News & Information

Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 30, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 8 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY APPLIED TO OFFICERS’ WARRANTLESS IN-HOME ARREST WHERE OFFICERS WERE RESPONDING TO A POTENTIAL KIDNAPPING

In Hill v. City of Fountain Valley,[1] the Ninth Circuit concluded that although officers likely did not have probable cause to arrest a plaintiff for obstruction, qualified immunity shielded the officers from liability because there was no clearly established law at the time forbidding their actions, given the plaintiff’s evasive behavior that appeared to interfere…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 29, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 7 SUPREME COURT LIMITS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 821.6 IMMUNITY FOR INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

On June 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued a published opinion in Leon v. County of Riverside, Supreme Court Case No. S269672, which greatly limits Government Code section 821.6 immunity for the instituting of prosecuting a judicial proceeding.  This case will have an important impact on the liability exposure concerning law enforcement officers or…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement June 9, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 6 LETHAL FORCE USED BY OFFICERS AGAINST PERSON ARMED WITH REPLICA GUN WAS JUSTIFIED WHERE THEY REASONABLY BELIEVED THE GUN WAS REAL AND PRESENTED AN IMMEDIATE THREAT WHEN POINTED AT THEM

In Estate of Strickland v. Nevada Cnty.,[1] the Ninth Circuit concluded that it was objectively reasonable for officers to believe a black toy airsoft replica rifle pointed in their direction by a person known to have mental health issues presented an immediate threat justifying the use of deadly force. Background In December 2019, Gabriel Strickland…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement May 30, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 5 WHERE STATE ACTORS LEFT TEN-MONTH-OLD TWINS IN A MORE DANGEROUS SITUATION THAN THE ONE IN WHICH THEY FOUND THEM, THE STATE-CREATED DANGER EXCEPTION APPLIED

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs adequately stated their 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims against a police sergeant under the state-created danger exception.  In Murguia v. Langdon,[1] the majority found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a police sergeant knew that a mother’s mental health crisis posed a serious…

READ FULL ARTICLE
News May 8, 2023

Jones Mayer Successfully Defends City of Whittier in Trip and Fall Case

FULLERTON, CA—Jones Mayer is pleased to announce the successful defense of the City of Whittier in a trip-and-fall personal injury case brought in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case, Sanchez v. City of Whittier, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV35671, was brought by a plaintiff who claimed she was injured after stepping into…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement March 6, 2023

Vol. 38 No. 4 PLAINTIFF’S EXCESSIVE FORCE AND FALSE ARREST CLAIMS WERE NOT BARRED BY THE HECK DOCTRINE BECAUSE HIS NO CONTEST PLEA WAS NOT ENTERED AS AN ACTUAL CONVICTION

In Duarte v. City of Stockton,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that that Heck v. Humphrey bar did not apply when criminal charges were dismissed after entry of a plea that was held in abeyance pending the defendant’s compliance with certain conditions. Background In May 2015, Francisco Duarte was in a public area…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 24, 2023

Client Alert Vol 38 No 3 A TRIAL COURT MAY CONSIDER HEARSAY EVIDENCE WHEN RULING ON A GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER PETITION

In San Diego Police Dept. v. Geoffrey S.,[1] the Fourth District held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a hearing on a gun violence restraining order (“GVRO”) under Penal Code section 18175.  The Court applied its analysis from a previous case[2] in which the Fourth District had held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a…

READ FULL ARTICLE
Client Alerts — Law Enforcement January 23, 2023

Client Alert Vol 38 No 2 DEFENDANT WAS NOT DETAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD VIEW THE DEPUTY’S USE OF A SPOTLIGHT LACKING IN COERCIVE FORCE

The California Supreme Court, in People v. Tacardon,[1] concluded that shining a spotlight for illumination does not ipso facto constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment.  The Court explained that the proper inquiry instead requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the use of a spotlight. Background Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb was on…

READ FULL ARTICLE