California Criminal Defense Lawyers

In a move to provide additional prosecution resources to so-called “quality of life” issues in Oakland, city attorneys will be tasked to being prosecuting misdemeanor charges in the city. Until now, criminal prosecutions have been the responsibility of the Alemeda County District Attorney’s Office, and city attorneys have worked exclusively on civil charges. The move will give added resources and priorities to offenses like disorderly conduct, drunk in public, and minor drug possession charges, without taking any resources from the County DA’s office whose primary focus will remain dangerous felony offenses.

According to the news article, less than 10% of the property and assault related crimes reported to city police resulted in charges filed, though it’s unclear how many of those cases were not pursued simply due to limited prosecution resources. But the goal is this program is to prosecute more of these crimes that affect the livability of the city neighborhoods.

It is unclear whether the result of these additional prosecution resources will be stepped up enforcement of these kinds of charges by Oakland police, or simply a more efficient and targeted response to existing incidents.

–

Charged with a criminal offense in California courts? Contact our experienced defense attorneys for a free consultation and legal evaluation of the charges against you.

Rancho Cordova, near Sacramento is the newest police department in California to deploy automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) scanning systems. This technology allows police offers to passively scan and cross-check hundreds and possibly thousands of plates per hour against law enforcement and DMV database lists.

The most typical use is to locate vehicles that have been stolen. License plate scanning technology is also used to find drivers/car owners who may have outstanding warrants for failure to appear, or have a suspended license. Because of the increasing use of these passive systems, it is incredibly risky to drive if you face any of these charges. The odds of being caught are just too great.

If you know you have an outstanding failure to appear, you should attempt to deal with the problem immediately, before you are stopped and arrested. Your options to “explaining it away” and avoiding spending additional time in jail are best when you have some leverage, and are showing good faith in resolving the problem.

We can help you try to fix the warrant for failing to appear in court, and possibly get you a new court date with no additional penalties.

Please contact us for a consultation on your case, and we’ll go over the situation with you. We can suggest options, and tell you exactly what we think we can do to help you in this difficult situation.

Another controversial California criminal law ballot initiative to be voted on this November is Proposition 6. Known as the Police and Law Enforcement Funding and Criminal Penalties and Laws Initiative Statute, the proposal will require a minimum of nearly one billion dollars in state funding for California law enforcement. This will be an increase of at least $365 million in the first year.

Among the initiatives are:

• Increase penalties and toughen law enforcement procedures and processes for any crime deemed to be “gang related”
• Gang related criminal charges include car theft and methamphetamine distribution. Any meth possession will also become a felony charge.
• Increased funding for many different criminal law enforcement related functions primarily local police and sheriffs offices, as well as probation programs, juvenile justice programs, offender rehabilitation, construction of new county jails,
• Allowed admission of “hearsay evidence” in criminal court will be expanded to include cases where someone has “tampered with or otherwise intimidated a witness”

The full text of the proposition is here, as well as a detailed analysis.

A broad coalition of law enforcement agencies such as the California Police Chief’s Association, and the California District Attorney Association support the bill. That is not surprising, and they are not objective parties, since they are likely to benefit significantly with increased resources from the bill.

Opponents of Proposition 6 is largely based around the enormous costs of the proposal, at a time when California has significant budget shortfall.

—

If you are charged with a criminal offense in California, please contact our law offices for a free legal consultation on you case.

In one year from 2006 to 2007, arrested on marijuana charges in California increased from 65,386 to 74,119, a more than 13% increase in a single year.  Felony Marijuana offense arrests increased to 16,124 from 13,548 in 2006, an increase of 19%.

Advocates for marijuana law reform and legalization in California will no doubt argue that this increase is clear evidence that enforcement efforts have failed, and it would be difficult to dispute that conclusion. Despite decades of effort to prevent and discourage marijuana use, there is no evidence that criminal marijuana possession laws have reduced demand.

Prohibition of marijuana use has failed on every level. And the cost of fighting a continuous drug war are extraordinary.

California jails are packed with non-violent drug offenders. This results in absurd choices between letting violent offenders out sooner, or building more jails at tremendous taxpayer costs.

California has lead the way on marijuana law reform in many respects, such as lessened penalties for simple possession, and improved medical marijuana laws. But there is a long way to go to get to a point where marijuana laws are truly decriminalized. Marijuana use should be treated in rational manner in accordance with the true costs of and benefits of and endless war.

—

If you are facing a marijuana or other criminal drug charge in California courts, please contact our experienced drug defense attorneys for a free case evaluation on the charges you are facing. There is no obligation for our initial consultation and advice.

Controversy and differing opinions surround California’s Proposition 9, or Marsy’s Law, a victims rights bill on the ballot in November.  The proposed legislation would add a Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights to the state Constitution, as well as mandate additional funding for prisons.

Supporters of the bill suggest that current crime victims rights and procedures are inadequate. The biggest item is the funding to insure that prisons have sufficient funding to keep criminals in prison for the entire term of their sentence. One of the current issues with how California prisons manage criminals is that prison overcapacity and overcrowding does often result in earlier release times for some prisoners.

