It's been 30 years since significant changes in drinking and driving laws have changed the way American's approach their alcohol and driving habits. The standard rule put into affect by most states is that driving with a blood alcohol content of more than .08 percent could result in a conviction. Since this limit became standard in the 1980s and 90s, countries throughout Europe experimented with even lower limits to see the effect they had on drinking and driving accidents. What they found may not be good news for drivers who think they can push themselves up to the legal limit.
The NTSB, or National Transportation Safety Board, released a series of recommendations that included a lowering of the legal BAC level to .05 for all states. This would match the .05 level used in more than 100 other countries who report seeing drastic declines in drinking and driving accidents. While the United States also saw major declines in incidents involving alcohol after the .08 level was put into place, highway safety proponents say that is not enough.
It's hard to tell at this point if the new BAC recommendations will have a chance at passing in most states. The original levels were met with strong resistance from state legislatures and much of the public, so new lower standards may take along time to implement or may not even pass in the near future. It's also not clear what affect this will have on enforcement. The lower limit may motivate local police department to conduct more stops and set up more sobriety checkpoints around San Diego County. As people get used to the new limits, it may result in the need for more DUI lawyers.
May 19, 2013
May 9, 2013
Inequality in the Federal Courts
Federal budget sequestration is proving to affect even the basic pillars of justice in our criminal courts. The Federal Defenders of San Diego, a government funded non-profit that provides criminal defense for the accused who can’t afford an attorney, is being forced to make it’s 59 employees take furlough days until additional funding is provided. Public defenders offices all across the nation are also suffering through similar cutbacks in order to stay within their new budgets. At the same time, Attorney General Eric Holder stated in April that U.S. Attorneys wouldn’t have to take any furlough days as a result of the sequestration. What does this mean for defendants in the federal court system that can’t afford an attorney?
Civil rights organizations have complained that sequestration furloughs for public defenders that don’t affect prosecutors creates an unequal balance. The Supreme Court decided that defendants have the right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (here’s a great article about the case in The Atlantic), but if funds for this right are reduced, how can indigent defendants hope to get adequate representation. While the justice department is able to shift funds around to keep prosecutors and federal investigators working at full capacity, defenders have had to cut back on interviewing witnesses, investigating crime scenes and doing proper legal research.
As Dennis Courtland Hayes of the American Judicature Society succinctly points out, even self-represented defendants are being affected by the sequester:
Harms done by the sequester go beyond public defenders offices. Reduced budgets for clerks and other court personnel greatly affect the speed and efficiency at which the system is able to process cases. This goes right to the heart of American’s right to a speedy and fair trial. In non-criminal cases, Americans will have a harder time getting through civil suits or filing for bankruptcy. Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to have their voices heard at sentencing hearings. Overall, the justice system is going to have a much harder time upholding its constitutional requirements.
Civil rights organizations have complained that sequestration furloughs for public defenders that don’t affect prosecutors creates an unequal balance. The Supreme Court decided that defendants have the right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (here’s a great article about the case in The Atlantic), but if funds for this right are reduced, how can indigent defendants hope to get adequate representation. While the justice department is able to shift funds around to keep prosecutors and federal investigators working at full capacity, defenders have had to cut back on interviewing witnesses, investigating crime scenes and doing proper legal research.
As Dennis Courtland Hayes of the American Judicature Society succinctly points out, even self-represented defendants are being affected by the sequester:
Nationally, up to 2,000 more court staff could be laid off or furloughed under sequestration. This would come on top of the more than 1,800 positions eliminated by the courts over the past 18 months, representing a potential 18% reduction in court staff since July 2011... Of particular concern to the American Judicature Society, which has worked for decades to improve access to the courts for self-represented litigants, those people seeking justice without a lawyer would have fewer services to help them navigate the judicial system.
Harms done by the sequester go beyond public defenders offices. Reduced budgets for clerks and other court personnel greatly affect the speed and efficiency at which the system is able to process cases. This goes right to the heart of American’s right to a speedy and fair trial. In non-criminal cases, Americans will have a harder time getting through civil suits or filing for bankruptcy. Spanish-speaking families won’t be able to have their voices heard at sentencing hearings. Overall, the justice system is going to have a much harder time upholding its constitutional requirements.
February 28, 2013
Actually Funny Lawyer Jokes
As a lawyer in San Diego for many years now, I've heard my fair share of lawyer jokes, both good and bad. The most common joke, and the one I'm sure you've heard before, is "What do you call 100 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?" It's about the worst lawyer joke in the world. It's lazy, cold and uninspired. Sadly, it represents that vast majority of lawyer jokes in the world. They aren't even really jokes, they're unfiltered lawyer-hate. There are, however, tons of great lawyer jokes that provide insight into my profession. Here are my top lawyer jokes in no particular order:
This final one comes from an actual trial. The transcript was originally published in the book Disorder in the American Courts.
