kc-law-group

Remote Work Laws in California: Your 2026 Quick Guide for Employers and Employees

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 18:00:48 GMT

California continues to lead the nation in workplace innovation, and 2026 brings significant changes to remote work regulations. These new laws affect both employers managing distributed teams and employees working from home across Southern California and beyond. Understanding these requirements ensures compliance and protects workplace rights in the evolving remote work landscape.

Key Legislative Changes Taking Effect in 2026

Assembly Bill 692: Stay-or-Pay Agreement Restrictions

Effective January 1, 2026, AB 692 significantly expands California's ban on restrictive employment agreements. This legislation prohibits most "stay-or-pay" contract provisions that require employees to reimburse various costs upon termination or resignation.

Prohibited Provisions:

Training cost reimbursement requirements
Signing bonus repayment based on early resignation
"Quit fees" or similar departure penalties
Relocation stipend repayment clauses

Limited Exceptions:

Legally required professional training and certification
Government-backed educational programs
State-approved apprenticeship programs
Training programs that meet specific statutory criteria

Employers who violate these provisions face significant consequences. Prohibited agreements become void, and employees may seek statutory damages plus attorney fees through civil action.

Senate Bill 294: Emergency Contact and Notification Requirements

SB 294 establishes new employer obligations regarding employee emergency contacts, with specific deadlines for implementation:

Existing employees must receive emergency contact designation opportunities by March 30, 2026
New employees receive this opportunity at time of hiring
Employers must provide standalone written notices by February 1, 2026
Annual notice distribution becomes mandatory thereafter

Assembly Bill 406: Expanded Leave Protections

Beginning January 1, 2026, AB 406 expands qualifying reasons for both paid and unpaid leave. Remote workers gain additional protections for crime-related absences, including attendance at judicial proceedings when employees or covered family members become crime victims.

Electronic Labor Law Posting Requirements

California Labor Code Section 8111 permits electronic distribution of required workplace postings, but implementation requires careful attention to specific conditions.

Acceptable Electronic Distribution Scenarios:

All employees work exclusively from remote locations
Electronic communication serves as the standard information sharing method
Employees maintain unobstructed access to electronic postings
Digital distribution supplements existing physical posting requirements

Implementation Requirements:

Create centralized, accessible employee portals
Ensure compliance with federal, state, and local posting obligations
Maintain both electronic and physical posting systems for hybrid workforces
Verify employee access capabilities across all remote locations

Location-Based Wage Compliance for Remote Workers

California's wage and hour regulations require payment of the highest applicable minimum wage based on actual work location, not employer headquarters location.

2026 Minimum Wage Rates

State minimum wage increases to $16.90 per hour effective January 1, 2026
Local ordinances in many jurisdictions establish higher rates
Employers must track and apply location-specific wage requirements
Non-exempt employees receive protection based on physical work location

Critical Compliance Considerations:

San Francisco minimum wage:
varies by employer size and year
Los Angeles minimum wage:
applies city-wide with annual increases
San Diego minimum wage:
affects employees working within city limits
County-specific rates apply in unincorporated areas

Implementation Strategies

Employers must develop systematic approaches to location-based wage compliance:

Implement employee location tracking systems
Require regular work location updates and attestations
Configure payroll systems for jurisdiction-specific calculations
Establish geolocation verification protocols where appropriate
Monitor local wage ordinance changes across employee work locations

Workplace Rights Notification Requirements

The Workplace Know Your Rights Act creates new standalone notification obligations beginning February 1, 2026. These requirements apply to all California employers regardless of workforce distribution.

Required Notice Components:

Workers' compensation rights and procedures
Immigration-related workplace protections
Labor organizing and collective bargaining rights
Law enforcement interaction guidelines

Distribution Requirements:

Standalone document format required
Annual distribution to all employees
New employee notification at time of hiring
Language accessibility compliance necessary
Electronic distribution permitted for fully remote teams

Pay Data Reporting Changes

Beginning in 2026, California intensifies enforcement of pay data reporting violations through mandatory penalties:

First violation:
$100 per employee penalty
Subsequent violations:
$200 per employee penalty
Penalties become automatic rather than discretionary
Enhanced documentation and record-keeping requirements

2027 Transition Preparation:

Classification system changes to 23-category SOC system
Current ten-category EEO-1 system phases out
Enhanced data collection and reporting requirements
Expanded demographic and compensation analysis obligations

Employer Compliance Strategies

Remote Workforce Management Systems

Successful compliance requires systematic approaches to remote workforce oversight:

Location Tracking Implementation :

Develop employee work location designation systems
Create regular location update processes and requirements
Implement verification protocols for wage calculation purposes
Establish documentation standards for audit protection

Payroll System Modifications:

Configure jurisdiction-specific wage calculations
Implement automated location-based rate adjustments
Create override capabilities for multi-location employees
Establish audit trails for compliance verification

Contract Review and Modification

AB 692 requires immediate review of existing employment agreements and contract templates:

Identify and remove prohibited stay-or-pay provisions
Modify standard contract language for 2026 compliance
Review existing employee agreements for retroactive application
Implement new contract approval processes

Employee Rights and Protections

Wage Protection Rights

Remote employees receive comprehensive wage protections based on actual work location:

Right to highest applicable minimum wage
Business expense reimbursement under Labor Code Section 2802
Overtime calculation based on location-specific rates
Protection against wage theft regardless of work location

Leave and Time Off Protections

Expanded leave protections under AB 406 provide additional security for remote workers:

Crime-related absence protections
Judicial proceeding attendance rights
Family member coverage extensions
Integration with existing CFRA and FMLA protections

Southern California Specific Considerations

Remote work compliance in Southern California requires attention to multiple overlapping jurisdictions and their varying requirements:

Los Angeles County Considerations:

Unincorporated area wage requirements
City-specific ordinances within county boundaries
Fair Chance ordinance compliance for remote hiring
Lactation accommodation requirements

Orange County Requirements:

Municipal wage variations across county cities
Fair scheduling ordinances in select jurisdictions
Sick leave accrual and usage requirements
Anti-retaliation protection enforcement

San Bernardino and Riverside County Issues:

Limited municipal wage ordinances
State-level compliance as primary focus
Rural area internet and technology considerations
Multi-state employee management complexities

Implementation Timeline and Deadlines

January 1, 2026:

AB 692 stay-or-pay restrictions take effect
Minimum wage increases to $16.90 per hour
AB 406 expanded leave protections begin
Pay data reporting penalty enforcement begins

February 1, 2026:

Workplace Know Your Rights Act notices required
Standalone written notice distribution begins
Annual notice distribution cycle establishes

March 30, 2026:

Existing employee emergency contact opportunity deadline
SB 294 compliance requirements fully effective

Professional Legal Assistance

The complexity of California's evolving remote work regulations requires careful attention to compliance details and implementation strategies. Employers and employees navigating these requirements benefit from professional legal guidance to ensure full compliance and protection of rights.

