News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement 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
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
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement 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
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement 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
News June 7, 2022

Jeremy Warren joins team as an Associate Attorney

Jones Mayer is excited to announce that Jeremy Warren has joined our team as an Associate Attorney, focusing on civil rights litigation, police representation, torts, and personal injury claims.  Mr. Warren is a former Deputy District Attorney and has experience prosecuting severe and violent felonies, gang cases, and juvenile court cases. He received his law…

READ FULL ARTICLE
News June 3, 2022

Congratulations, Onerous California Bar Exam

Jones Mayer is proud to announce that attorneys Lauren L’Ecuyer and Marcellus Mosley have recently passed the California bar exam. Ms. L’Ecuyer, a University of Arizona College of Law graduate, is a labor and employment, litigation, and municipal law expert. Before joining Jones Mayer, Ms. L’Ecuyer worked in plaintiff and defendant litigation. Mr. Mosley, current…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement 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
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement 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