"A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."
~ Robert Frost (Not really a joke, but good nonetheless)
A doctor and a lawyer in two cars collided on a country road. The lawyer, seeing that the doctor was a little shaken up, helped him from the car and offered him a drink from his hip flask.The doctor accepted and handed the flask back to the lawyer, who closed it and put it away.
"Aren't you going to have a drink yourself?" asked the doctor.
"Sure; after the police leave," replied the lawyer.
This final one comes from an actual trial. The transcript was originally published in the book Disorder in the American Courts.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check
for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive,
nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and
practicing law.
February 25, 2013
Changes in Three-Strikes Law Brings Hearings to San Diego Courts
In a previous post, I discussed the history of three-strikes laws in California and the criticism of its effects on sentencing, but I didn't go into significant detail about how the law has slowly changed over the past 20 years. In 2000, Proposition 36 gave an avenue for drug offenders to seek treatment rather than face harsh sentencing under the three-strikes laws. More recently, 2012's Proposition 36 directly amended the three-strikes law to allow life sentences only when the third conviction is for a violent or serious crime. Here is a list of the exact changes that went into effect when Prop 36 passed just a few months ago.
As a result of these changes, many hearings are starting to take place in courts throughout California for inmates looking to rid themselves of life sentences that came from non-violent and non-serious third-strike offenses. The first hearing in San Diego will be held in front of Judge David Danielson of the San Diego Superior Court. The Union Tribune released a story on Saturday detailing some of the upcoming cases. Here is a summary of some of them.
"William Carter, 57, is set for a hearing on Thursday. He has been in prison since 1994 after being convicted of evading a police officer and causing a collision. Carter had a history of drunken driving convictions and assault, according to his court file.
In March, Danielsen will consider the case of Annette Carter, 56, who has been in prison for 17 years. She was convicted of selling a $5 bag of marijuana to an undercover police officer in 1995. She had three robbery convictions, all from a single case in 1981, according to court records.
Along with Carter, Danielsen will hear the case of Joel Murillo, sentenced in 1994 for possessing 2 grams of methamphetamine. He had prior convictions from 1983 for robbery and 1984 for voluntary manslaughter."
- Life sentence on third-strike only if offense is serious or violent. This should mean that we won't see any more life sentences imposed on defendants for stealing a pack of gum or possessing a small amount of drugs.
- Re-sentencing authorized for convicts of non-serious and non-violent offenses who are judged not to be a danger to community. This will mean that many convicts currently serving a life sentence will be able to get their sentences reduced if they meet the right criteria.
- Life sentencing remains for certain non-violent sex or offenses and crimes involving firearms possession. This was included to alleviate critics concerns that too many dangerous undesirables would be let out onto the street.
- Convicts who had previous convictions for rape, murder or child molestation will not be eligible for re-sentencing no matter what their third offense was.
As a result of these changes, many hearings are starting to take place in courts throughout California for inmates looking to rid themselves of life sentences that came from non-violent and non-serious third-strike offenses. The first hearing in San Diego will be held in front of Judge David Danielson of the San Diego Superior Court. The Union Tribune released a story on Saturday detailing some of the upcoming cases. Here is a summary of some of them.
"William Carter, 57, is set for a hearing on Thursday. He has been in prison since 1994 after being convicted of evading a police officer and causing a collision. Carter had a history of drunken driving convictions and assault, according to his court file.
In March, Danielsen will consider the case of Annette Carter, 56, who has been in prison for 17 years. She was convicted of selling a $5 bag of marijuana to an undercover police officer in 1995. She had three robbery convictions, all from a single case in 1981, according to court records.
Along with Carter, Danielsen will hear the case of Joel Murillo, sentenced in 1994 for possessing 2 grams of methamphetamine. He had prior convictions from 1983 for robbery and 1984 for voluntary manslaughter."
February 23, 2013
Major Drug Ring Busted in San Diego
Federal drug enforcement officials in San Diego announced on Thursday that they had brought down a large scale drug trafficking organization that delivered methamphetamine and cocaine to the streets of San Diego. Most of the alleged traffickers were arrested on February 20th, but some of the suspects remain at large. Twelve of the defendants arrested on Wednesday resided in north county San Diego, including seven in Vista, two in San Marcos and three in Oceanside.
“This organization was distributing multipound quantities of methamphetamine in our cities, and making a huge profit,” said William Sherman, acting special agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in San Diego. Sherman
Sherman made national headlines last year when a University of California San Diego engineering student was held in a DEA cell for days without food or water. The student, 24-year-old Daniel Chong, was nearly dead when federal agents found him making noise five days after he had been handcuffed inside his cell. Chong was arrested along with eight others when DEA agents raided an apartment where Chong and his friends were smoking marijuana. Agents claimed that the apartment contained weapons, psychedelics, mushrooms and prescription medication.