Remote work law compliance involves multiple overlapping jurisdictions, varying local requirements, and complex wage calculation obligations. Professional legal assistance helps identify specific obligations, develop implementation strategies, and maintain ongoing compliance with evolving regulations.

For comprehensive guidance on California remote work law compliance and implementation strategies, contact KC Law Group. Our employment law attorneys provide detailed analysis of employer obligations and employee rights under California's evolving remote work regulations.

Quick-Start Guide to Restraining Orders in Southern California

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 17:37:12 GMT

If you're dealing with harassment, threats, or abuse in Southern California, a restraining order might be the legal protection you need. These court orders can provide immediate safety by requiring someone to stop contacting you and stay away from your home, work, or other locations.

Understanding the process doesn't have to be overwhelming. This guide walks you through everything you need to know about restraining orders in Southern California, from filing to enforcement.

What Are Restraining Orders?

A restraining order is a legal document issued by a court that prohibits one person from contacting or coming near another person. In California, these orders carry serious legal weight: violating one can result in criminal charges, fines, and jail time.

Restraining orders serve multiple purposes. They can stop someone from contacting you directly or through others, require them to stay a certain distance away from you, and protect your family members, pets, or property. Some orders can even address issues like child custody or financial support temporarily.

Types of Restraining Orders Available

Southern California courts handle several types of protective orders, each designed for specific situations.

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders protect against abuse from someone you have or had an intimate relationship with: spouses, former spouses, dating partners, or someone you lived with. These are the most comprehensive orders and can include provisions for children, property, and financial support.

Civil Harassment Restraining Orders protect against harassment from people who don't qualify for domestic violence orders: neighbors, acquaintances, strangers, or more distant relatives. The harassment must be unlawful violence, credible threats of violence, or a pattern of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses you.

Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Orders protect people 65 or older, or adults between 18-64 with certain mental or physical disabilities, from abuse.

Workplace Violence Restraining Orders allow employers to protect their employees from violence or threats at work.

When You Might Need a Restraining Order

Consider seeking a restraining order if someone is threatening you, following or stalking you, sending unwanted gifts or messages, showing up uninvited at your home or work, or destroying your property. You might also need one if someone is harassing your family members or posting about you on social media in a threatening way. The key is that the behavior must be more than just annoying: it needs to be threatening, violent, or create genuine fear for your safety.

How to File for a Restraining Order

Choose the Right Court

You can file in any county where you live, where the other person lives, where the harassment occurred, or where you're temporarily staying. You don't need to be a California resident to file.

Complete the Paperwork

The specific forms depend on your situation. For civil harassment, you'll need form CH-100 (Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders) along with supporting documents. For domestic violence cases, you'll use the DV-100 series forms.

Be specific and detailed when describing incidents. Include dates, times, locations, and exactly what happened. Vague statements won't help your case.

File with the Court

Take your completed forms to the Superior Court clerk's office. There's usually no filing fee for domestic violence restraining orders, but civil harassment orders may require a fee (which can be waived if you can't afford it).

Request a Temporary Order

When you file, you can request immediate temporary protection. A judge will review your paperwork and decide whether to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that same day. This temporary order typically lasts until your hearing date, usually within 15-22 days.

What to Expect at the Hearing

Your court hearing is where a judge decides whether to issue a permanent restraining order (which typically lasts up to five years). Both you and the other person have the right to attend and present evidence.

Prepare Your Evidence

Gather any documentation that supports your case: text messages, emails, photos of damage or injuries, medical records, police reports, and witness statements. Organize everything chronologically and bring copies for the court and the other party.

Present Your Case Clearly

You'll have the opportunity to tell the judge why you need protection. Stick to facts, speak clearly, and focus on specific incidents that made you fear for your safety. Avoid emotional language and stick to what actually happened.

The Other Side's Response

The person you're seeking protection from can also present their side. They might deny your allegations or provide their version of events. The judge will consider all evidence before making a decision.

If Someone Files a Restraining Order Against You

Being served with a restraining order can be shocking and confusing. Here's what you need to do immediately.

Read Everything Carefully

The paperwork includes the temporary restraining order, the petitioner's allegations, notice of your hearing date, and response forms. Pay close attention to what you're prohibited from doing: even if you believe the allegations are false.

Follow the Temporary Order Completely

Violating a temporary restraining order, even unintentionally, can result in criminal charges. Stay away from the protected person and any locations listed in the order.

Prepare Your Response

You have the right to contest the restraining order. Use the response forms provided to tell your side of the story. Be honest, specific, and focus on facts that contradict the allegations.

Gather Your Evidence

Collect any documentation that supports your version of events: alibi evidence, communications that contradict the allegations, witness statements, or anything that shows the petitioner's motivations might be questionable.

Don't Miss Your Hearing

If you don't appear at the hearing, the judge will likely grant a permanent restraining order by default. Mark your calendar and plan to attend, even if you're representing yourself.

How Restraining Orders Are Enforced

Once a restraining order is in effect, law enforcement can arrest the restrained person for violating it. Violations are typically charged as misdemeanors, but can become felonies for repeat offenses.

Keep Documentation

Always carry a certified copy of your restraining order. If you need to call police for a violation, having the order readily available helps officers respond appropriately.

