not subject to public disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f)(1), because the disclosure mandate regarding arrests extended only to information pertaining to contemporaneous police activity and the information sought, which…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 25, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 5 A JURY COULD INFER THAT A POLICE OFFICER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE NEGLIGENTLY LEFT HIS FIREARM IN HIS VEHICLE AFTER RETURNING HOME FROM WORK

In Perez v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 171 (1st Dist. Mar. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeal concluded that a jury could reasonably find a nexus between a police department’s enterprise of policing and the risk that one of its officers would negligently fail to secure a Department-approved firearm upon…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 16, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 4 PLAINTIFF POLICE CHIEF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CREATED A HYBRID EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF WHERE EMPLOYMENT AS CHIEF WAS AT WILL BUT EMPLOYMENT AS LIEUTENANT WAS NOT AT WILL

In Joseph v. City of Atwater, 74 Cal. App. 5th 974 (5th Dist. 2022), the Court of Appeal held that an employment agreement created a hybrid employment relationship between a city and a plaintiff employed as a chief of police.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that under the terms of the agreement, plaintiff’s…

READ FULL ARTICLE
March 16, 2022

Vol. 37 No. 3 DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PURPOSE-TO-HARM TEST BECAUSE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE TIME TO DELIBERATE BEFORE SHOOTING DECEDENT

In Ochoa v. City of Mesa,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that because officers who shot and killed a decedent did not have time to deliberate before firing, the District Court correctly applied the purpose-to-harm test to determine if the officers’ conduct shocked the conscience under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court of Appeals…

READ FULL ARTICLE