Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In 2017 the Police Protective League (“PPL”)—an employee organization that represents peace officers employed by the City—filed an action against the City and its Chief of Police (collectively “the City”), seeking a declaration section 148.6, subdivision (a)(2), was “legally valid [and] enforceable.” PPL also sought an order enjoining the City from accepting an allegation of misconduct against” peace officers represented by the Police Protective League “without the complainant being required to read and sign” the required advisory.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of The Los Angeles Police Protective League. The court held that it must follow Stanistreet because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled section 148.6 or an analogous statute is unconstitutional. The court reasoned that Section 148.6 is not an impermissible content-or viewpoint-based speech restriction. Further, the City’s constitutional challenge is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Stanistreet. The Supreme Court in Stanistreet did not reject the exact argument the City now makes for why section 148.6 is an impermissible content- and viewpoint-based speech restriction. But the California Supreme Court’s analysis of why the three R.A.V. exceptions apply to section 148.6 applies to the City’s arguments. Additionally, the court held that the advisory and signature requirements of Section 148.6 do not chill protected speech and the City forfeited its argument that Section 148.6 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting anonymous complaints. View "L.A. Police Protective League v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner Ruben Elias was awaiting trial on charges arising from several alleged incidents of domestic violence that occurred in March and April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In early March 2020, the Governor of California declared a state of emergency in California, and the President declared a national emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on health recommendations, the Chief Justice of the State of California issued statewide emergency orders suspending in-person jury trials and, among other things, extending statutory deadlines for trials in criminal proceedings. The Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court issued a general order in April 2020 closing courtrooms and extending the time period provided in Penal Code section 1382 for holding criminal trials. Elias was arraigned on May 13, 2020 and the court held him to answer the charges against him on May 27, 2020. He was arraigned on the information in June 2020, and on an amended information in August 2020. His trial was initially set in October 2020, but it was continued several times until June 2021 based on the COVID-19 general orders and instances when Elias was in medical isolation. After the trial court granted two additional trial continuances on June 24 and July 6, 2021, and denied his motion to dismiss on August 9, 2021, Elias filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus contending the court violated his right to a speedy trial pursuant to section 1382 and the federal Constitution. "Given the unique and unprecedented circumstances caused by the global public health emergency, courts must exercise their inherent power to manage and prioritize their cases to work through the backlog. The record before us shows the court did just that." Construing the petition as a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition requesting dismissal of the case for violation of Elias’ speedy trial right, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to grant the continuances or in denying Elias’s motion to dismiss. It, therefore, denied his petition for relief. View "Elias v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Respondent Michael Watkins, Jr., and a codefendant were charged with second degree robbery and two counts of identity theft based on purchases they allegedly made at a Best Buy store in Los Angeles County. At Watkins’s preliminary hearing, the State presented evidence that the victims’ wallets had been stolen from parked cars in Orange County, and that later that day, two men had used the victims’ credit cards at a Best Buy in West Covina to purchase laptop computers; a detective had identified Watkins as one of those men based on a still shot taken from Best Buy’s surveillance video. A magistrate refused to hold Watkins to answer, finding there was insufficient evidence to establish that Watkins had taken the wallets from the vehicles or committed any other relevant act in Orange County that would support venue in Orange County Superior Court. The State moved to reinstate the complaint, asserting the magistrate had erroneously dismissed the complaint as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion, and the State appealed that ruling. After review, the Court of Appeal affirmed: the State presented no evidence that Watkins was in any way involved in taking the wallets from the vehicles; venue in Orange County was therefore inappropriate. View "California v. Watkins" on Justia Law

This putative class action against California and San Diego County officials challenged California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency orders and related public health directives restricting business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs, owners of affected restaurants and gyms (Owners), primarily contended the orders were procedurally invalid because they were adopted without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Furthermore, Owners contended that the business restrictions were substantively invalid because they effected a taking without compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rejecting these claims, the superior court sustained demurrers to the third amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action. While the Court of Appeal sympathized with the position some Owners find themselves in and the significant financial losses they alleged, the unambiguous terms of the Emergency Services Act and controlling United States Supreme Court regulatory takings caselaw required that the judgment be affirmed. View "640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom" on Justia Law