After Chong was discovered severely dehydrated and malnourished, Agents took him to the hospital where he spent three days in the intensive care unit. It took more than a week and a half and the story reaching national news before the DEA finally issued a public apology. Special agent William Sherman, the official responsible for the detention facility, said he had the "deepest apologies" for the way Chong was treated.
Public reaction to the incident largely condemned the DEA in support of Chong. Barbara Boxer demanded that the Department of Justice issue a thorough investigation of the incident. Representatives Darrel Issa and Duncan Hunter demanded a congressional investigation and a complete account of the DEA's detention policies. Chong's attorneys issued a statement that they were going to sue the DEA for $20 million.
“This organization was distributing multipound quantities of methamphetamine in our cities, and making a huge profit,” said William Sherman, acting special agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in San Diego. Sherman
Sherman made national headlines last year when a University of California San Diego engineering student was held in a DEA cell for days without food or water. The student, 24-year-old Daniel Chong, was nearly dead when federal agents found him making noise five days after he had been handcuffed inside his cell. Chong was arrested along with eight others when DEA agents raided an apartment where Chong and his friends were smoking marijuana. Agents claimed that the apartment contained weapons, psychedelics, mushrooms and prescription medication.
After Chong was discovered severely dehydrated and malnourished, Agents took him to the hospital where he spent three days in the intensive care unit. It took more than a week and a half and the story reaching national news before the DEA finally issued a public apology. Special agent William Sherman, the official responsible for the detention facility, said he had the "deepest apologies" for the way Chong was treated.
Public reaction to the incident largely condemned the DEA in support of Chong. Barbara Boxer demanded that the Department of Justice issue a thorough investigation of the incident. Representatives Darrel Issa and Duncan Hunter demanded a congressional investigation and a complete account of the DEA's detention policies. Chong's attorneys issued a statement that they were going to sue the DEA for $20 million.
February 8, 2013
Burglary Ring Members Plead Guilty
Two men who took part in a burglary ring in San Diego plead guilty to five years in prison on Thursday in San Diego Superior Court. Police attention was brought to the duo when they stole a high-performance car worth $250,000 from a Rancho Santa Fe home. Along with the Ford GT, Gabriel Castano and George Moore stole valuable items from the residence. They have a sentencing hearing scheduled for March 11th.
The duo used a warehouse in Vista to store stolen cars and valuable goods. In addition to the theft in Rancho Santa Fe, they were accused of stealing property from residences in La Jolla and University City. The stolen items included jewelry, two Porsches and artwork valued up to a million dollars.
Despite a bad economy with high unemployment and low wages, burglaries and vehicle thefts are down throughout San Diego over the past ten years. According to San Diego police crime statistics, the raw number of crimes committed in the county is the lowest since the 1970's. Crimes, including murders, larceny, rape and violent crimes peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That period of time lead to a large number of laws in California and nationwide that increased prison sentences for those convicted. The most notorious legislation was the Three Strikes law, which you can read more about here.
The duo used a warehouse in Vista to store stolen cars and valuable goods. In addition to the theft in Rancho Santa Fe, they were accused of stealing property from residences in La Jolla and University City. The stolen items included jewelry, two Porsches and artwork valued up to a million dollars.
Despite a bad economy with high unemployment and low wages, burglaries and vehicle thefts are down throughout San Diego over the past ten years. According to San Diego police crime statistics, the raw number of crimes committed in the county is the lowest since the 1970's. Crimes, including murders, larceny, rape and violent crimes peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That period of time lead to a large number of laws in California and nationwide that increased prison sentences for those convicted. The most notorious legislation was the Three Strikes law, which you can read more about here.
February 3, 2013
Giving 100% in Every Case
I was recently inspired by a post on Nathan Burney's criminal law blog about defense attorneys pouring 100 percent of their effort into a case. It's always been my and my firm's goal to always give our clients the best representation possible. Sadly, there are many attorneys out there that overload themselves with cases, and therefore are unable to give their clients the full attention or effort they deserve in a case. Many clients recognize this and try to switch ships midstream, but this often isn't possible.
In Nathan's post, he describes a client who came into his office after already being in court with his current lawyer for two days. The client was frightened about the prospects of his case because he felt his attorney wasn't doing any of the necassary work. Taking on a case that is already in court isn't always a good decision, but this particular situation was an emergency. When he called the previous lawyer on the phone to get all the necassary information, he discovered that absolutely no work had been done. No calls to the prosecutor, no interviewing of witnesses, no consultation with experts and not even a detailed interview with the defendant.
