According to the Silicon Valley Mercury News, lawyers for inmates within the California penal system have filed a request asking the federal judges overseeing California’s overcrowded prisons case to hold Governor Brown and Corrections Chief Jeffrey Beard in contempt. The state has failed to live up to the orders of the court, they say, and someone needs to be held responsible.

The federal court found a few years ago that the state’s overcrowding was leading to inmates being denied proper medical and mental health care. They ordered a significant reduction in the prison population, a reduction that was supposed to have been met by a Dec. 31^st deadline. That deadline has came and went and Gov. Brown believes he has done “good enough”. In response, the court issued another deadline—saying Brown has to reduce the prison population by another 10,000 by the end of this year.

Attorneys for the inmates have cited “willful defiance” on the part of Brown and say the federal judges need to take a hard stand against the state to show the seriousness of the matter. But Brown has appealed the original orders and will likely have to wait until this fall to even learn if the high court will revisit the issue.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Supreme Court saw the case. They affirmed the original ruling back in 2009. Brown says that by now they have reduced the population enough to remedy the underlying problem—lack of quality care—and that their efforts should be rewarded by removing the population requirements.

A contempt charge, should the three-judge panel move forward with it, could result in civil fines or even jail time. But, these results aren’t likely. In any case, the issue of California prison overcrowding, federal involvement, and Brown’s nose-thumbing aren’t likely to die out anytime soon.

In this country, we incarcerate more people per capital than any nation in the world. As the “land of the free”, this is disturbing. When those inmates are the subjected to inhumane conditions, it’s deplorable.

If you are charged with a drug crime or any offense, you don’t want to become a part of this “system” and avoiding prison time should be your top concern.

As the LA Times reports, these scanners are typically used to identify stolen vehicles and those registered to “known fugitives”. They are able to do this by taking photos of passing cars in rapid succession and comparing these license plate “scans” to a database of vehicles. If there is a “hit”, the officer is alerted and can make a stop.

License Plate Scanning System Used in Lomita, CA

The problem is that for every “hit” there are thousands of license plates scanned and stored when there was no violation. And because the scans track location, it means the location of your vehicle on a specific date and time isn’t only known to local law enforcement, it’s kept, and guarded tightly.

The ACLU filed a request for these records and both law enforcement agencies declined. That’s where the lawsuit came in.

“This technology has led to police maintaining data on every resident of Los Angeles that they manage to scan…even law-abiding residents, and that’s a real concern,” said Peter Bibring of the ACLU.

Police officials say the scans are important investigative tools and keeping them indefinitely could help solve crimes down the road. The ACLU argues that those scans not immediately tied to a crime should be dumped.

The ACLU has previously asked both agencies to rewrite their policies regarding the scanners. Neither has complied. They see it as an enforcement tool, while many others see it as a tool of privacy violation and a blanket, and constitutionally questionable, approach to solving crimes.

The issue of license plate scanners isn’t unique to Los Angeles. As a matter of fact, the LAPD and the LA County Sheriff’s Department served as the testing ground for many smaller law enforcement agencies across the state, who modeled their programs after those being used in the big city.

The scanners are used by an estimated 71% of law enforcement agencies being used across the country. And in each of these locales, there are those who are seriously concerned about their use and the lack of controls on them.

According to the LA Times, the 10,000 number was just chosen out of a hat, so to speak, when former councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said it in 1989. Then, it represented an increase of more than 25%. It took about 25 years to reach the dreamed-up number, but at the beginning of 2013 Mayor Villaraigosa claimed victory.

The problem is that along with an increase in cops comes an increase in costs. Police costs are up 36% to more than $2 billion over the last eight years. This marks a growth rate twice that of discretionary spending overall.

With such an exorbitant price tag, one has to ask if the increase is having positive effects. And that’s where opinions diverge.

Criminologists have never agreed on whether or not increased police forces are enough to decrease crime. Sure, crime has fallen exponentially since the police force has been growing, but it’s fallen elsewhere too, in cities where police forces remained relatively constant—some of them even downsizing.

How many cops does it take to make a city safe? There’s no consensus. As an illustration in the LA Times shows, despite the 10,000 cops, Los Angeles only employs 2.5 police officers per 1,000 citizens. In contrast, D.C.’s Metro Police employs 6.7 per 1,000; New Orleans has 6.5 cops per 1,000 citizens, and Chicago has 4.7 for every thousand people. These cities are known for their crime rates and they have significantly more police officers than we do, per capita.

Mayoral candidates hoping to steal Villaraigosa’s spot say the increased police force is working and have even talked about further growth. But this isn’t surprising considering a “tough” stance on crime is usually eaten up by voters. However, not everyone is convinced.