Report Violations Immediately

Call 911 if someone violates their restraining order. Even seemingly minor violations: like a single text message: should be reported. Document the violation with screenshots, photos, or other evidence.

Understand the Limitations

Restraining orders are powerful tools, but they're not foolproof. They work best when combined with safety planning and awareness of your surroundings.

Getting Professional Legal Help

While you can navigate the restraining order process on your own, having legal representation often improves your chances of success. An experienced attorney can help you complete paperwork correctly, gather compelling evidence, prepare for your hearing, and represent you in court.

If you're defending against a restraining order, legal help becomes even more critical. False allegations can have serious consequences for your reputation, employment, and future opportunities.

Important Deadlines and Timelines

Understanding the timeline helps you prepare effectively. After filing, temporary orders are typically decided the same day. Your hearing will be scheduled within 15-22 days of the temporary order. If you're responding to a restraining order, you should file your response at least five days before the hearing.

Permanent restraining orders typically last up to five years but can be renewed if necessary. Some orders may be shorter or longer depending on the circumstances.

Additional Resources and Support

California courts provide self-help centers in most counties to help with restraining order paperwork and procedures. Many offer assistance in multiple languages and have extended hours for domestic violence cases.

Local domestic violence organizations also provide support, safety planning, and sometimes legal assistance. These resources can be invaluable whether you're seeking protection or dealing with false allegations.

The process of obtaining or defending against a restraining order involves complex legal procedures and strict deadlines. Having knowledgeable legal guidance can make the difference between success and disappointment in court.

At KC Law Group, we understand how stressful these situations can be. Our experienced attorneys help Southern California residents navigate restraining order proceedings with confidence and clarity. Whether you need protection or are defending against allegations, we provide the guidance you need to protect your rights and safety.

Don't face this alone: contact KC Law Group today to discuss your situation and explore your legal options.

AB 692: What California's Training Repayment Ban Means for Employers and Employees in 2026

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 16:41:43 GMT

California Assembly Bill 692 represents a significant shift in employment law that will reshape how employers structure training agreements and retention programs. Effective January 1, 2026, this legislation bans most "stay-or-pay" contracts that require employees to repay training costs, relocation expenses, or hiring-related fees if they leave their jobs early.

The new law closes a longstanding loophole that employers used to restrict worker mobility through financial penalties, essentially creating backdoor non-compete arrangements in a state that has prohibited such restrictions since 1872.

Understanding the Core Prohibition

AB 692 establishes a clear rule: employers cannot require workers to repay employment-related expenses based on their decision to separate from employment. This prohibition applies broadly to various financial arrangements that previously trapped workers in positions through economic coercion.

Prohibited Repayment Requirements

The law specifically bans employer demands for repayment of:

Training expenses and educational costs
Relocation costs and moving allowances
Hiring-related fees and onboarding expenses
Recruitment costs and background check fees
Equipment purchases made for employee use

These restrictions apply regardless of whether the employee voluntarily resigns, is terminated with cause, or is laid off. The law treats any such repayment provisions as void and unenforceable, regardless of whether the employee initially agreed to the terms.

Scope of Coverage

AB 692 applies to all employment relationships, including:

Full-time and part-time employees
Prospective employees during the hiring process
Freelance workers and independent contractors
Participants in skills training programs

The law covers all employment contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, while existing pre-2026 agreements remain subject to previous legal standards.

Limited Statutory Exceptions

California legislators recognized certain legitimate business arrangements and carved out three narrow exceptions where repayment obligations remain permissible.

Government-Sponsored Programs

Employers may still enforce repayment agreements connected to federal, state, or local government programs, including:

Loan forgiveness programs administered by government agencies
Tuition repayment assistance programs with government funding
Training agreements tied to federal or state grant conditions
Public sector apprenticeship programs with government oversight

Transferable Educational Credentials

The law allows tuition repayment agreements for transferable credentials such as degrees or professional certifications, but only when employers meet strict requirements:

The repayment agreement must be separate from the employment contract
The credential cannot be a condition of employment
Repayment amounts must be specified in advance and cannot exceed actual employer costs
Repayment must be prorated based on service period without interest or acceleration
No repayment is required if the employee is terminated without misconduct
Employees must receive notice of their right to consult an attorney and at least five business days to do so
Retention periods cannot exceed two years

State-Approved Apprenticeship Programs

Legitimate apprenticeship programs that meet specific state approval criteria may continue to include repayment provisions as part of their structured training arrangements.

Impact on Employers

AB 692 creates significant compliance obligations and potential liability for employers who fail to adapt their practices to the new legal requirements.

Legal and Financial Risks

Employers face substantial consequences for violations:

A ny contract containing prohibited repayment provisions becomes void and unenforceable
Workers can file individual or representative civil actions against employers
Successful plaintiffs may recover damages, attorney fees, and additional penalties
Continued use of prohibited clauses exposes employers to ongoing litigation risk

Required Contract Modifications

Employers must immediately review and revise multiple categories of agreements:

Employment contracts and offer letters
Training reimbursement policies and agreements
Relocation assistance programs
Sign-on bonus structures and retention incentives
Recruiting materials and job postings

Permissible Alternative Structures

While AB 692 eliminates most repayment obligations, employers retain several options for incentivizing retention:

Retention bonuses tied to future service periods
Sign-on bonuses with carefully structured clawback provisions
Performance-based incentive programs
Equity compensation with vesting schedules

These alternatives require careful legal review to ensure they do not inadvertently violate the new restrictions.

Impact on Employees

AB 692 substantially enhances worker mobility and financial security by removing common barriers to job changes.

Enhanced Job Mobility

Employees gain significant new protections:

Freedom from financial penalties for changing jobs
Elimination of economic coercion that trapped workers in unsuitable positions
Increased leverage in salary negotiations and workplace disputes
Protection from employer retaliation through financial mechanisms

Legal Remedies and Enforcement

Workers who encounter violations have multiple avenues for legal recourse:

Right to file individual lawsuits against employers
Ability to participate in class action or representative litigation
Recovery of actual damages caused by prohibited provisions
Entitlement to attorney fees and court costs for successful claims

Considerations for Existing Agreements

Employees with pre-2026 contracts should understand that:

Existing agreements remain enforceable under prior law
Contract renewals or modifications may trigger AB 692 requirements
Employees should document any changes to existing agreement terms
Legal consultation may be beneficial for workers with complex retention arrangements

Compliance Strategies for Employers

Successful compliance with AB 692 requires proactive planning and comprehensive policy review before the January 1, 2026 effective date.