The original attorney was offended and angry. He couldn't undertstand why his client expected him to bust his ass on such an insignificant case. In my opinion, that is a bizarre and dangerous attitude to have as a defense attorney in San Diego. Every single case, no matter how small, insignificant or routine it may seem from the outside, is extremely important if you're a defendant. Even the smallest charges can have huge implications in your life both financially and in terms of your freedom. A defense attorney who is doing their job should be looking at all the evidence, interviewing witnesses, talking to prosecutors, consulting with experts and working day and night to examine every angle of the case.
It can be hard for a client to know whether they'll be getting an attorney that will put 100 percent into a case. Some people say you get what you pay for, but that isn't always the case. I'm proud to have superb AVVO ratings, accolades from various law organizations and great reviews from clients. A good defense attorney is essential for our entire legal process, and justice can't be served without knowledgeable and dedicated defense.
In Nathan's post, he describes a client who came into his office after already being in court with his current lawyer for two days. The client was frightened about the prospects of his case because he felt his attorney wasn't doing any of the necassary work. Taking on a case that is already in court isn't always a good decision, but this particular situation was an emergency. When he called the previous lawyer on the phone to get all the necassary information, he discovered that absolutely no work had been done. No calls to the prosecutor, no interviewing of witnesses, no consultation with experts and not even a detailed interview with the defendant.
The original attorney was offended and angry. He couldn't undertstand why his client expected him to bust his ass on such an insignificant case. In my opinion, that is a bizarre and dangerous attitude to have as a defense attorney in San Diego. Every single case, no matter how small, insignificant or routine it may seem from the outside, is extremely important if you're a defendant. Even the smallest charges can have huge implications in your life both financially and in terms of your freedom. A defense attorney who is doing their job should be looking at all the evidence, interviewing witnesses, talking to prosecutors, consulting with experts and working day and night to examine every angle of the case.
It can be hard for a client to know whether they'll be getting an attorney that will put 100 percent into a case. Some people say you get what you pay for, but that isn't always the case. I'm proud to have superb AVVO ratings, accolades from various law organizations and great reviews from clients. A good defense attorney is essential for our entire legal process, and justice can't be served without knowledgeable and dedicated defense.
January 31, 2013
Marijuana Dispensary Owner Gets 8 Years
California has allowed the use and exchange of marijuana for medical use for well over a decade now, but the federal government still considers marijuana to be a Schedule I narcotic, a group of drugs that includes dangerous substances like heroin and meth. The dichotomy between state and federal law creates a complicated situation for medical marijuana users and the people supplying them cannabis. As a result, you end up with federal cases where marijuana dispensary owners get sentenced to years in prison for operating as drug dealers.
One of the most high-profile and recent cases to showcase this phenomenon involves 32-year-old Joshua Hester, a San Diego resident who secretly operated several medical dispensaries in the downtown area. While no state authorities brought up charges against Hester’s marijuana operations, federal authorities launched an investigation that involved wire taps and surveillance in 2008. Two years later the feds indicted Hester and ten of his accomplices for their roles in violating the Controlled Substances Act.
Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court downtown stated that Hester was not being punished for his simple involvement with medical marijuana, but because he profited so highly from the operation. “You used state laws that allow people to benefit from these cooperatives for your own benefit,” Gonzalez said in court. Hester was ultimately handed an 8-year sentence for his role in the operation. Laura Duffy, the prosecutor in the case, said that the defendant exemplified the type of marijuana dealing that the feds were targeting in San Diego.
Despite Duffy’s claims that the federal government is only prosecuting dispensaries who operate as for-profit drug dealing businesses, 95 percent of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area have been effectively shut down. Advocates for medical marijuana claim that the feds are targeting all dispensaries, not just the most egregious ones. Federal law gives no special status to marijuana operations that properly follow California law regarding the exchange and use of medical cannabis.
William Sherman, head of the DEA office in San Diego, said that he never witnessed any legitimate use for the dispensaries in San Diego. Out of the hundreds of investigations the DEA has conducted on dispensaries in the last few years, “None of them have been true collectives or true cooperatives that are in the business of compassionate care,” Sherman said after the court hearing. “They are all in the business of making a profit. This is a big business.”
One of the most high-profile and recent cases to showcase this phenomenon involves 32-year-old Joshua Hester, a San Diego resident who secretly operated several medical dispensaries in the downtown area. While no state authorities brought up charges against Hester’s marijuana operations, federal authorities launched an investigation that involved wire taps and surveillance in 2008. Two years later the feds indicted Hester and ten of his accomplices for their roles in violating the Controlled Substances Act.
Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court downtown stated that Hester was not being punished for his simple involvement with medical marijuana, but because he profited so highly from the operation. “You used state laws that allow people to benefit from these cooperatives for your own benefit,” Gonzalez said in court. Hester was ultimately handed an 8-year sentence for his role in the operation. Laura Duffy, the prosecutor in the case, said that the defendant exemplified the type of marijuana dealing that the feds were targeting in San Diego.
