786x496@100dpi - 6In December 2016, shortly after the November 8 presidential election, members of the California Legislature introduced for consideration a series of bills addressing immigration enforcement. Within the series, three bills would place limitations on a public agency’s ability to participate in federal immigration enforcement efforts and collect personal information regarding an individual’s religion, national origin

Police-Cars.jpgThis post was authored by Jennifer Rosner

In a recent decision by a California Court of Appeal, a Court held that it was not unreasonable for the City of Los Angeles to assign temporarily injured recruit officers to light-duty administrative assignments in light of the City’s past policy and practice of doing so.

Plaintiffs were

Fire JacketIn 2007, the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (FBOR) was enacted after several years of unsuccessful attempts to pass similar legislation. Although the FBOR is modeled after the longstanding Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) [Gov. Code, §§ 3300 et seq.], that statutory scheme, which was originally intended for peace officers,

SheriffIn Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. County of Stanislaus, decided August 11, 2016, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that custodial deputies may lawfully carry concealed firearms while off duty without obtaining a CCW permit, and invalidated the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s policy of requiring all such custodial deputies to obtain

Fire-Helmet.jpgRecently, the California Court of Appeal published its first case interpreting the unique provision of the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (FBOR) limiting the statute’s procedural employee protections “to the events and circumstance involving the performance of official duties.”  Although the clarification is welcome, it is limited.

In Seibert v. City of San Jose

Police-Car.jpgLaw enforcement agencies’ policies, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, uniformly require that force used by officers be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.  When considering disciplining an officer for violating a use of force policy, it is therefore critical to understand what the courts consider unreasonable.  This is a nuanced and fact-intensive analysis.  The

Breaking-News1.jpgThis post was authored by Laura Kalty and Danny Yoo.

The Court of Appeal issued its decision in Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre,[1] which provides public agencies with guidance on when to disclose the nature of an investigation prior to interrogating a peace officer pursuant to the Public Safety Officer Procedural

Police-Officer_Small.JPGOn August 12, 2015, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that police officers’ agreement to reimburse a city for training costs if they quit within five years was valid only to the extent the training related to Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) certification mandated by law. The Court held that employer-mandated

Breaking-News1.jpgOn October 13, 2015, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued a Published Opinion, No. 12-401, relevant to a law enforcement agency’s dual responsibilities to comply with Brady v. Maryland and California’s Pitchess statutes in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Superior Court (Johnson).  The Attorney General approved, over