Immediate Action Items

Employers should prioritize the following steps:

Conduct comprehensive audits of all employment-related contracts and policies
Identify and eliminate prohibited repayment provisions from standard agreements
Review recruiting materials and job postings for compliance issues
Train human resources and legal teams on new requirements
Develop alternative retention strategies that comply with the law

Restructuring Permissible Arrangements

For employers who wish to maintain financial incentives for retention:

Ensure tuition repayment agreements meet all statutory exception requirements
Structure sign-on bonuses as separate agreements with clear voluntary resignation documentation requirements
Implement retention bonuses tied to future service rather than repayment of past costs
Create performance incentive programs that reward continued employment without penalizing departures

Documentation and Record-Keeping

Proper documentation becomes critical for employers using permissible retention mechanisms:

Maintain clear records of employee voluntary resignations
Document misconduct-based terminations that may trigger legitimate clawback provisions
Preserve evidence that retention agreements were entered into separately from employment contracts
Keep detailed records of actual costs for any permissible tuition repayment arrangements

Preparing for Implementation

As the January 1, 2026 effective date approaches, both employers and employees should take steps to understand and prepare for the changes AB 692 will bring to California employment relationships.

Employers need immediate legal review of their current practices to avoid the significant financial and legal risks associated with non-compliance. The law's broad prohibition and strict liability framework make early preparation essential for avoiding costly litigation.

Employees should familiarize themselves with their new rights and consider how the enhanced job mobility protections may affect their career planning and workplace negotiations.

For businesses and workers throughout Southern California, AB 692 represents a fundamental shift toward greater employment flexibility and worker protection. Understanding these changes and their practical implications will be essential for navigating the new legal landscape effectively.

KC Law Group assists employers and employees with employment law compliance and workplace legal issues throughout Southern California. For guidance on AB 692 implementation, contract review, or employment law matters, contact KC Law Group for experienced legal counsel tailored to your specific situation.

Officer Reinstated After Civil Service Commission Overturns Termination

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 19:46:31 GMT

Five-member Alhambra Civil Service Commission ruled termination was excessive.

In a critical decision reaffirming principles of due process and proportional discipline, the five-member Alhambra Civil Service Commission ruled termination was excessive for Police K-9 Officer Sergio Llamas following a multi-day evidentiary hearing. Officer Llamas had been terminated by the Alhambra Police Department in December 2024. While the Commission upheld one allegation related to his failure to obtain a work permit for outside employment, it determined all other allegations and the ultimate penalty — termination — were excessive and not supported by the evidence.

Officer Llamas, an eight-year veteran with no prior disciplinary history, had been charged with dishonesty on a promotional application, failure to obtain a work permit for outside employment related to partial ownership in a family-owned transport (towing) company and improperly using his position during a family-related law enforcement encounter. After four days of evidentiary hearings, the Commission rejected all of the most serious allegations (often 5–0 or 4–1), concluding that neither the dishonesty charges nor the claim of using his position to influence had been proven, even by the low burden of a preponderance of the evidence.

Officer Llamas was represented in the proceedings by attorney Kasey Castillo of KC Law Group. Castillo argued that the City failed to meet its burden of proof, particularly in light of the seriousness of the dishonesty charge. “These types of allegations carry lasting professional consequences,” Castillo noted, “and require more than speculation or subjective interpretation — they require actual evidence of intent, which was not present here.” She emphasized that mere allegations or speculative beliefs are simply not enough to support such serious disciplinary action.

Under oath, the City called the chief of police, the assistant chief of police and the human resources director. Besides himself, the Appellant called to testify a police sergeant, a detective from a neighboring agency and internal affairs investigations expert, Marlon Marrache. Additionally, Officer Llamas submitted seven sworn declarations of co-workers and acquaintances attesting to his character and reputation for honesty and truthfulness — qualities that had been put at issue by the Department.

A central issue in the case was Officer Llamas’s promotional application for the rank of corporal, which referenced prior work experience related to his long-standing family business. The Commission found that while some information on the application was confusing, it found no evidence of intent to deceive. Officer Llamas testified consistently and credibly about his business involvement and portion of ownership, which actually pre-dated his hiring by the police department, and which was part of both his employment application and his previous corporal application (and never previously at issue). Further, his ownership in the business was widely known by all police employees, including the chief and assistant chief.

Crucially, expert witness Marrache — a former California State Dominguez Hills lieutenant and retired LAPD sergeant, now internal affairs investigator, law enforcement instructor and host of The IA Guy: A Police Podcast — testified that dishonesty allegations in police disciplinary cases should be considered seriously enough by the finders of fact to almost require a standard of proof resembling clear and convincing evidence due to their potential to end careers. “If you’re going to call someone a liar,” Marrache testified, “you’d better have a substantial amount of evidence to prove it so.” Marrache concluded that the evidence against Officer Llamas fell short of even a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission overwhelmingly agreed, often voting 5–0 in favor of Officer Llamas on the allegations amounting to dishonesty.

As for the outside employment allegation, the Commission acknowledged that a form had not been filed, but testimony from multiple department officials — including the City’s own human resources director — revealed that there was no clear policy or training regarding disclosure of passive business ownership. Even the assistant chief admitted that Officer Llamas' ownership interest had been widely known for years since his hiring and was never flagged as an issue. The chief testified that the ownership interest itself was not problematic.

Officer Llamas testified on his own behalf. He expressed his understanding of the work permit requirement for outside employment (versus self-employment) and his regret for any confusion despite almost a decade of ownership of the business. He committed to making sure all paperwork would be completed appropriately going forward.