Despite Duffy’s claims that the federal government is only prosecuting dispensaries who operate as for-profit drug dealing businesses, 95 percent of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area have been effectively shut down. Advocates for medical marijuana claim that the feds are targeting all dispensaries, not just the most egregious ones. Federal law gives no special status to marijuana operations that properly follow California law regarding the exchange and use of medical cannabis.
William Sherman, head of the DEA office in San Diego, said that he never witnessed any legitimate use for the dispensaries in San Diego. Out of the hundreds of investigations the DEA has conducted on dispensaries in the last few years, “None of them have been true collectives or true cooperatives that are in the business of compassionate care,” Sherman said after the court hearing. “They are all in the business of making a profit. This is a big business.”
January 28, 2013
Can The Police Lie to You?
The short answer: YES
There is a popular perception among the public that law enforcement officers are dedicated to staying honest and truthful at all times, but this is simply not the case. If you are questioned by police in your home, or you are brought into the station for interrogation, officers can lie to you to get the information they need for a conviction. Officers can deceive and mislead whether they are known to be police or are working undercover, and it's a myth that undercover cops have to reveal their true identities when asked.
Police are allowed to deceive suspects during an investigation according the the supreme court case Frazier v. Cupp. The case involved a U.S. marine, Martin Frazier, who confessed to a murder after being falsely informed that his cousin had confessed and implicated him in the crime. Frazier partly appealed his conviction on the grounds that his confession was given involuntarily. The supreme court at the time, lead by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said Frazier's confession was not involuntary due to the "totality of the circumstances" at the time despite officers feeding him false information. The court also dismissed Frazier's argument that he wasn't given his Miranda rights; the majority opinion noted that the Miranda v. Arizona cased had not been decided at the time of the confession.
People find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a crime they didn't commit, making a confession an extremely valuable piece of evidence in a trial. Defendants are often convicted during jury trials when the prosecution has nothing more than a signed written confession. Despite the presence of Miranda warnings in popular culture, many defendants waive their right to remain silent in the belief that they can convince officers of their innocence. This is a mistake. This video, Don't Talk to the Police, provides a clear understanding of your right to remain silent. The lecture is given by a law school professor and a police officer.
The 5th Amendment protects your right to stay silent when being questioned by the police. Innocent people have been sent to prison for long periods of time for saying incriminating things or making false confessions in front of cameras and officers. Interrogations, whether they take place in your home or in the police station, can be very intimidating to ordinary people. The best thing you can do if you're being questioned by police as a suspect is to ask for a San Diego lawyer and stay quiet. You cannot be punished by a court for staying silent, but a lot can go wrong if you say the wrong thing to an officer.
There is a popular perception among the public that law enforcement officers are dedicated to staying honest and truthful at all times, but this is simply not the case. If you are questioned by police in your home, or you are brought into the station for interrogation, officers can lie to you to get the information they need for a conviction. Officers can deceive and mislead whether they are known to be police or are working undercover, and it's a myth that undercover cops have to reveal their true identities when asked.
Police are allowed to deceive suspects during an investigation according the the supreme court case Frazier v. Cupp. The case involved a U.S. marine, Martin Frazier, who confessed to a murder after being falsely informed that his cousin had confessed and implicated him in the crime. Frazier partly appealed his conviction on the grounds that his confession was given involuntarily. The supreme court at the time, lead by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said Frazier's confession was not involuntary due to the "totality of the circumstances" at the time despite officers feeding him false information. The court also dismissed Frazier's argument that he wasn't given his Miranda rights; the majority opinion noted that the Miranda v. Arizona cased had not been decided at the time of the confession.
People find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a crime they didn't commit, making a confession an extremely valuable piece of evidence in a trial. Defendants are often convicted during jury trials when the prosecution has nothing more than a signed written confession. Despite the presence of Miranda warnings in popular culture, many defendants waive their right to remain silent in the belief that they can convince officers of their innocence. This is a mistake. This video, Don't Talk to the Police, provides a clear understanding of your right to remain silent. The lecture is given by a law school professor and a police officer.
The 5th Amendment protects your right to stay silent when being questioned by the police. Innocent people have been sent to prison for long periods of time for saying incriminating things or making false confessions in front of cameras and officers. Interrogations, whether they take place in your home or in the police station, can be very intimidating to ordinary people. The best thing you can do if you're being questioned by police as a suspect is to ask for a San Diego lawyer and stay quiet. You cannot be punished by a court for staying silent, but a lot can go wrong if you say the wrong thing to an officer.
January 25, 2013
San Diego Teacher Charged with Child Pornography
A
San Diego school teacher in custody for child pornography charges
attempted suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center a little less
than a week after his arrest in North Park. Timothy James Hensley, an
award-winning science teacher at Bell Middle School in Paradise Hills,
is being held for charges of possessing child pornography. He was
arrested on January 15th after federal authorities, including agents
from Homeland Security, executed a search warrant at his apartment.