In 2011, defendant Jeremy Nance was found not guilty by reason of insanity of sexual battery and committed to Atascadero State Hospital. Defendant’s term of commitment has been extended several times under Penal Code section 1026.5. He appealed the trial court’s denial of his application for outpatient treatment pursuant to section 1026.2. After hearing defendant’s evidence, the trial court granted the State's motion for a “directed verdict,” finding defendant “could be a danger to the health and safety of others due to a mental defect, disease, or disorder if under supervision and treatment in the community.” On appeal to the Court of Appeal, defendant contended the court erred by weighing the evidence on a motion for directed verdict. Because the trial court was the fact finder, and therefore entitled to weigh the evidence, the appellate court affirmed the denial of defendant’s application. View "California v. Nance" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Rodrigo Fuentes, Jr. was convicted by jury of two crimes: (1) fleeing a police officer while driving with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (wanton disregard while fleeing); and (2) resisting a police officer. He raised an issue of first impression by contending that the latter crime was a lesser included offense of the former. The Court of Appeal held that resisting a police officer was not a lesser included offense of wanton disregard while fleeing. The Court rejected his other contentions (except for a custody calculation issue the parties agreed on) and affirmed. View "California v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Defendant Kejhonne Henderson shot and killed J.P. at a house party in the North Highlands neighborhood of Sacramento. Defendant wounded another. A jury found defendant guilty of one count of second degree murder, and one count of attempted murder, and found true enhancement allegations that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death as to each count. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate determinate term of seven years plus an aggregate indeterminate prison term of 65 years to life. Defendant appealed. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded that a trial court may not excuse for cause African-American prospective jurors solely because of their belief that the criminal justice system treats African-Americans unfairly, but rejected defendant’s assertion that the two African-American prospective jurors here were excused for that reason. “They were excused because the trial court concluded that, based on the voir dire evidence, they could not be impartial because of their bias and sympathy for defendant.” In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court rejected defendant’s other claims of error except to a firearm enhancement: the conviction was affirmed but the matter remanded for the trial court to consider to exercise its discretion to strike the enhancement and impose instead something lesser. View "California v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Defendant Fernando Lopez was convicted by jury of premeditated attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In challenging his convictions, Lopez raises two related contentions: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial; and (2) the court’s decision to admit what Lopez referred to as “gang evidence” was an abuse of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 because, he claimed, the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. After full briefing on appeal was completed in this matter, Lopez sought leave to file two supplemental briefs in which he contended his sentence should have been vacated and the case remanded for resentencing in light of recent ameliorative changes to two different sentencing schemes applicable to his case. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded neither of Lopez’s arguments appealing his convictions had merit. However, the Court agreed that he was entitled to resentencing given the recent changes in the law, which the parties agreed applied retroactively to nonfinal cases. View "California v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Forester pled guilty to one count felony stalking, and was found guilty of five counts of disobeying a domestic violence restraining order. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Forester on felony probation for a period of three years. Forester appealed the judgment, contending Penal Code section 1203.1 (a) precluded the court from imposing a probation term in excess of two years. The Court of Appeal determined that because Forester was found guilty of stalking a victim of domestic violence, the two-year felony probation limitation in section 1203.1(a) did not apply. View "California v. Forester" on Justia Law

Defendant was a known gang member. While police officers were surveying Defendant's home, they observed what they believed to be a narcotics transition as Defendant handed an unknown package to the occupants of a vehicle. The officers stopped the vehicle containing the alleged buyers, recovering cash, narcotics, and illegal firearms. Officers then obtained a warrant to search Defendant's home. Police recovered a cell phone containing videos of Defendant ordering the assaults of minors so they could be "jumped" into his gang. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress and Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and two counts of solicitation or recruitment of another person to participate in a criminal gang.The Second Appellate affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, finding that the warrant relied upon to search Defendant's home established probable cause. The warrant affidavit supports the officers' belief that they had witnessed a narcotics or illegal weapons transaction. The visit was three to five minutes long and was consistent with a pick-up or drop-off. Additionally, the location was a known gang hangout.The court also rejected Defendant's claim that the warrant affidavit was stale because it omitted the dates of Defendant's prior convictions. The dates of Defendant's convictions were immaterial based on the other evidence of Defendant's gang membership. View "P. v. Delgado" on Justia Law