As to the imposition of penalty, attorney Castillo emphasized the lack of notice of a potential policy violation for the work permit, and that the absence of any prior misconduct, coupled with the officer’s long record of exemplary service, should have triggered not only the benefit of the doubt, but progressive discipline — not termination. The Commission agreed.

Following his reinstatement, Officer Llamas was returned to his position on the Department’s SWAT team; however, he was not reunited with his K-9 partner. Although K-9 assignments had historically lasted for the working life of the dog, Officer Llamas had only had the dog for about two years before being placed on administrative leave. The Department asserted that he had not submitted a request to extend the assignment — despite the fact that he was terminated at the time — and reassigned the dog during his absence. After his reinstatement, Officer Llamas formally requested an extension of his K-9 assignment, but the request was denied. He was informed by both the chief and assistant chief that, contrary to past practice, the Department was no longer granting extensions beyond the initial three-year term due to internal movement and staffing considerations. Whether this new limitation will be applied consistently to other K-9 handlers remains to be seen.

This outcome highlights the importance of ensuring that disciplinary actions are progressive, rooted in fair notice, supported by credible evidence and applied consistently with department policy. It also shows that despite being vindicated, an officer may never truly be made “whole.”

Officer Llamas remains committed to continuing his law enforcement career, with his name and professional reputation now restored. He wishes to publicly thank the Alhambra Police Officers’ Association (APOA) for its steadfast support throughout this process, to the many department members who attended the hearing on day one to show their solidarity, and the PORAC Legal Defense Fund for its vigorous representation, including procuring the testimony of expert Marrache on his behalf.

A tip to the readers: check to see if your department requires an outside work permit for even passive ownership in any business, LLC, or if you get rental income, day trade stocks, etc. You never know when it could be considered “outside employment,” necessitating written permission from the chief of police.

About the Authors

Kasey A. Castillo, Esq. is the principal attorney of KC Law Group, where she handles first-responder criminal and administrative defense, general counsel matters and police foundation/non-profit compliance. Kevin L. Warner is a third-year law student at Purdue Global Law School and serves as a law clerk at KC Law Group. His dedication to trial preparation and contributions to the written closing argument played a key role in the successful outcome of this case.

Court Weighs in on Police Union's Claims

Sat, 31 May 2025 00:58:15 GMT

Confidential Record Disclosure — Mixed Result in Santa Ana Officers' Lawsuit

Case: Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three
Date: February 28, 2025
Citation: 109 Cal.App.5th 296

In a notable decision, the California Court of Appeal delivered a split ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA) and unnamed officers (the "Doe Officers") against the City of Santa Ana, following the alleged unlawful release of confidential police personnel records to a media outlet.

The case arose after the Voice of OC, a local news organization, obtained information from the City about officers placed on paid administrative leave between 2016 and 2021. SAPOA alleged that the release included private personnel data in violation of California laws governing police record confidentiality. The City later asked the outlet to return the documents, but no further action was taken.

SAPOA brought four claims: (1) unlawful disclosure of personnel records; (2) negligence; (3) failure to investigate a citizen complaint about the disclosure; and (4) failure to provide information in violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), California’s public sector labor law.

The appellate court issued a mixed ruling:

Doe Officers Dismissed : The court ruled the anonymous officers could not proceed pseudonymously without statutory authority or court approval. Their claims were dismissed outright for violating procedural rules.

No Private Right of Action for Disclosure : The court reaffirmed that state confidentiality statutes (Penal Code § 832.7 and Evidence Code §§ 1043–1045) do not create a private right to sue for damages or injunctive relief based on past disclosures. As such, SAPOA’s first and second causes of action were dismissed.

Failure to Investigate Claim Revived : The court revived SAPOA’s third cause of action, holding that under Penal Code §§ 832.5 and 832.7(f), the City had a ministerial duty to investigate complaints and inform complainants of the results. Relying on Galzinski v. Somers (2016), the court ruled that SAPOA adequately stated a claim for mandamus relief.

MMBA Claim Fails for Lack of Exhaustion : The court affirmed dismissal of SAPOA’s MMBA claim, noting that as a union—not individual peace officers—it was required to first seek relief through the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), which it had not done.

Bottom Line: The decision underscores both the procedural hurdles for anonymous litigants and the limited remedies available under California’s police record confidentiality laws. However, it affirms that police unions can seek court intervention when cities fail to investigate complaints as required by statute.

John Hagan is a Certified Law Clerk at KC Law Group, assigned to the administrative and criminal defense practice groups. He is a third-year law student at Trinity Law School in Orange County, California.

$872K Settlement Reached

Tue, 15 Apr 2025 20:34:20 GMT

KC Law Group Negotiates Client Focused Agreement

Attorney Kasey A. Castillo, Principal Attorney at KC Law Group, successfully negotiated a favorable settlement agreement for client, Travis Martinez.

New Season New Clients

Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:48:47 GMT

KC Law Group Is Proud To Represent CSLEA And LASPA

KC Law Group is honored to represent law enforcement professionals and members of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Professional Association (LASPA).

With a comprehensive practice dedicated to California's public safety and public employees, KC Law Group provides unmatched legal representation in a wide range of matters. Our services include handling internal affairs investigations and disciplinary proceedings, as well as defending clients against both on-duty and off-duty criminal charges in state and federal courts.

Additionally, the firm proudly represents members of the Peace Officers Research Association of California Legal Defense Fund (PORAC LDF) and the California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO).

New Year New Laws

Thu, 26 Dec 2024 04:49:04 GMT

Laws Effective January 1, 2025

Firearm Related Laws

AB 547 - records of sale

Mandates that the register or record of sale include an acknowledgment by the purchaser or transferee that they have, within the last 30 days, confirmed possession of every firearm that they own or possess.

ab 1483 - firearms purchase

Eliminates an existing private party transaction exemption from the prohibition on more than one firearm purchase within a 30-day period.
Adds an exemption for any private party transaction where the seller is, at the time of the transaction, required under state law or by court order to relinquish all firearms, and for any private party transaction where the seller is transferring the firearms as a result of the death of the owner of the firearm.

ab 2917 - gun violence restraining orders

Expands current GVRO law.
Threats directed towards a group or location will be permissible in court when deciding whether to issue a restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition.

