Am I Required to Show Police My ID in California?

Actress Danielle Watts had an unfortunate encounter with some of LA's finest last weekend, after someone called 911 to report suspected prostitution in a parked car. Apparently, the Django Unchained actress, who is black, was sitting in the vehicle and kissing(?) her boyfriend, who is white.

During the course of their investigation, police requested Ms. Watts' ID. When she refused to provide one, she was briefly handcuffed and placed into the back of a squad car. Eventually, her boyfriend produced her driver's license and she was released. Her refusal to provide ID has raised a lot of commentary from legal analysts, amateur and professional alike. What legal authority do police have to request ID from adults in public places? What rights do I have if I refuse to provide one? Put simply, am I required to show my ID to police upon demand in California?

The answer, like almost everything else in the law, is "it depends".

In most situations, you have no legal obligation to show your ID to police in California -- that is, you will not be arrested simply for the crime of "refusing to produce ID upon demand of a peace officer". An exception exists if you are operating a motor vehicle.  Of course, cops can demand to see your driver's license if you're observed committing some kind of traffic violation in your car.  Refusal to provide your driver's license after a traffic stop will result in a citation or arrest.

And then there's a lot of gray area.

Keep in mind, police can always ask to see your ID, just like they can ask you to make them a turkey sandwich. You have no legal obligation to do either (under most circumstances). The big question then becomes: what happens if I say "no"?

Police have authority to temporarily detain individuals if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the subject might be engaged in some type of criminal activity. These "temporary detentions" usually involve little more than checking ID and sending folks on their way. "Reasonable" is the key word in these situations: is the cop acting "reasonably" in suspecting that a subject might be involved in criminal activity? Is the detention "reasonable" under the circumstances? These questions obviously depend on the specifics of each case.

So, while you generally have no legal duty in California to show your ID to cops upon demand, refusal to do so may prolong your "temporary detention", as Ms. Watts recently learned. If the police are justified in demanding to see your ID and you refuse, you may be arrested and prosecuted for "resisting obstructing or delaying a peace officer" under PC 148(a)(1), even if you would not have been arrested for the conduct that attracted attention from the police in the first place.

If you or a loved one has been cited for resisting arrest, or if you have questions about interactions with police in California, call us for a free attorney consultation. 714 449 3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton Police Misconduct Lawyer

How to Get an Expungement in California

If you've been convicted of a crime in California, you may be eligible to clean up your record with an expungement.  Expungements are governed by section 1203.4 of the Penal Code.  Once granted, they have the effect of dismissing a case against you after you've finished serving all your penalties.  After your record has been expunged, you can honestly tell most employers that you have no criminal convictions in your past. Like everything else in the law, though, there are some exceptions.  I'll get into those below.

In order to qualify for an expungement, you must meet the following criteria:

1) You were convicted of a crime in California (infraction, misdemeanor or felony, with a few exceptions).
2) You were NOT sentenced to state prison (county jail is OK, but state prison is not).
3) You received probation and you successfully completed your term of probation without any violations, OR you received a terminal disposition (no probation) and you've waited more than one year since the conviction, OR you violated probation, but there's a very compelling reason why the judge should make an exception for you and grant the expungement anyway.
4) You have no other active, open or pending criminal cases, and
5) You're not currently on probation or parole in any other cases.

If all of these factors are satisfied, congratulations!  You're probably eligible to petition the court for an expungement.

To start the process of your expungement petition, you (or your attorney) must complete a couple documents, called a "CR-180" and a "CR-181", available here.

After filling out those forms completely, they must both be properly served on the DA who prosecuted your case and they must be filed with the court where your case was heard.  Service must be made by someone else (you may not serve your own documents).  The person who mails or delivers the documents to the DA must also complete a "proof of service" form and include that document when the petition is filed with the court.  The court's filing fee for expungement petitions varies from $60.00-$150.00.

Once your petition packet has been served on the DA and filed with the court, the DA has 15 days to respond with any reasons that they believe the petition should not be granted (for example, if they believe that the petitioner did not successfully complete probation or if they believe that the petitioner has some other active, open cases.  The process can get complicated if the petitioner has a common name and other people with the same name have recent criminal activity).

Next, a judge will review your petition and the DA's response.  Typically, if you are clearly eligible and the DA has no opposition, the judge will simply sign the proposed expungement order and will return it to you by mail within 6-8 weeks.

If the DA opposes your expungement petition, the court will schedule a hearing for both sides to appear before a judge and to explain why the expungement should or should not be granted.

