Gov’t. Code § 3304(d)(1) of the Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act provides for a one-year statute of limitation, measured from the date of the alleged violation without taking into consideration any other over-lapping violations.

Law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene when witnessing another officer’s use of excessive force. Failing to do so exposes the witness officer to potential civil, criminal, and departmental sanctions. Multiple published cases affirm this and California’s law is clear.

In the unpublished Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) decision of People v. Rivera (Aug. 19, 2022) 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5130—a double homicide case—the Court rejected the defendant gangster Miguel Rivera’s objections to the admissibility of some incriminating statements he made during what the Court referred to as a “Perkins operation.”  (A “Perkins operation” [citing Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292.], is where an undercover operative is put into a defendant’s jail cell [pre-filing of a complaint] for the purpose of encouraging the defendant to make incriminating statements.

In this unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Decision, the Court ruled that having a juror participate remotely did not constitute “structural error,” and that given his knowing and intelligent waiver, he has no right to complain on appeal. Good rule for judges and trial attorneys to know.

A prosecutor’s failure to use the pronoun with which a defendant chooses to identify (i.e., “misgendering”) constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. First District Court of Appeal Court issued a stern warning to all prosecutors as well as trial court judges. Specifically, the Court “emphasize(d) that (they) do not condone the prosecutor’s repeated misgendering of the Defendant in this case. Moreover, (the Court) note(d) (that) trial courts have an obligation to ensure litigants and attorneys are treated with respect, courtesy, and dignity—including the use of preferred pronouns

Except for Vehicle Code violations, citizen contact quotas are not illegal in California even though probably not a good idea. I’ve recently heard rumors concerning various California law enforcement agencies imposing upon their patrol and traffic officers a requirement that they conduct a minimum number per shift of what might best be termed as “contacts” (or “citizen contacts”) with individuals on the street.

 By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret). 

It’s not much of a secret that the City of San Francisco has over the years developed some serious social issues, what with open drug dealing and general homeles

The “Stalking Horse” Theory for Parole and Probation Fourth Waiver Searches. 

Defamation Civil Suits Brought by Law Enforcement Officers