Vehicle Related Laws

SB 905 - LOCKED DOOR LOOPHOLE

Eliminates the "locked door loophole," which required prosecutors prove car doors were locked when a burglary took place.
Additionally, the bill allows for the prosecution of suspects who resell valuables taken during car break-ins. Anyone holding more than $950 worth of property stolen from a car, whether that person took it themselves, was holding it or selling it, can be prosecuted.

SB 1107 - Insurance coverage

Increases the amount of liability insurance coverage an owner or operator of a motor vehicle is required to maintain.
Beginning Jan. 1, the payout limits increase to: $30,000 for bodily injury or death of one person, $60,000 for bodily injury or death of all persons, and $15,000 for damage to the property of others as a result of any one accident.

AB 413 - parking

Makes it illegal to park within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, even if the approach does not have any red curbs painted.
This law was passed to improve safety at intersections, especially for pedestrians, and it applies to all crosswalks, whether the crossing is painted or not.

Demotion Overturned at Arbitration

Thu, 03 Oct 2024 01:58:10 GMT

By KC Law Group | October 2, 2024 | Posted in PORAC LDF News

Allegations and Demotion Overturned by Neutral Arbitrator

KASEY A. CASTILLO, ESQ.
Principal Attorney
KC Law Group

The importance of de novo review cannot be overstated. De novo review occurs when a neutral party conducts a hearing as though there had been no previous ruling or findings. An independent decision-maker must make factual findings subject to judicial review. “[T]he independent fact finding implicit in the concept of an administrative appeal requires at a minimum that the hearing be treated as a de novo proceeding at which no facts are taken as established and the proponent of any given fact bears the burden of establishing it” (Caloca v. County of San Diego, [2002] 102 Cal.App.4th 433). It is for this reason the decision of the chief of police doesn’t just stand; the department has to prove both the allegations and that the penalty imposed is not excessive.

In this case, the appellant had been a lieutenant for approximately four years and was an almost 24-year employee of his Inland Empire police department, with no prior discipline whatsoever. The event that led to the allegations and disciplinary action took place immediately upon the appellant’s assignment to the Investigations Division in July of 2021, and during an approximate two-month period from July of 2021 through September of 2021.

The Culture in the Department Related to Photos/Memes

As far back as everyone could remember, the Investigations Trailer, and occasionally the main police department building, had silly photos, jokes or memes posted of employees of the police department. It was a part of the culture of the police department, especially in the Investigations Trailer. These displays were designed to lighten the often-serious nature of the work facing the police officer co-workers and were posted without any ill will.

This practice of posting photos had gone on in the police department for decades , and under the supervision of multiple managers, including an assistant chief and the then-chief of police. Memes and other superimposed photos were in the cubicles and were done for humorous purposes. The photos with the altered pictures predated July of 2021, when the appellant himself was assigned to the Investigations Trailer as a detective, then later as a sergeant and then when he returned as a lieutenant. The silly photos had also been posted in the main stations of the police department, specifically in the patrol report writing room off and on, on the briefing board, on the report writing board, etc.

In 2021, after the retirement of a lieutenant was announced, the police department solicited interest memos from sergeants for the acting lieutenant spot. It would be the first time an acting lieutenant spot lasted more than three months. Whomever was chosen would be taking on the full-time responsibilities of a lieutenant, rather than just acting as a short-term stand-in.

One sergeant decided to apply for the acting lieutenant spot and, according to witnesses, boasted to his detective subordinates in a meeting that he was a shoo-in, bragging to everyone that he would beat out the competition. He did not, however, get the spot; another sergeant did. As a result, and in good humor, his subordinate detectives superimposed lieutenant bars on the photo of the selected sergeant and posted the photo throughout the Investigations Trailer, including in the other sergeant’s office. The intent of the photo was a little humble pie to the bragging sergeant. When the photos were put up, the appellant was not at work.

None of the detectives or sergeants or civilian staff in the Investigations Trailer reported the photograph. Only one other lieutenant saw the photos of superimposed lieutenant bars on the sergeant posted in and around the main area of the trailer. At some point, and after the photos had been removed from the main area in the Investigations Trailer, the appellant first saw a handful of the photos in the sergeant’s office and understood their purpose was razzing the sergeant who didn’t get the position. He did not believe, in any way, that it was done to make fun of the sergeant who was hired for the acting lieutenant position. The appellant did not request that the sergeant take them down, but the photos were all subsequently removed.

The Allegations Against the Appellant

Although he did not edit the photo, post the photo or even work when the photos were posted, the appellant was charged with allegations amounting to failure to supervise and discriminatory harassment. Ultimately, after an evidentiary hearing that lasted over three days, during which multiple witnesses were called by each side, the allegations were overturned by the neutral arbitrator. The arbitrator reviewed the evidence de novo, treating no facts as established and holding the department to their burden of proof.

Additionally, witnesses were able to give the arbitrator important feedback on the type of supervisor the appellant was, his work ethic, his passion for the position and his overall character. Four years of great evaluations as a lieutenant corroborated their testimony. Although the appellant, who was a supervisor, didn’t demand the photos immediately be taken down, the arbitrator saw that as an isolated decision on the part of the appellant for the purpose of a penalty recommendation. The appellant, a friend of the selected sergeant, owned his actions and never wanted to hurt any feelings. Ultimately, the arbitrator recommended the appellant be returned to his lieutenant position and be made whole.

What Happened Next

The disciplinary decision from the arbitrator was advisory to the city manager. Before it went to that next step, the appellant and the City settled the matter, resulting in an acceptable outcome to both sides. It took a while, but the appellant is proudly now back as a lieutenant.

Two big takeaways from this case: Hold the department to their burden of proof, and remind the arbitrator that the standard is not deference to the chief’s decision, but de novo review. Secondly, the accused officer should assist as their own investigating officer! The appellant was a great help in obtaining documents, comparison photos and evaluations that were used in his defense. No one knows their case better than the person who lived it.

