Ninth Circuit Partly Upholds Injunction Against SB 2's Ban on CCW Carry in Most Locations

    On September 6, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partly upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) with regards to its location specific bans on concealed carry in so-called "sensitive places" even for  permit holders. Wolford v. Lopez, No. 23-16164, 2024 WL 4097462 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2024).  

    In defiance of the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling, California enacted SB 2 which eliminated the good cause requirement to obtain a CCW permit, but also defined most of the state as a “sensitive place” where even permit holders could not carry. PORAC President Brain Marvel provided a declaration in support of the injunctive that was issued in May v. Bonta, and appealed by the State. The May appeal was consolidated with appeals from two other states also adjudicated in Wolford v. Lopez. 

    Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPPC) filed an amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the trial court's injunction. Click this link to read the amicus curiae brief filed by David E. Mastagni and Timothy K. Talbot.  

    In ruling on California's Bruen response Bills the decision was as follows:

Locations where concealed carry by permit holders is allowed:

• Hospitals and similar medical facilities
• Public transit
• Gatherings that require a permit
• Places of worship
• Financial institutions
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places.

Locations where concealed carry by permit holders is prohibited:

• Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
• Playgrounds
• Youth centers
• Parks
• Athletic areas and athletic facilities
• Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Casinos and similar gambling establishments
• Stadiums and arenas
• Public libraries
• Amusement parks, zoos, and museums
• Parking areas and similar areas connected to those places; and all parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.

    Importantly, the appellate court rejected the State’s asserted legal standard for applying Bruen. “For their part, Defendants suggest that, if a place shares some characteristic with one of the sensitive places identified by the Supreme Court, then that place, too, necessarily is a sensitive place—without much, or any, need to show relevant historical analogues. That view also is inconsistent with Bruen.” Instead, the court concluded:

    “[T]he proper approach for determining whether a place is sensitive is as follows. For places that have existed since the Founding, it suffices for Defendant to identify historical regulations similar in number and timeframe to the regulations that the Supreme Court cited as justification for designating other places as sensitive. For places that are newer, Defendant must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. For example, it makes little sense to ask whether the Founders regulated firearms at nuclear power plants.”

    Citing United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024), the court further explained that “for both types of places, historical regulations need not be a close match to the challenged law; they need only evince a principle underpinning our Nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms in places relevantly similar to those covered by the challenged law.”

    The decision is notable for upholding significant Second Amendment rights, which is a rare occurrence in the Ninth Circuit. However, the split opinion will likely leave all parties dissatisfied. If there is not an an banc review of this opinion, the matter will proceed to a hearing on the merits.     

PERB Denied the County of Sacramento's Request for an Injunction Against the Attorney Strike

On August 26, 2024, the members of the Sacramento County Attorneys’ Association (SCAA), representing prosecutors and public defenders began a strike.  The strike resulted from the County of Sacramento disregarding a Fact-Finding Panel recommended 5.5% wage adjustment to keep pace with neighboring jurisdictions. SCAA President Matt Chisolm noted "the workloads are too high, and the pay is too low." 

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho echoed those concerns stating, “I think it’s about time that the county’s CEO sit down and really try to resolve this issue because we have the best DA’s office, I think, in the entire country. But I’m having problems recruiting and retaining people because we need better fair wages and benefits for them.”

On September 4, 2024, victim advocates and public safety representatives publicly asked the Sacramento Board of Supervisors to end the strike by accepting the Panel’s wage recommendations. The District Attorney excoriated the County's negotiation tactics and offensive offers. Thien Ho further called on the County to submit an initiative to voters that would bar striking in exchange for enacting a binding arbitration procedure to resolve future contract impasses.

On Tuesday September 3rd, the County filed for an injunction with Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) falsely claiming the impasse was broken by its predictably unacceptable offer of a 3% salary increase offset by the elimination of the County’s 3% deferred compensation match (a financial wash) and SCAA waiving its right to strike. The County also asserted the strike imperiled public safety without evidence supporting its self-serving claim.

Today PERB issued an order denying the County’s Request. PERB’s general counsel noted the County failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for injunctive relief.  This ruling vindicates the rights of public employees to legitimately assert economic pressure through a strike when their employing agency drives the parties to impasse and/or commits unfair labor practices.

Attorney Kathleen Mastagni-Storm and Consultants Stephen Leonesio and Stacie Casabian of Mastagni Holstedt APC represented the SCAA in bargaining and fact-finding and Taylor Davies-Mahaffey joined in the opposition to the TRO. 

CAHP's Bargaining Team Secures Three Year Contract Worth Nearly $500 Million in Salary Increases and Enhanced Pay Incentives

We are pleased to announce that on August 15, 2024, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP) agreed upon a three (3) year contract extension (MOU) with the State of California worth approximately $489.1 million.  The labor contract provides the membership an immediate 4% salary increase (and additional annual adjustments based on a salary formula set forth in Govt. Code section 19827) and significant increases in specialty and assignment pays.

In early spring of 2024, the CAHP and the State of California began the collective bargaining process. Labor relations consultants Stephen Leonesio and Stacie Casabian, of Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., worked with the CAHP negotiations team through bargaining with the State. The CAHP negotiations team consisted of Jake Johnson, President of CAHP, Richard Fisher, CEO of CAHP, Omar Hernandez, Secretary Treasurer of CAHP, Axel Reyes, District Representative for CAHP, and Amber Karuzas staff of CAHP, sought out to reach an agreement that would safeguard the parity statute and retirement benefits, while providing enhanced benefits aimed towards boosting recruitment and retention. 

