Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law to take effect Jan. 1 that makes California the first state to forbid using “excited delirium” as a diagnosis or cause of death. The legislation aims to remove the oft-used, but not medically recognized term from excusing use-of-force related deaths. Will it change anything?

A 2-1 decision from the Ninth Circuit rejecting qualified immunity for an officer who fatally shot a violently resisting man is reversed after a majority justice retires and is replaced with another judge. The case showcases the political nature of appointed justices.

CA Assembly Members introduce bills to eliminate geofence Search warrants, reverse keyword searches, and consent searches; significantly impacting tools the courts have ruled to be constitutional.

In California, the Legislature has imposed a number of impediments to private citizens purchasing new handguns.  At issue here are parts of California’s so-called Unsafe Handgun Act (“UHA”), which (among other things) seeks to prevent the accidental discharge of a firearm.

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In the unpublished Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) decision of People v. Rivera (Aug. 19, 2022) 2022 Cal.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In this unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Decision, the Court ruled that having a juror participate remotely did not constitute “structural error,” and that given his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.