About the Author

Kasey A. Castillo, Esq., is the principal attorney of KC Law Group, where she handles first responder criminal and administrative defense, general counsel matters and police foundation/nonprofit compliance.

Use of Force Goes to Jury Trial

Fri, 06 Sep 2024 02:08:17 GMT

By KC Law Group | September 5, 2024 | Posted in PORAC LDF News

Use of Force Captured on Video Surveillance Goes to Jury Trial

KASEY A. CASTILLO, ESQ.
Principal Attorney
KC Law Group

It took almost three years to get to trial. Negotiations toward dismissal included PORAC LDF flying out our use-of-force/video forensics/human factors expert from Northern California to assist us in a video presentation to the assigned DDA, her supervisor and an investigator. We laid it all out on the table why the prosecution was unsupported and without legal sufficiency. In the end, they demanded a felony, no jail. And so, we went to jury trial. That decision paid off.

After a monthlong trial, the jury hung first 6–6, then 7–5 for not guilty, then 7–5 for guilty. After a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice was made, the court made a very clear record:

“I think that subsequent trials are going to result in the same decision: It’s going to be a hung jury. And I went into this case thinking it might be a hung jury, and the reason for that is because of that first text message that was sent to all law enforcement officers about the — if it was [the suspect] — having been strapped. I think with that information, 12 jurors would have a very difficult time, under a reasonable, objective officer standard, in not believing that Mr. Smith’s actions were appropriate. And I just believe that there is legally insufficient evidence to support a conviction in the future based on that issue. And so, especially in consideration that when Mr. Smith did his actions, he immediately was asking, ‘Where’s the gun? Where’s the gun? Where’s the gun?’ which, obviously, confirms his state of mind that he felt [the suspect] had a gun at the time.”

The Case: People v. Corie Smith

In June of 2021, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Corie Smith was assigned to the Victorville Station. He was working routine patrol on the graveyard shift when his patrol sergeant conveyed information from the regional gang sergeant to his team that a subject with specific clothing was at the gas station and believed to be “strapped.” ( “Strapped” is a term commonly used to mean carrying a firearm. ) The gang task force sergeant confirmed that the subject was associated with the local motorcycle club that was having a party that evening. It turned out the subject was also wearing a Prospect vest.

Another deputy located the subject and attempted a traffic stop after he left the gas station on his motorcycle. The suspect failed to yield, leading deputies on a high-speed pursuit, sometimes driving on the shoulder, going into opposing lanes of traffic where he almost collided with other motorists. The deputies lost sight of the subject, even with CHP and additional resources, including the Sheriff’s helicopter, responding.

The suspect crashed his bike and ditched it, foot bailing to a nearby Toyota dealership. You may have seen the surveillance footage, which was leaked to TMZ.

The now-wanted felon hopped the fence and ditched his sweatshirt and helmet to change his appearance as he hid among the cars, trying to conceal himself. He didn’t ditch the 4XL Prospect vest, however. Instead, he folded that up and concealed it under his shirt and in his waistband.

Alerted by the live feed being monitored by the dealership’s security company, Deputy Smith and his fellow officers made their way to the dealership in search of the suspect. Deputy Smith made it over the fence first and believed the other officers were right behind him.

Deputy Smith located the suspect — now wanted for the reckless vehicle pursuit and possible firearm — first. He approached the suspect, firearm drawn, and gave several commands, including identifying himself as the Sheriff’s Department, for the suspect to show his hands, and for the suspect to get on the ground. As he gave the commands, Deputy Smith noticed what he believed to be a “bulge” in the suspect’s waistband. Based on his training, experience, information related to motorcycle prospects and the credible information given to him by the gang sergeant, Deputy Smith reasonably believed the suspect was armed with a firearm that was appendix-carried.

The suspect put his hands in the air and appeared as if he was going to comply … until he didn’t. He went into a prone position, bringing his right hand toward his waistband and the location of the bulge. Deputy Smith lost sight of the suspect’s right hand.

Relying on the information that the motorcycle prospect was believed to be armed, then seeing the movement he recognized to be toward the waistband — where he saw the bulge — while losing sight of the suspect’s hand, Deputy Smith had no choice but to act and make a split-second judgment call. In lieu of shooting the subject he believed was going for a firearm, Deputy Smith reacted quickly and opted for a lower level of force. He kicked the subject once in the left shoulder, kicking out how the suspect was propped up, effectively flattening the suspect against the ground and pinning the believed firearm underneath him. This action was successful in knocking the suspect flatter and bringing his right hand out in front and within view. The surveillance video conclusively showed Deputy Smith’s first kick did not kick the suspect in the head, as alleged by the prosecution.

The kicking action was effective for the right hand, but the left arm was still out of sight near the waistband. A second sweeping kick in quick succession solved that problem and both arms were now visible. No further force was used by Deputy Smith. As he went hands-on to handcuff the subject, Deputy Smith immediately yelled, multiple times, “Where’s the gun, where’s the gun?!”

The suspect was then carefully searched. The bulge Deputy Smith saw in the suspect’s waistband turned out to be the precious Prospect cut, folded into quarters and stuffed into his waistband. A search of the dealership located the suspect’s hidden helmet. Deputy Smith and his co-workers continued to scour the pursuit route and the dealership for the missing firearm. Deputy Smith even went back the next day and had the truck near where the suspect was hiding lifted so he could search underneath.

While the building surveillance video showed clearly that the first kick did not hit the subject’s head, and the second sweeping kick was inconclusive, any contact to the head would have been unintentional. The suspect said he was kicked in the head, although he did not suffer any injuries consistent with being kicked hard in the head or face, on the side where Deputy Smith made any contact. At the scene, to medics from American Medical Response, then to the doctor and nurse at the hospital, and then again to the jail nurse, the suspect declined all medical attention and denied any injuries.

In June of 2021, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department did not have body-worn cameras. The only footage of the event came from the surveillance cameras mounted on top of the nearby building, and the video camera angles were all ones that were dramatically different than the perspective of Deputy Smith. The Sheriff’s Department did not conduct any investigation into the pursuit or the resulting motorcycle crash to rule out injuries therefrom. No photos, no diagrams, nothing. The motorcycle itself was immediately released to the suspect after his arrest.