After your expungement petition is granted and signed by a judge, your criminal record will be amended to show that your old case has been dismissed.  An expungement will not completely erase the case from your record, but it will erase the fact that you pleaded "guilty" or "no contest", or that you were convicted by a jury.  For most private employers, that's as good as if the whole matter never happened.  As I mentioned above, though, there are some exceptions.  If you apply to be a police officer or if you seek to enter some profession that is licensed by the state (e.g., doctor, lawyer, nurse, dentist, notary, bail bondsman, contractor, insurance broker, Realtor, etc.), the licensing body responsible for that profession may still consider the prior conviction.  The same is true if you own a market and you apply to sell lottery tickets.  For some reason, the state lottery does not recognize California expungements.

This is the expungement process in a nutshell, but it's obviously a lot more complicated than that.  If you have questions about your eligibility for an expungement in California, call our office for a free consultation.  I'll never charge you a penny to answer your questions.  If this entire process sounds too complicated or time-consuming, let us handle everything for you.  We have extensive experience with expungements in all Southern California courts, including in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties.  Our fees are competitive and depend on the nature of your case.

Other firms will quote you a low price to get started, then they'll bury you in hidden fees.  We never charge hidden fees.  I will quote you a fixed price up front.  I will also be personally responsible for your case until it is resolved.  You will never be handed off to an intern or a less-experienced junior partner.

Invest in your future by cleaning up your past.  Don't waste another day if your old mistakes are standing between you and a better job.  Call for a free consultation (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Expungement Attorney

Appearing in Court on Catalina Island (Avalon Courthouse)

Save yourself the time, hassle and expense of traveling back to the island for a court appearance -- Have an experienced, knowledgeable, local attorney do it for you.

Catalina Island, located approximately 22 miles off the coast of Orange County and Los Angeles, California, is home to a small, one-room courthouse. The courthouse is open on alternating Fridays. It generally hears only misdemeanor criminal cases, infractions (minor traffic matters, etc.) and restraining orders. Felony cases and more serious matters are usually sent to Long Beach.

The City of Avalon, nestled on the southeast corner of the island, is only home to about 2,200 full-time residents, but the population swells between the months of April and September. Tourists, fishermen, divers, hikers, families, boaters and adventure-seekers descend upon the community to enjoy the island's temperate climate and unspoiled, scenic beauty. Each fall, the town of Two Harbors also hosts its Buccaneers Weekend pirate party, a legendary festival that marks both the unofficial end of tourist season on the island and the official beginning of lobster season statewide.

Catalina and its surrounding waters are home to world-famous fishing and diving. It also hosts several marine reserves and designated "conservation areas". These areas are not clearly marked, but fishing within one of them will result in heavy fines and possible forfeiture of your gear. Many visitors are surprised to learn that they've accidentally strayed into a protected area. They're equally surprised when Fish & Wildlife agents show up, cite them, and confiscate their valuable fishing equipment. Remember, it is the individual fisherman's responsibility to know and comply with all local laws and regulations. Ignorance of the law is no defense to the crime of fishing within a protected area.

Visitors are also responsible for correctly identifying their catches and complying with local rules regarding limits, allowable sized fish, season restrictions, etc. California fishing laws are no joke. As mentioned above, they often carry stiff penalties that may include high fines, jail time, probation, forfeiture of your equipment and an embarrassing blemish on your criminal record.

If you've been arrested or cited while visiting Catalina Island, a quality, local attorney can guide you through the process to ensure that your rights are preserved and that you walk away with the best outcome possible. Our professional staff will work with you, the court and prosecutors to beat your case or to negotiate a fair disposition. Our goal is always to make the process as painless and stress-free as possible for you.

Our firm has extensive experience in defending against all types of criminal issues that arise on Catalina Island -- Avalon, Two Harbors, and everywhere in between. The most common issues we see on the island include DUI (driving a car, a boat or a golf cart under the influence), domestic violence, assault / battery, disturbing the peace, being drunk in public, possession of drugs or paraphernalia, and various fishing violations. We can often make your appearances for you, without you having to be personally present in court. Save yourself the time, hassle and expense of traveling back to the island for a court appearance (or a series of court appearances) -- have a local attorney do it for you.

We're familiar with the local judge, court staff and prosecutors. We know "how the game is played" on Catalina Island and we typically get fantastic results for our clients. Of course, each case is unique. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. The results of your case will depend upon its specific facts and your criminal history.

You have a choice in hiring a lawyer. Many attorneys serve the Avalon courthouse and most of them tout their local knowledge and experience, but I actually know the difference between a Canary Rockfish and a Vermilion Rockfish.

If you've been cited or arrested on Catalina Island, call our office for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449 3335.

Thanks for reading.

Catalina Island Lawyer

Update on Medical Marijuana in California

Updated 9/16/15:  The California Legislature has approved a set of laws that will completely change the way medical marijuana is regulated in the state.  Follow the link for more information regarding the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.  

A Los Angeles appellate court handed down a decision last week that could dramatically change the way that dispensaries conduct business in the state.  If you operate or grow for a collective, you must be aware of the new rules (or new interpretation of the old rules).