Agents stated that they found sexually explicit content involving minors
on 5 DVDs located in Hensley’s apartment. While he was free to leave at
the time of the search, Hensley was later arrested at a parking lot in
Balboa Park
The Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce is primarily responsible for the arrest and investigation. The multi-agency organization works to find individuals who knowingly possess, receive, distribute or produce images of children in sexually explicit conduct. The agency started in 1998 as a means to coordinate federal, state and local resources in the fight to stop the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The agency has a lot of resources at its disposal, and they are known for bringing very strong cases against defendants. Mounting a proper defense requires a defense attorney with experience in child pornography cases in San Diego.
Federal penalties for child pornography possession can be as high as 10-years in prison per count. Prosecutors follow the guidelines set out by the Federal Sentencing Commission. Several factors contribute to the total sentence imposed on each defendant: number of images, age of victims, use of a computer in the crime and criminal history. The base offense level for possession of child pornography is 18, requiring 27-33 months in prison; however, the median sentence for child pornography cases in southern California is 65 months, and nationally it’s 85 months. The result of a child pornography case can last far beyond the imposed prison sentence. Most defendants are required to register as sex offenders, affecting their ability to find a job and place to live after they have served their sentence.
Cases involving child pornography are very sensitive to defendants and their families. Most prosecutions involve significant social stigma regardless of the final verdict. It’s important to retain a defense attorney that knows the rights of defendants no matter how much emotion is involved in a case. As seen in the case above, many defendants feel like they have no way out, but everyone deserves a solid and hard-fought defense no matter what their crime.
The Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce is primarily responsible for the arrest and investigation. The multi-agency organization works to find individuals who knowingly possess, receive, distribute or produce images of children in sexually explicit conduct. The agency started in 1998 as a means to coordinate federal, state and local resources in the fight to stop the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The agency has a lot of resources at its disposal, and they are known for bringing very strong cases against defendants. Mounting a proper defense requires a defense attorney with experience in child pornography cases in San Diego.
Federal penalties for child pornography possession can be as high as 10-years in prison per count. Prosecutors follow the guidelines set out by the Federal Sentencing Commission. Several factors contribute to the total sentence imposed on each defendant: number of images, age of victims, use of a computer in the crime and criminal history. The base offense level for possession of child pornography is 18, requiring 27-33 months in prison; however, the median sentence for child pornography cases in southern California is 65 months, and nationally it’s 85 months. The result of a child pornography case can last far beyond the imposed prison sentence. Most defendants are required to register as sex offenders, affecting their ability to find a job and place to live after they have served their sentence.
Cases involving child pornography are very sensitive to defendants and their families. Most prosecutions involve significant social stigma regardless of the final verdict. It’s important to retain a defense attorney that knows the rights of defendants no matter how much emotion is involved in a case. As seen in the case above, many defendants feel like they have no way out, but everyone deserves a solid and hard-fought defense no matter what their crime.
January 22, 2013
San Diego and the War on Drugs
In an effort to curb the use of recreational drugs considered too harmful for casual consumption, federal, state and local governments fight a seemingly never-ending battle against producers, dealers and possessors of drugs in a phenomenon labeled "The War on Drugs." Major battles of this war are fought on the border between the United States and Mexico. Drug cartels funnel large amounts of marijuana, cocaine and other illegal substances through underground tunnels and other clandestine delivery systems. As a result, Mexican and American cities along the border find themselves embroiled in perpetual battle to keep drugs off the streets. San Diego state and federal courts are filled with drug cases, and the prisons are packed to the brim with traffickers and buyers.
Defense attorneys in San Diego like me see the results of the war on drugs in our offices and in court all of the time. Cases range anywhere from simple posession to full on trafficking and production in federal court. Drugs can already have a devastating impact on children and families, but when the justice system gets involved, things can get even worse. A drug conviction can result in difficulty finding a job, getting an apartment or keeping custody of children. It's important to get the best defense possible if you are ever arrested for posession, trafficking or dealing. Don't talk to the police until you have a lawyer by your side to defend you.
In San Diego, the war on drugs is in conflict with California state law when it comes to cannabis, creating a lot of confusion for medial users who think they are following the law. Medical marijuana was made legal in California in 1996 when voters passed Proposition 215. The law made posession and cultivation of marijuana legal for ill patients who were recommended cannabis by their doctor; however, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance according to the federal government's Controlled Substances Act. As a result, the DEA and other federal authories still routinely prosecute individuals for marijuana posession in San Diego.
If you're arrested by the DEA or other federal agencies for marijuana, flashing your medical card won't do you any good. You need to find a lawyer who has experience with federal drug cases.