The parties faced a difficult round of negotiations due to the tough budget cycle for the State. It is no secret that while the State of California has been experiencing projected budget deficits, the State has been unable to maintain adequate staffing for the CHP with about one in six positions unfilled. Since January 2024, the State has projected a growing budget deficit and has been employing creative measures to balance the State’s budget. Despite the difficult financial circumstances, CAHP remained committed to addressing these staffing concerns by both maintaining current benefits, but also establishing new compensation terms that would promote recruitment and retention, support departmental growth, and enhance services to the community.

Formal table bargaining began late May 2024, and ended with a tentative agreement between the parties in early August 2024. Negotiations was an intense process, which incorporated a high-level of experience from both the CAHP and the State. With the leadership of President Jake Johnson and his team, as well as the experience of Mastagni consultants Leonesio and Casabian, the team connected its proposals to addressing actual member and CHP difficulties to bargain for incentives relevant to issues officers are experiencing while on patrol. The bargaining team prioritized securing pays and benefits that to remedy CHP's staffing crisis and vacancy rates.

Ultimately, the parties came to a lucrative agreement that protected the general wage increase provided by California Government Code § 19827. The parties engaged in extensive analysis and discussions over the interpretation of the Government Code, particularly focusing on the proper survey methodology for determining the average total compensation of the comparable agencies. This resulted in an agreement for a 4% general wage increase. 

Beyond the general wage increase, the CAHP successfully bargained to enhance specialty assignments and certifications that expand services to the community. The following is a snapshot of some of the increased special pay provisions:

• Bilingual Pay shall increase from $100 per month to $125 per month.
• Pay for canine handlers shall increase from $156.55 per month to 4 percent of base salary per month for the care and maintenance of their assigned canine.
• Field Training Officer Pay shall increase from 5 to 7 percent of base salary when assigned.
• Investigator Pay shall increase from $50 per month to $250 per month.
• Motorcycle Pay shall increase from 4 to 5 percent of base salary per month.
• Paramedic Pay shall increase from $50 per month to $200 per month.
• Officer in Charge Pay shall increase from 5 to 7 percent of base salary when assigned.

In addition, the agreement provides several new compensation terms and benefits to CAHP members. The new MOU will provide Senior Officer Pay in the amount of 10% of base salary at 27 years of service and 12% of base salary at 28 years of service. The goal of the additional percentage to Senior Officer Pay is to incentivize members who have long-term valuable institutional knowledge to stay with the Department beyond 28 years of service, as well as reward officers who have dedicated 27 or 28 years to the citizens of the State of California. 

The MOU will also provide a new provision for Detective Incentive Pay of $500 per month. This will enhance Detective services provided by the CHP by increasing officers' interest in becoming involved in detective work and promoting retention of valuable training and knowledge. The contract will provide an incentive for Resident Post Pay in the amount of $600 per month. This pay incentivizes officers to undertake the expenses and personal disruptions associated with moving to a new location in need of rural CHP law enforcement services. 

The last new economic benefit provided by the agreement is the Drug Recognition Evaluators (DRE) Incentive Pay. All officers who qualify for DRE will receive a one-time payment of $1500. The goal is to expand the DRE services throughout the CHP and provide enhanced services to protect the safety and security of citizens.

Finally, the new MOU provides a provision which may serve as a turning point for the health and longevity of CHP officers by reimbursing officers who choose to wear load bearing vests, once an appropriate load bearing vest is approved by the Department. “My favorite new provision of the contract is not even a big-ticket item.  It is the load bearing vest!" stated President Johnson.  He also noted that "[t]his is the best working condition improvement I have seen during my 23 years with the CHP.  This will be a huge cost savings to the state, as worker’s comp. claims for back and hips will no doubt see a decent size reduction”

Over the years, many law enforcement agencies throughout the state have moved towards the utilization of load bearing vest. Typical safety equipment officers carry to effectuate their duties weights around 30 pounds. Studies have shown carrying this weight on an officer’s belt can have extremely negative impacts on their lower-back and hips. This can drastically reduce an officer’s ability to withstand a long-term career as a uniformed officer.  The intention of the load bearing vest is to redistribute weight of the officer’s equipment from the belt to the load bearing vest to reduce the damage to the officer's lower-back and hips and promote a healthier long-term career. Securing the reimbursement for approved load bearing vests is a significant benefit to promote healthy long-term careers at CHP. 

The new agreement provides other non-monetary items intended to improve officers' working conditions. For example, schedules shall be posted sooner to enhance the work and home life balance. Several MOU sections were also revised to conform to new laws. 

President Johnson stated that "this contract is win-win for Californians and my membership. The increases provided by this agreement will assist the CHP in restoring adequate staffing to protect the public and provide our members increases necessary to  provide a middle class lifestyle for their families." 

Johnson thanked his bargaining team for their tireless efforts, as well as the representatives of the State and CHP for working collaboratively to reach an agreement. 

This agreement provides $83.4 million dollars of new money to officers in the first year, and nearly $500 million over the three (3) year budgetary cost.    

Representing approximately 15,000 current and retired California Highway Patrol sworn personnel, the CAHP has been the exclusive representative of active-duty officers for over 104 years. 

As general counsel, Mastagni Holstedt, APC was privileged to represent the CAHP during this successful round of labor negotiations. Our firm is proud to protect the first responders who protect all of us.