Federal Judge Rules California's 10-Day Waiting Period for Gun Purchases Unconstitutional in Certain Cases

Today, a federal judge ruled California's 10-day waiting period is unconstitutional for gun owners who have already passed a background check and have a permit or certificate of eligibility to own a gun. This ruling applies to purchasers who own a gun and have already passed a background check, purchasers with concealed-carry permits, and purchasers who have a state certificate of eligibility to own a gun. First-time gun purchasers are still subject to the 10-day waiting period. Judge Anthony W. Ishii stated: "the Court emphasizes that it is expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of the 10-day waiting period in general or as applied to first time California firearms purchasers." The court ruled the waiting period burdens the right to keep and bear arms, and the reasons for the waiting period did not justify the burden in certain circumstances. Judge Ishii stayed his ruling for 180 days to allow California to change its laws. This case marks a significant victory for Second Amendment rights.

Judge Ishii's full opinion can be found here.

Court Rules No Qualified Immunity for Officer Accused of Deleting Video

On August 5, 2014, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in Crago v. Leonard that an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in a First Amendment lawsuit. The plaintiff, a probationer, alleged the officer violated her First Amendment rights when he did not allow her to record a search.

The circumstances in this case began when an officer received information that the plaintiff stole metal and a vehicle battery. The officer knew the plaintiff was on searchable probation and went to her house. He found her digging through her purse in the garage. He searched her purse and found a pipe and methamphetamine. The plaintiff alleged the officer seized her laptop computer after she told him she was recording the search. She further alleged the officer deleted the recording and said recording was not allowed.

Qualified immunity applies unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. The "First Amendment right to film matters of public interest" encompasses an individual's right to record police officers in the course of their duties. Other courts have held police officers may refuse recording if it interferes with the performance of those duties. However, no evidence was presented to the court to show the recording in this case interfered with the officers duties. As such, the court found the officer failed to establish his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Judge: Unconstitutional for Detroit to Go After Pensions in Bankruptcy

On Friday, a Michigan trial court judge ruled it violates Michigan's state constitution for Detroit to go after vested pension rights in bankruptcy.  The ruling follows Detroit's rush to bankruptcy court which may affect up to 21,000 retirees.  The Court ruled Detroit violated state law because the state constitution prohibits the government from doing anything to impair pensions.

Article IX, section 24 of the state constitution of Michigan reads, "The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby."  The judge explained "The Governor is prohibited... from authorizing an emergency a manager ... to proceed under Chapter 9 in a manner which threatens to diminish or impair accrued pension benefits."  Accordingly, the judge ordered Detroit's emergency manager to withdraw Detroit's bankruptcy petition.  Read the Court's ruling here.

Some advocates for bankruptcy in Detroit claimed the City must go after pensions to declare bankruptcy and address other forms of long-term debt.  However, in a related case, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California ruled the City of Stockton does not have to go after pensions to be eligible for bankruptcy.

Court: Pitchess Not Required for Peace Officer Personnel Records in Federal Court Case

In Pierce v. County of Sierra (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2013, 2:11-CV-2280 GEB AC) 2013 WL 2421710, a Northern California federal court ruled plaintiffs do not have to use the Pitchess process to get a peace officer's personnel records related in a federal lawsuit.  The case started when a deputy sheriff allegedly hit a motorcyclist with his patrol car.  The plaintiff sued the deputy and the county for negligence.

Then, the plaintiff sent a discovery request for parts of the deputy's personnel file to find paperwork related to the deputy's initial hire, find out about drug and alcohol testing, and the IA investigation related to the crash.  The County objected that the records were confidential peace officer personnel records under California Penal Code section 832.7.  The Pitchess process that limits disclosure of peace officer personnel records is the product of statute in California.  In many states, officers do not have these protections and their personnel records are more easily obtainable.

The Court decided the California Pitchess process did not apply in the federal action because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supersede the Pitchess process.  Instead, the Court examined whether there was good cause to turn over the documents.  The Court decided there was good cause because the records could shed light on whether the deputy was at fault and whether the County was negligent.  Accordingly, the Court ordered the County to release the records, but ordered the parties to work out a protective order to limit the exposure of the deputy's records.