Even former councilman Yaroslavsky says further growth at this juncture would be a major mistake:

“If the Police Department does not lose any officers over the next few years, during this time of economic hardship, it’s because the rest of city services have been eviscerated,” said Yaroslavsky. “I don’t think it’s sensible to say that we cannot cut the Police Department by even one position.”

If you are accused of a crime in California, call to speak to an attorney today. From drug charges to domestic violence, we can help. 

The SCOTUS ruling has helped spur change across the state, shifting the landscape in the California prison population. According to the Sacramento Bee, on the last day of 2010 there were about 25,000 drug offenders incarcerated in California state prisons. Just two years later, on the last day of 2012, that number was cut in half to about 12,400 people.

The reduction has moved California beneath the national average in terms of incarceration rates for drug offenders. Across the nation, states incarcerate 75 drug criminals per 100,000 residents. In California, that rate is now 33 in 100,000.

Putting offenders who have committed lower-level crimes in prison for long periods is not generally the best way to spend tax dollars and protect public safety,” said a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. “Keeping lower-level drug offenders closer to their families and their communities where they can take advantage of local programs and receive drug treatment makes more sense than sending them to prison where they are surrounded by more hardened criminals.”

Critics of the realignment plan say that this reduction in incarcerated drug offenders has led to a small uptick in crime. State officials say it’s too early to make that connection, however.

Is it possible that releasing thousands of drug offenders could increase the crime rate? Certainly. And this is an especially real risk if they are being released without any access to drug treatment, job assistance, or other rehabilitative tools.

The state is flooding ill-equipped counties with thousands of new “clients” and these counties cannot keep up, for the most part. The problem has been shifted from one solely on the back of the state, to one shared now by counties and the state.

Though the release of these nonviolent offenders is definitely progress and a step in the right direction, giving them no assistance to get back on their feet is not a good way to ensure they don’t return to the criminal courts.

If you are arrested and accused of a drug crime, the chances that you’ll go to state prison are now pretty slim. But, you can be held responsible for your offense—whether through county jail time or probation. Regardless of the charges against you, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to be put in touch with a local defense lawyer.

In an in-depth Bay Citizen article, we can see how using a police officer or even former police officer for the investigation of a police shooting could create some serious doubts in the minds of the public and some serious conflicts of interest.

When the police shoot a civilian, two investigations occur. One investigation is done at a departmental level to determine if the officer broke police policy in the shooting. The other is done to determine if a the shooting amounted to a criminal act. Who conducts this second investigation depends on the county in question.

Across California, practices vary. In Oakland and other locales, the District Attorney typically employs a cop or former cop as an investigator. While a detective or police officer may have the legal know-how to conduct an investigation, they come with a suspected allegiance to the silent code of brotherhood among officers. In other words, they are difficult to trust for an unbiased opinion on the matter.

Prosecutors say using a police officer doesn’t necessarily “bias the investigation or outcome of a case,” according to the Bay Citizen. But it certainly doesn’t do anything for public relations either.

“Even though he might not want to be a policeman again, he still has an allegiance to the brotherhood,” said law professor Charles Wolfram from Cornell University. “If they’re from the same department, that could create obvious problems.”

“It undermines the legitimacy of the investigation. At the very least, they should try to find investigators hired by somebody else,” says Stanford Law School professor Deborah Rhode.

When a former police officer is used to investigate the actions of a current officer, the public is left feeling like the “other guy” in a we vs. them scenario. Regardless of that investigator’s skills, it is difficult to trust them with such a heavy responsibility.

Though it truly isn’t “us vs. them” in most scenarios, it can feel that way when you are the one under arrest. You deserve fair treatment and under the current climate within many police departments, it’s easy to feel like you are targeted regardless of your rights or the truth about an incident.

If you are arrested and charged with a criminal offense, whether it’s a drug crime or robbery, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss your case.

At issue here isn’t some regulatory reorganization, or legal shuffling with no impact on the people, it’s the state’s prison system—accused of being too huge to provide proper care to the inmates it houses. We are talking about people—convicted criminals sure—but people. And this is just part of the reason Brown’s assertions of “good enough” cannot be taken lightly.

The federal orders came down in an attempt to get the state’s prison system in alignment with the 8^th Amendment. You know, the one that protects people against cruel and unusual punishment. The overcrowding situation had gotten to the point where the state was unable to provide proper medical and mental health care to all of the people within their custody. Among other things, the feds ordered Brown to cut the state’s prison population by 137.5 percent within two years—surely no easy task.

