From today's opinion in the Court of Appeal:
"The order also implicitly acknowledges Riley’s future plans to become a lawyer in
the context of considering the potential burden a renewed restraining order would have
on him. Because he had already been dismissed from the California Highway Patrol for
dishonesty, the court found it would be difficult to discern any negative consequences
from the renewal. When considered in context and in light of Riley’s testimony that he
was attending law school and that a renewed restraining order might affect his ability to gain admittance to the state bar, the court’s statement shows it did consider Riley’s law
school attendance in its decision but did not find the evidence compelling."
As a law student, Mr. Riley might have wanted to think twice before filing a (losing) appeal that might subsequently be published -- as today it was -- and thereby reveal to the world the various facts contained in this domestic violence restraining order appeal.