Among the additional proposed provisions are:

• Fewer parole hearings for the most serious offenders
• Required advanced notification to victims/families when criminals are scheduled for parole hearings

Critics say that California law already consists of a statutory crime victims bill of rights, and the Constitutional amendment would be redundant and unnecessary.

In addition, the requirement to fund full prison sentences would add hundreds of millions in costs in building new prisons, as well as additional costs in managing the states prison and probation systems to California’s already massive budget deficit.

Many San Francisco juvenile felony offenders (17 out of 58, nearly 30%) are adults, authorities have determined. Classification as juvenile offenders allows undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation under the law.

Critics charge that this is a clear abuse of San Francisco’s sanctuary policies about undocumented individuals. And a costly one at that, since San Francisco’s Juvenile Probation Department pays expenses for these offenders to live in group homes.

And Mayor Newsom agrees. As of July 2, San Francisco will no longer honor sanctuary laws for anyone who has been convicted of a crime in California court. Many of the 58 individuals, legal and illegal, in the juvenile program were charged and convicted of dealing drugs.

Supporters of San Francisco’s sanctuary status believe the benefits of the policy far outweigh the downsides of those who may be gaming the system.

Under the same set of circumstances surrounding a felony charge, adults are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and are nearly always deported if found to be illegal immigrants.

More on California Juvenile Justice.

A judge in San Diego Superior court has been censured by the California Commission on Judicial Performance for a plea of alcohol related, or “wet” reckless driving after a drunk driving arrest. The censure is a public admonishment of unlawful criminal conduct. Judges are required to “maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved, respect and comply with the law, and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary“.

A wet reckless is a common plea agreement in California drunk driving cases. It is not significantly different than a DUI conviction in that it is a alcohol involved driving criminal misdemeanor charge, but the penalties are somewhat reduced, including shorter license suspensions and probation periods. And there may be other distinctions between a DUI conviction and a wet reckless where the distinction can be helpful to your job.

—

For advice on a current drunk driving or DUI case in California, please call us and we’ll provide you with a free case evaluation. We can discuss your defense options, likely outcomes if you plead, and what chances you may have to beat your case in court. No obligation, call us today.

—

Ref: California Alcohol Related Reckless Driving Plea 23003.5

Updating a previous post, the new guidelines on medical marijuana laws in California may not be as clear and comprehensive as it necessary.

There are still criminal prosecution risks for what were thought to be legal distributors of marijuana. The questions raised in the editorial, written by California defense Attorney Allison Margolin, include:

1) Use and distribution of Medical Marijuana can still be prosecuted. The legal status afforded to dispensaries (legitimate medical marijuana distributors) as determined by the Attorney General’s guidelines is not binding. This means it is very possible for local district attorneys and prosecutors to ignore the AG’s recommendation. In fact, there is evidence that this has happened and is happening in cases of possession and use of hashish for medical purposes. The attorney general considered hashish as falling under the medical marijuana laws, where many local California district attorneys do not.

2) The definition of a caregiver is legally vague. Primary care physicians as caregivers are entitled to participate in the growing and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. The law intends for them to be immune from prosecution for cultivating, transporting, possession for purposes of selling, and selling marijuana. But if the legal definition of a medical caregiver is not explicit, it leaves honest practitioners who support marijuana use for medical reasons open to criminal legal problems.

3) The legality of retail storefront dispensaries is vague. Prosecutors can and are shutting down these operations

It would seem there is still plenty of confusion here, and it is certainly likely that these issues will have to be ironed out with additional legislation, or future court decisions.

—

If you are charged with illegal possession of pot/marijuana in CA, contact us for a free legal consultation on your caes. Our attorneys have experienced fighting these kinds of cases. There is no obligation for our legal advice.

New guidelines the clarify many practical concerns and hurdles for users and distributors of medical marijuana in California have been released and distributed by California Attorney General Jerry Brown.

California’s medical marijuana laws have a controversial and confusing history, dating back to the landmark passing of Proposition 215 in 1996, and updated by California Senate Bill 420 in 2003.

The new guidelines affirm and clarify that:

• Marijuana patients should get state medical marijuana ID cards to prove their use is legitimate and to affirm their legal right to smoke.
• Users should follow guidelines about where and when to smoke. For example, smoking near schools, children’s centers, or in most workplaces is not allowed.
• Police should honor those IDs, and not confiscate any marijuana possessed by someone with a legal ID. They should also return marijuana to anyone of it is later determined that their possession was legitimate.
• Licensed medical marijuana distributors must be run as non-profit enterprises.
• Distributors/dispensaries can only sell legally grown marijuana, and should document the sources of their growers and suppliers.

Most law enforcement officials, as well as growers, distributors, and users of legal pot for medical uses are pleased with these clarifications by the Attorney General.

But no doubt there will always be gray areas of the law, or disputes about who, what and where these laws are applied. And possession of marijuana is still illegal for most people under California drug laws.

If you are facing a marijuana possession charge in California, and don’t think it is fair, please contact our defense attorneys for a free legal defense consultation. We can offer you suggested defense strategies, and tell you exactly how we can help defend you in court if necessary. There is no obligation for a legal consultation.