police officer violation in California

2024In Schleig v. Borough of Nazareth (3d Cir. 2017) 695 Fed.Appx. 26, 27 (Schleig), an unpublished case, a police officer stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation against a fellow police officer who threatened him with “termination, physical violence, and even death, in retaliation for Schleig’s active involvement in a police union.” “Speech that is critical of unlawful labor practices qualifies as speech on matters of public concern” (ibid.), and “‘activities on behalf of a union faction that necessarily entail a substantial criticism of management raise matters of public concern’” (ibid.,

2014That statute provides: "Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Italics added.) In drafting this criminal provision, "the Legislature denoted two specific situations under which [Penal Code] section 148.9 was to apply: lawful detentio

2014That statute provides: "Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Italics added.) In drafting this criminal provision, "the Legislature denoted two specific situations under which [Penal Code] section 148.9 was to apply: lawful detentio

2014That statute provides: "Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Italics added.) In drafting this criminal provision, "the Legislature denoted two specific situations under which [Penal Code] section 148.9 was to apply: lawful detentio

2002Section 1983 *1413 creates a species of tort liability (Heck v. Humphrey, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 483 [ 114 S.Ct. at p. 2370 ]) and is described as “the federal counterpart of state battery or wrongful death actions. [Citation.]” (Edson v. City of Anaheim (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1274 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 ].) To make a prima facie case for either battery by a police officer or violation of section 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate the unreasonableness of the force used.

2002Section 1983 *1413 creates a species of tort liability (Heck v. Humphrey, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 483 [ 114 S.Ct. at p. 2370 ]) and is described as “the federal counterpart of state battery or wrongful death actions. [Citation.]” (Edson v. City of Anaheim (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1274 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 ].) To make a prima facie case for either battery by a police officer or violation of section 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate the unreasonableness of the force used.

2002Section 1983 *1413 creates a species of tort liability (Heck v. Humphrey, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 483 [ 114 S.Ct. at p. 2370 ]) and is described as “the federal counterpart of state battery or wrongful death actions. [Citation.]” (Edson v. City of Anaheim (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1274 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 ].) To make a prima facie case for either battery by a police officer or violation of section 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate the unreasonableness of the force used.

2002(Edson v. City of Anaheim, supra, at pp. 1272-1273.) “The federal practice [of requiring proof of unreasonableness in plaintiff’s affirmative case] is all the more significant because plaintiffs sometimes join federal and state claims against police defendants, either in federal or state court. [Citations.] To avoid jury confusion and to ease judicial administration, it makes sense to require plaintiff to prove unreasonable force on both claims.” (Id. at p. 1274; see also Saman v. Robbins (9th Cir. 1999) 173 F.3d 1150, 1156-1157 [section 1983 and state law battery claims require same evidentia

1990Defendant contends the search of the car for evidence of his identity could not be justified as incident to his arrest for giving false information to a police officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9 (hereafter section 148.9), because there was no probable cause to arrest him. 5 Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the officer “ ‘would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.’ ” (People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 389 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 536 , 540 P.2d 632 ]

1990Defendant contends the search of the car for evidence of his identity could not be justified as incident to his arrest for giving false information to a police officer in violation of Penal Code section 148.9 (hereafter section 148.9), because there was no probable cause to arrest him. 5 Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the officer “ ‘would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.’ ” (People v. Harris (1975) 15 Cal.3d 384, 389 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 536 , 540 P.2d 632 ]

1981(People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 713 , 450 P.2d 33 ]; People v. White, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 168 ; People v. Cuevas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 245, 251 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Soto (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 81, 85 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 627 ].) The specific instruction given by the court of which complaint is made states: “A peace officer is not permitted to use unreasonable or excessive force in making an otherwise lawful arrest or detention.

1981(People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 713 , 450 P.2d 33 ]; People v. White, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 168 ; People v. Cuevas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 245, 251 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Soto (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 81, 85 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 627 ].) The specific instruction given by the court of which complaint is made states: “A peace officer is not permitted to use unreasonable or excessive force in making an otherwise lawful arrest or detention.

1981(People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 713 , 450 P.2d 33 ]; People v. White, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 168 ; People v. Cuevas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 245, 251 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Soto (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 81, 85 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 627 ].) The specific instruction given by the court of which complaint is made states: “A peace officer is not permitted to use unreasonable or excessive force in making an otherwise lawful arrest or detention.

1981(People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 713 , 450 P.2d 33 ]; People v. White, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 168 ; People v. Cuevas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 245, 251 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 916 ]; People v. Soto (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 81, 85 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 627 ].) The specific instruction given by the court of which complaint is made states: “A peace officer is not permitted to use unreasonable or excessive force in making an otherwise lawful arrest or detention.