Deputy Smith provided a full and cooperative voluntary statement to Sheriff’s Homicide investigators. In October of 2021, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office filed one count of Penal Code Section 149.

At trial, the prosecution called the alleged victim (who, at that time, even three years later, had to be given immunity for his still-pending pursuit felony) and the investigating officer. The defense team of attorneys Kasey Castillo and Michael Selyem called almost all the other deputies present. The deputies testified about the dangerous high-speed pursuit, the foot bail of the suspect, and the credible information related to the armed description of the suspect.

The defense, in its case-in-chief, called expert witness Jeffrey Martin. Mr. Martin testified to the video exhibits he prepared, his review of the scene, human factors, forensic video analysis and police use of force. The prosecution, in its rebuttal case, then called Mr. Martin’s former co-worker, Edward Flosi, who was neither a video forensics expert nor a human factors expert. The two went back and forth regarding the reasonableness of Deputy Smith’s actions, albeit the prosecution’s expert also agreed, “If the jury believes that Smith reasonably perceived that [the suspect] was armed and trying to access a gun based on the totality of facts and circumstances at the time of each kick, both kicks would be consistent with current law enforcement training based on the standard of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.”

Ultimately, after the monthlong trial, the jury hung, and the case was dismissed in the interest of justice. The prosecution repeatedly pointed out that, in hindsight, the suspect was not found to be armed at the time, despite the well-settled law regarding not utilizing the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. As a result of this, some of the jurors had an issue with the mistake of fact regarding the suspect’s possession of the firearm.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office has confirmed they will not be refiling the case. The next step for Deputy Smith is an administrative appeal on his disciplinary action. Of note, over the course of this long, arduous pre-trial and trial litigation period, the defense requested approval of multiple items: an investigator to take photos in evidence, two use-of-force consultations, a trial expert, transcripts and the prosecution expert’s prior testimony analysis … and PORAC LDF approved it all to benefit the deputy in his time of need.

The war is not necessarily over, but a battle over this video surveillance case was won.

About the Author

Kasey A. Castillo, Esq. is the principal attorney of KC Law Group, where she handles first-responder criminal and administrative defense, general counsel matters, police foundation/nonprofit compliance, SB 2 decertification proceedings and training for law enforcement.

Judge Dismisses Assault Under the Color of Authority Charge Against San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Accused of Kicking Suspect

Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:47:44 GMT

RANCHO CUCAMONGA - After a month-long trial, the criminal case for felony assault by a public officer against San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Corie Smith was dismissed in the interest of justice by Judge Ingrid Uhler on June 7, 2024. The jury hung after days of deliberation, failing to reach a verdict related to the arrest of a fleeing suspect.

The defense team of Kasey A. Castillo of KC Law Group and Michael S. Selyem of Visco & Selyem worked tirelessly to present the strongest case to the jurors regarding intricacies of police use of force. Aiding counsel in that endeavor was Jeffrey Martin, Esq. of DSI Consulting, LLC, an expert in human factors/forensic video analysis/police use of force.

On July 24, 2024, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office confirmed it has declined to re-file and retry the case, and for good reason. The court opined the case, which involved video surveillance of the arrest, would end in the same result no matter how many times it was tried.

###

Kasey A. Castillo, Esq. is the Principal Attorney of KC Law Group where she handles first-responder criminal and administrative defense, general counsel matters and police foundation/non-profit compliance.

Introducing Our New Website!

Tue, 02 Jul 2024 22:03:52 GMT

Discover Our Enhanced Services and Commitment to Excellence

Welcome to the new online home of KC Law Group! We are thrilled to unveil our refreshed website designed to better serve you. Our mission has always been to provide exceptional legal counsel to our clients across Southern California, and now we have a digital platform that reflects our commitment to excellence, accessibility, and personalized service.

Who We Are and What We Offer

At KC Law Group, based in beautiful Canyon Lake, CA, we specialize in Administrative and Employment Law, Criminal Defense, Restraining Orders, CCW Denial Appeals, and Non-Profit Organization Formation and Compliance. Our experienced team is dedicated to protecting your rights and navigating the complexities of the legal landscape with you. We also offer legal document preparation, notary services, and private investigation. We serve clients throughout Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Orange County, Los Angeles County, Kern County, San Luis Obispo County, and San Diego County. No matter where you are, our remote consultation services ensure you have access to top-notch legal support when you need it most.

Administrative and Employment Law

Facing workplace challenges? Our team offers comprehensive legal support to both employers and employees. We handle employment-related disciplinary matters, appeals, writs of mandate, and workplace investigations. We advocate for employees to ensure fair treatment and justice.

Criminal Defense

When you're facing criminal charges, having a skilled attorney on your side is crucial. We provide vigorous representation to protect your rights and strive for the best possible outcomes. Our team navigates the intricacies of the criminal justice system with expertise and compassion, ensuring you are informed and supported throughout the process.

Restraining Orders

Whether you need protection or are defending against a restraining order, we are here to help. Our attorneys offer expert guidance and representation in matters involving restraining orders, ensuring your safety and legal rights are prioritized.

Non-Profit Organization Formation and Compliance

Starting a non-profit organization? We assist with the formation and compliance processes, providing the legal framework to help your organization thrive. From drafting bylaws to ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations, our team supports your mission every step of the way.

Our Commitment to You

At KC Law Group, we understand that legal issues can be overwhelming. That’s why we prioritize a warm, conversational approach to make you feel comfortable and informed. Our new website is an extension of this commitment, offering easy navigation, detailed information about our services, and convenient ways to contact us.

Get in Touch

Explore our new website to learn more about our services, meet our team, and find resources to assist you with your legal needs. If you have any questions or require legal assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out. We offer both in-person and remote consultations to accommodate your schedule and preferences.

Thank you for visiting KC Law Group. We look forward to serving you with the same dedication and excellence that our clients have come to expect. Contact us today and let us help you navigate your legal challenges with expertise and compassion.