Defense attorneys in San Diego like me see the results of the war on drugs in our offices and in court all of the time. Cases range anywhere from simple posession to full on trafficking and production in federal court. Drugs can already have a devastating impact on children and families, but when the justice system gets involved, things can get even worse. A drug conviction can result in difficulty finding a job, getting an apartment or keeping custody of children. It's important to get the best defense possible if you are ever arrested for posession, trafficking or dealing. Don't talk to the police until you have a lawyer by your side to defend you.
In San Diego, the war on drugs is in conflict with California state law when it comes to cannabis, creating a lot of confusion for medial users who think they are following the law. Medical marijuana was made legal in California in 1996 when voters passed Proposition 215. The law made posession and cultivation of marijuana legal for ill patients who were recommended cannabis by their doctor; however, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance according to the federal government's Controlled Substances Act. As a result, the DEA and other federal authories still routinely prosecute individuals for marijuana posession in San Diego.
If you're arrested by the DEA or other federal agencies for marijuana, flashing your medical card won't do you any good. You need to find a lawyer who has experience with federal drug cases.
January 18, 2013
Three-Strikes Law in San Diego
The late 1980s and early 1990s brought a dramatic increase in crimes of all types in California, including San Diego and the surrounding communities. Not only did crime in general increase, but the Los Angeles riots of 1992 ignited a desire in the population to impose harsher and more permanent sentences to habitual criminals. As lovers of baseball, Americans naturally gravitated toward a punitive measure based on striking out. If you commit three or more felonies, you'll be locked away for good. Three-strikes laws started showing up in states all across the U.S.. The most notorious, however, was in California.
In California, the proposition system allows the enactment of laws through direct democracy. Proposition 184, known as the Three Strikes Initiative, was on the ballot during the mid-term elections of 1994. It was meant to significantly strengthen the three-strikes law that had already passed in the California legislature earlier in the year. On November 8th, 72 percent of voters approved of the proposition. The success of the measure is often attributed to a few high-class cases involving repeat offenders that occurred in the preceding years, including the murders of Poly Class and Kimber Reynolds.
Even though California is not the only, nor the first, state with a three-strikes law, it does have the toughest. Habitual criminals can be locked away for 25 years to life for non-serious and non-violent offenses on their third strike; most other states demand a serious or violent crime for third-strike life sentences. In 1996, district attorneys from counties all across the state imposed life sentences in more than 1,700 cases as a result of the three-strikes legislation. These numbers dropped significantly in the following 15 years. There are currently about 200 three-strike life sentence cases per year in California.
Three-strikes laws have come under a lot of criticism in judicial and academic circles. Relatively minor offenses can often result in life sentences for repeat criminals in many cases. For example, Leandro Andrade is serving a 50-to-life-sentence for shoplifting after prosecutors elevated the offense to a felony according to three-strikes provisions. Andrade appealed his case all the way to the supreme court based on the argument that his sentence violated cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. The SCOTUS majority, however, did not find that his sentence was cruel and unusual under the framework of California law.
In California, the proposition system allows the enactment of laws through direct democracy. Proposition 184, known as the Three Strikes Initiative, was on the ballot during the mid-term elections of 1994. It was meant to significantly strengthen the three-strikes law that had already passed in the California legislature earlier in the year. On November 8th, 72 percent of voters approved of the proposition. The success of the measure is often attributed to a few high-class cases involving repeat offenders that occurred in the preceding years, including the murders of Poly Class and Kimber Reynolds.
Even though California is not the only, nor the first, state with a three-strikes law, it does have the toughest. Habitual criminals can be locked away for 25 years to life for non-serious and non-violent offenses on their third strike; most other states demand a serious or violent crime for third-strike life sentences. In 1996, district attorneys from counties all across the state imposed life sentences in more than 1,700 cases as a result of the three-strikes legislation. These numbers dropped significantly in the following 15 years. There are currently about 200 three-strike life sentence cases per year in California.
Three-strikes laws have come under a lot of criticism in judicial and academic circles. Relatively minor offenses can often result in life sentences for repeat criminals in many cases. For example, Leandro Andrade is serving a 50-to-life-sentence for shoplifting after prosecutors elevated the offense to a felony according to three-strikes provisions. Andrade appealed his case all the way to the supreme court based on the argument that his sentence violated cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. The SCOTUS majority, however, did not find that his sentence was cruel and unusual under the framework of California law.
January 15, 2013
DUI Checkpoints in San Diego
DUI checkpoints are a very common law enforcement tactic for catching drivers who are intoxicated on on the roadway. Checkpoints are popular during major party holidays (New Years, Saint Patrick's Day, 4th of July) and on late weekend nights. While checkpoints are allowed by the supreme court, there are certain limitations when it comes to how and where sobriety checks are conducted. The primary guideline involves the randomness of searches; officers cannot select cars to inspect based on their own criteria. Some critics of checkpoints have complained that police have violated this rule in places like Escondido.
