PENAL CODE SECTION 632.7 PROHIBITS ONLY THIRD-PARTY EAVESDROPPERS. NOT THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PHONE CALL THEMSELVES, FROM INTENTIONALLY RECORDING TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS
Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones & Mayer The California Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.,[1] that a plaintiff failed to state […]
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT A SECRET RECORDING OF A PHONE CONVERSATION WAS NOT BARRED BY A PRIVACY PROVISION BECAUSE THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN REPEALED BY THE “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE” PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION
Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones & Mayer In the case of People v. Guzman,[1] the Supreme Court of California found that a surreptitious recording was properly […]
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM APPROVES ASSEMBLY BILL 1600 AMENDING PITCHESS MOTION REQUIREMENTS
Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, Gregory P. Palmer and Veronica R. Donovan, Jones & Mayer On October 8, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill 1600 (“AB 1600”) to amend […]
PLAINTIFF’S STATE RETALIATION CLAIM NOT PRECLUDED BY STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S DECISION
Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones & Mayer The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Bahra v. Cnty. of San Bernardino[1] that a state administrative agency’s […]
NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING TESTIMONY CONCERNING MENTAL ILLNESS OF DECEDENT OF WHICH OFFICER WAS UNAWARE AT TIME OF INCIDENT
Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones & Mayer In the case entitled Crawford v. City of Bakersfield,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court’s […]
PEOPLE V. RAY’S FINDING OF COMMUNITY CARETAKING EXCEPTION IN ABSENCE OF EXIGENCY IS DISAPPROVED
Courtesy of James R. Touchstone, Esq. In People v. Ovieda,[1] the California Supreme Court held that the community caretaking exception does not apply in the absence of exigency. In reaching […]