Brown has worked toward that goal even if it seems he never really had the intention of completely reaching it. As they began shifting inmates from state facilities to county jails, they experienced political pressure. This pressure was just one motivating factor in Brown’s decision to buck the feds.

According to The Atlantic:

On January 8, 2013, Gov. Brown announced that as of July 2013 he would no longer use whatever “emergency powers” he has as chief executive to comply with the order. He announced that “prison crowding no longer poses safety risks to prison staff or inmates, nor does it inhibit the delivery of timely and effective health care services to inmates.” California’s governor, in effect, unilaterally declared an end to his state’s constitutional obligation to end the prison emergency. One day earlier, his lawyers had quietly filed motions to terminate federal judicial oversight over state prisons.

Brown says “good enough” should be just that, that progress should be enough for the feds to back off. But what Brown seems to be missing here is the entire point—not that the federal orders were put in place to make his life difficult or be a symbolic gesture towards justice, but that they were designed to actually bring about some level of justice, to ensure that inmates were not treated like chattel.

No matter what sort of charges you are facing, you have rights. You deserve to be treated with dignity and to have your constitutional rights protected throughout the criminal justice process. Fortunately, a local criminal defense attorney may be able to help.

David Mulder, a 43 year old transient with prior drug convictions, was killed in the aftermath of the murder. He had stabbed 49-year old Elisa VanCleve to death in a car and was shot by California Highway Patrol soon after.

Mulder was released from prison on September 25 and his supervision was being handled by San Bernardino County. Those who oppose Gov. Brown’s strategy say the murder would have never happened without the realignment plan (which releases state inmates to county supervision).  What they seem to be facing is the simple fact that: Mulder had served his sentence and would have been released regardless.

When there is opposition to a criminal justice policy, misunderstandings abound. Any potential fuel for the fire—even if it’s wrong—will be swept up in the debate and used to put an emotional slant on things.

Let’s pretend, for a moment, that Mulder’s release was due to the realignment plan. With our limited information about his past (coming from media sources), we know his history was in drug crimes. We know he served a good portion of his sentence. And in the spectrum of criminal behavior, we can tell he would be marked as a “good risk” for community supervision. In other words, absent a violent history, Mulder wouldn’t have been seen as a potentially violent offender. It’s doubtful anyone would have seen the murder coming.

The business of incarceration isn’t simple. It isn’t as simple as locking up those who break laws and holding them indefinitely. Not only would that not be cost effective (imprisonment is costly), but it would be an obvious violation of Constitutional and human rights.

There are tragic stories of criminals who commit crimes after being released from prison—it’s called recidivism and it’s a problem everywhere. Reducing recidivism has nothing to do with when you are released from prison or who supervises you, but in providing the supports to ensure you don’t come back.

Gov. Brown’s plan isn’t a perfect idea, not because counties are already overextended and not because violent inmates will go on killing rampages. It’s not a perfect idea because it doesn’t address a fundamental problem with the incarceration nation that is the U.S. Until policy makers like Brown and those critical of him realize incarceration itself is a major part of the problem, incidences like this will continue to happen and they will continue to cause misdirected rage.

When you are accused of a crime, the main goal should be to avoid incarceration. Until you are sentenced, you have options. Whether you are accused of drug distribution or a sexual offense, we may be able to help. 

An Anaheim couple consisting of a dentist and a computer engineer with government security clearance, bought an office building on Ball Road as an income generator. The wife had her practice there for many years and they leased space to insurance agents, and other law abiding business owners. The building was their retirement plan.

When the “Ogden memo” of 2009 came down saying dispensaries would be a “low priority” of federal prosecutors, medical marijuana dispensaries multiplied. The couple, seeing these dispensary owners as similarly-minded business people, decided to lease space to one.

“I’m a law-abiding citizen,” said the man. “I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong.” After all, the dispensary-owners were operating business that were legal under California state law and they held business permits.

The DEA saw otherwise. The Feds didn’t use their own investigation and instead relied on a single purchase of medical marijuana for $37 made by an Anaheim police officer posing as a medical marijuana patient. He even had his legitimate doctor’s recommendation for pot in hand. The sale didn’t break state law. But, according to U.S. Attorney Greg Parham, it was enough.

A lawsuit was filed in August of 2012 to seize the property valued at $1.5 million based on this single sale.

After receiving notification of the suit, the building owners evicted the dispensary and sent letters to the feds and the city of Anaheim, hoping to smooth things over and avoid the seizure. But like a shark that smells blood, Parham’s sights were set and he wouldn’t be dissuaded.