Your Rights at a Checkpoint
No one should drive on the road under the influence of alcohol; however, that does not mean you should be forced to sacrifice your constitutional rights when you get stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. If you are stopped by an officer and they ask you to perform a sobriety test, including a breathalyser or field test, you have the right to refuse without penalty. If you are arrested for drunk driving, however, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol content test can result in stiff penalties. This is because California law states that any driver on the road provides implied consent to any sobriety test.
Constitutional Concerns
The 4th Amendment of the U.S. constitution protects individuals from searches and seizures unless a warrant is issued by a court of law. The supreme court acknowledged that sobriety checkpoints violated this protection; however, Chief Justice Rhenquist argued that this minor violation of civil rights was justified by the overwhelming concern to get impaired drivers off the road. Many other justices at the time disagreed, saying that there should be no exceptions to constitutional protections.They also noted that there was little evidence to support the use of DUI checkpoints in reducing drunk driving incidents.
Immigration Checks in Escondido
Early in 2012, the City of Escondido was involved in a controversy surrounding their use of sobriety checkpoints to check the immigration status of drivers. For every driver caught drinking and driving, ten were found to be driving without proper documentation. Federal agents with ICE work with the Escondido police to help deport individuals discovered with an undocumented status at these checkpoints. Civil rights critics have complained that these sobriety checks unfairly target the Latino population of the area.
Your Rights at a Checkpoint
No one should drive on the road under the influence of alcohol; however, that does not mean you should be forced to sacrifice your constitutional rights when you get stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. If you are stopped by an officer and they ask you to perform a sobriety test, including a breathalyser or field test, you have the right to refuse without penalty. If you are arrested for drunk driving, however, your refusal to submit to a blood alcohol content test can result in stiff penalties. This is because California law states that any driver on the road provides implied consent to any sobriety test.
Constitutional Concerns
The 4th Amendment of the U.S. constitution protects individuals from searches and seizures unless a warrant is issued by a court of law. The supreme court acknowledged that sobriety checkpoints violated this protection; however, Chief Justice Rhenquist argued that this minor violation of civil rights was justified by the overwhelming concern to get impaired drivers off the road. Many other justices at the time disagreed, saying that there should be no exceptions to constitutional protections.They also noted that there was little evidence to support the use of DUI checkpoints in reducing drunk driving incidents.
Immigration Checks in Escondido
Early in 2012, the City of Escondido was involved in a controversy surrounding their use of sobriety checkpoints to check the immigration status of drivers. For every driver caught drinking and driving, ten were found to be driving without proper documentation. Federal agents with ICE work with the Escondido police to help deport individuals discovered with an undocumented status at these checkpoints. Civil rights critics have complained that these sobriety checks unfairly target the Latino population of the area.
January 3, 2013
San Diego Woman Charged with DUI Related Death Pleads Not Guilty
A court case involving the tragic death of 25-year-old woman on Route 52 in San Diego continued today. The defendant is accused of driving with an alcohol level around .2 percent, which exceeds the state legal limit of .08 percent. She allegedly crossed the highway's dividing line and collided her truck with a smaller vehicle. DUI cases in San Diego are treated very seriously by the police and prosecutors. Drunk driving incidents that involve the serious injury or death of another can be met with prison sentences of years or decades. In this case, the defendant faces up to 10 years if convicted. Life altering cases like these require legal representation from a DUI attorney who has extensive experience in this area of the law.
Here are some of the details according to CBS8 News:
"SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A woman who allegedly drove the wrong way while drunk on state Route 52, causing a head-on crash that killed the other driver, pleaded not guilty Thursday to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
April Thompson, 23, was ordered held on $250,000 bail. She faces up to 10 years in state prison if convicted.
Deputy District Attorney Michael Runyon said Thompson was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes of state Route 52 around 1 a.m. last Saturday when she crashed her Chevrolet truck head-on into a 1970 Volkswagen Beetle driven by 25-year-old Jayme Alan Midlam. He died at the scene and Thompson was treated at a hospital for moderate injuries."
Read the rest of the story here.
Here are some of the details according to CBS8 News:
"SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A woman who allegedly drove the wrong way while drunk on state Route 52, causing a head-on crash that killed the other driver, pleaded not guilty Thursday to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
April Thompson, 23, was ordered held on $250,000 bail. She faces up to 10 years in state prison if convicted.
Deputy District Attorney Michael Runyon said Thompson was driving westbound in the eastbound lanes of state Route 52 around 1 a.m. last Saturday when she crashed her Chevrolet truck head-on into a 1970 Volkswagen Beetle driven by 25-year-old Jayme Alan Midlam. He died at the scene and Thompson was treated at a hospital for moderate injuries."
Read the rest of the story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)