In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court summarized the “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment: “that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” But what if the idea is being pushed by an all-knowing algorithm . . . and the
The height of the COVID-19 pandemic may be behind us, but the many shifts it prompted in workplace dynamics could be here to stay. One such trend is in the spotlight due to a recent New York Times investigative report: an increasing number of employers are utilizing digital monitoring software that can provide a
California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) (also referred to as the “Anti-Hacking Statute”) prohibits access to computers, computer systems, and networks without permission in order to do harm or engage in unauthorized use. (See California Penal Code § 502). Violation of the CDAFA may range from a misdemeanor to a felony offense, and
Believe it or not, it’s been approximately 6 months since Governor Newsom announced California’s stay-at-home order. Since then, many government agencies, courts, and schools have switched to using videoconferencing platforms such as Zoom or Google Meet to help their offices stay connected during the pandemic. While these virtual meeting platforms have played a vital role
This blog was authored by Megan Lewis.
Earlier this month, in Perez v. City of Roseville, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that terminating a police officer for engaging in an off-duty, extramarital affair with a co-worker could violate the officer’s right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution.
Background Facts
Perez, a probationary police
On October 18, 2017, the California Supreme Court denied review of Santa Ana Police Officers Association, et al. v. City of Santa Ana et al., a decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal involving information (sometimes referred to as “discovery”) that must be provided to a law enforcement officer in connection with a disciplinary
This post was authored by Alison R. Kalinski
The California Supreme Court today reversed the Court of Appeal in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith), and held that communications by a city employee concerning public business on a personal account, such as email, phone or computer, may be subject to disclosure under
This post was authored by Gage C. Dungy and James Van
Overview
On January 1, 2016, Senate Bill 178 (“SB 178”) – the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act – became law and is codified under Penal Code section 1546, et. seq. This new law generally limits a government entity from being able to search or
Public officials may sometimes use personal devices such as smartphones and personal e-mail or other accounts to communicate concerning their agency’s business. Are these e-mails, texts, or other communications “public records” that must be disclosed in response to a demand under the California Public Records Act? The California Supreme Court will soon decide.
The Court
This blog post was authored by Heather Coffman
The California Court of Appeal recently issued a decision that may give some relief to public agencies responding to requests under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”). The Court found that the PRA does not require public agencies to produce communications sent or received by public officials