He wouldn’t be dissuaded even after U.S. District Court Judge Andrew J. Guilford gave him several chances to change his mind, pointing out several inconsistencies in the federal medical marijuana policies and essentially asking if of all landlords to threaten with forfeiture, this was the landlord Parham really wanted to tangle with.

“Don’t you think in this world of change and whatever, progress or regress, depending on your point of view, this is the exact case that you don’t want presented as a test case on the interaction of federal and state [law] and medical and dispensaries and forfeiture?” Guilford asked. “[Y]ou know, a poor dentist has to turn over a whole bunch of money just because they maybe were relying on what they had heard federal agents say?”

OC Weekly

This is happening in the city that sponsors the annual Kush Expo at their convention center—a medical marijuana festival of edibles, smokeables, and doctors standing by to write out recommendations. The case marks just another hypocrisy in the federal government’s War on Drugs, a war that often seems to be motivated by nothing more than money and a bullish mindset. The ease and aggressive manner in which the government is willing to engage in asset forfeiture is an outrageous abuse of power in service to a completely failed policy.

According to the Huffington Post, last year, State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduced legislation that would have made possession of any controlled substance a misdemeanor. It was defeated. Now, he’s trying again. This time, however, he is giving local officials more leeway in determining how to charge the offenses.

In 1976, the state of California made marijuana possession a misdemeanor. But other drugs are not the same. Possession of heroin and cocaine is always a felony. Possession of methamphetamine could go either way depending on the decision of the prosecutor. Leno’s bill would allow local prosecutors to determine whether or not to charge an offense as a misdemeanor or felony, something he is hoping will bolster support.

“If our common goal is to have safer, healthier communities with lower crime rates and less recidivism, this is the way to go,” Leno told reporters on a conference call.

The California District Attorneys Association, who opposed last year’s failed measure, hasn’t yet decided their position on this one. But, they say it’s better.

“This bill takes a more measured approach; bit’s not as bad [as the previous one],” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the Association. “But it still sends the same message that drug possession isn’t as serious as it used to be.”

Salzillo’s follow up, about the bill “sending a message” is the problem with the argument against drug law reform. Many lawmakers and those within the criminal justice community are worried about the message they will send rather than the true, direct effects of a law. Like Salzillo, they are worried about being seen as too soft rather than being worried about the consequences of the failed drug war.

“Who benefits from perpetuating an underclass of citizens?” asked Leno. “The answer is nobody.”

But, that’s exactly what the drug policies of decades past do. They keep the poor and minority populations incarcerated and under supervision, while those with enough money to hire a good lawyer get off scot-free. Instead, drug laws that focus on the public health side of drug use (particularly in the case of possession as opposed to distribution) would help treat the problem instead of penalizing the symptoms of the problem. Allowing local officials to classify possession as a misdemeanor instead of a felony, where the consequences are many, is a good first step.

If you are facing any drug charges, you face a serious blemish on your record—a blemish that could keep you from getting the job you’ve always wanted as well as drive a rift between you and your family or friends. The consequences of a conviction are many. Contact our offices today to discuss your case and how we might be able to help.

According to the Mercury News, a recent poll shows 54% support it while 43% are opposed to allowing recreational pot. Those who support it want to see restrictions on age, driving under the influence, and licensing of those who sell it. But, this 54% represents the greatest number of supporters since the Field Poll began asking 44 years ago.

Back then, only 13% supported pot legalization. It was 1969 and the year of Woodstock. It’s that 13% that grew up, had children, and may have helped foster a more approving attitude of the plant.

Over two years ago, just before voters shut down an attempt at legalization with proposition 19, 50% indicated support while 46% were opposed. When they went to the polls, 53% voted against and only 47% voted for. Experts say this was due to a “lackluster campaign and a vague regulatory plan,”—something that will change the next time around.

As usual, support for legalization is most pronounced in younger voters, with 58% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 supporting, and 61% of those between the ages of 30 and 39. Independent voters similarly support legalization in greater numbers with 59% pining for pot. 58% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans support it.

Interestingly, the majority of Californians reject federal meddling in their current medical marijuana program. Two-thirds of respondents oppose federal raids on dispensaries. Three-fourths back the current medical marijuana laws and 58% would support having dispensaries in their own communities.

While the country is holding their breath and taking bets on which state will be next, California supporters of legalization are looking towards the 2016 election year as a target. Advocates say presidential election years get better voter turn-out and the measure will have a better chance at succeeding then rather than in 2014.

Until then, marijuana is illegal. Though support is at all-time highs, it’s still against the law and the police will still arrest you for a marijuana offense. If you’ve been arrested for possession or even distribution, we may be able to help. Contact our offices today to discuss your case and your legal options.