California law allows qualified patients to form non-profit organizations for the purpose of cultivating and distributing marijuana among themselves.  The authors of the law envisioned a group of patients who would pool their resources and designate one member of the group to cultivate all of the medicine for the entire club.  Members of the club would then compensate the club for the value of the medicine that each member consumed, and the club would compensate the grower for his expenses, plus the value of his time, labor and skill.  Money may change hands during these transactions, but clubs were -- and are -- prohibited from acting on a for-profit basis.  

Defendant in this case, Brian Mitchell, was the designated grower for a collective in Los Angeles. He was a member of the club and had proper documentation to prove that he was both a qualified patient and a duly-designated cultivator.  Mr. Mitchell established his own corporation, Herbmetics, Inc., for the purpose of cultivating medical marijuana on behalf of the club.  He obtained seller's permits in his own name from the state Board of Equalization and paid taxes as required.  

Mr. Mitchell was arrested and convicted for illegally cultivating marijuana in state court.  At trial, it was determined that the club to which he provided his cannabis, "Keeping It Medical", was improperly organized as a for-profit corporation.  Since K.I.M. operated for profit, a judge ruled that Mr. Mitchell was not entitled to rely upon the limited immunity provided under California's medical marijuana laws.  He was convicted, and a court of appeals recently affirmed the conviction.  

The court did a very poor job of explaining their reasoning in this case.  I've read the opinion, and I'm still not clear on what the judges determined to be the deciding factor.  I spotted several issues where the judges seemed to focus their attention, but they never gave any indication as to what they found most compelling -- or how someone might avoid those pitfalls in the future.  Here are some of the factors that I think steered the court's judgement:

-The fact that the club itself, "Keeping It Medical", was organized as a for-profit corporation (rather than a cooperative, a collective, or a not-for-profit mutual benefit corporation).  Since California's medical marijuana laws allow patients to collectively cultivate marijuana on a not-for-profit basis, the court found that individuals or clubs who operate on a for-profit basis may not avail themselves of the limited immunity provided under HS 11362.775, even though the defendant was a member / vendor and not the owner or operator of K.I.M.

-The fact that Mr. Mitchell formed his own corporation, Herbmatics, Inc., and sold his product to ANOTHER corporation, K.I.M.  The law doesn't say anything about this type of arrangement, but courts and law enforcement agencies frown upon dealers who sell outside of their own non-profit organization.  According to the California Attorney General's interpretation of the law, medical marijuana clubs may cultivate their OWN cannabis, but they should not buy or sell medicine outside of their own closed-loop distribution network.  Again, the law is silent here, but medical marijuana entrepreneurs who grow under one corporate name and sell to another corporation will enjoy fewer legal protections than clubs that maintain ownership of their own plants from seed to flower.  

-The fact that the Mr. Mitchell's written agreements with K.I.M. provided for a set annual salary, regardless of his costs or the quantity of cannabis that he provided to the club.  As discussed above, money may change hands during these types of transactions, but parties must be able to demonstrate that the costs of the marijuana are reasonably related to the grower's expenses.  If the grower is making significant income but cannot prove the value of his costs and labor, he's going to have a hard time defending himself in court.  

Expect this case to work its way up to the State Supreme Court, where the rules are likely to get flipped on their heads again.  Until we get a more coherent set of laws on the subject, more people like Mr. Mitchell are likely to end up behind bars for activities that they honestly believed were protected under the law.  

Speaking of....

California might soon get a more coherent set of medical marijuana laws!  The State Senate Health Committee recently approved SB 1262, a proposed set of regulations to govern medical marijuana here in California.  The new regulations had been opposed by CA NORML, which was primarily concerned with some provisions that would have limited the ability of doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients.  After those provisions were dropped from the bill, CA NORML Director Dale Gieringer declared that it "was on the right track".  

If passed by the full Senate and State Assembly, the bill will require doctors who recommend marijuana to also discuss possible side effects of the drug with their patients.  They would also be responsible for conducting appropriate examinations and follow-up consultations with patients.  It would impose penalties for doctors who fail to properly examine patients before recommending marijuana.  

The bill will explicitly allow cities and counties to restrict or prohibit marijuana dispensaries within their borders.  It will establish systems for licensing cultivation sites and for assuring quality and purity of cannabis sold at dispensaries.  The law will also require dispensaries to adopt certain security measures to prevent thefts.  

Medical marijuana advocates believe that the regulations are valuable to clarify the legal protections for growers, transporters, dispensary operators and others involved in this budding industry.  The federal government has also pledged to respect state marijuana laws where there is a "strong and effective" regulatory scheme in place.  Until now, however, California's regulatory scheme has been neither strong, nor effective.  This absence of clear guidance has exposed patients to federal raids. Hopefully, a clear and concise set of rules in California will help seriously ill patients access their medicine while reducing crime and the other harms associated with our great social experiment.  

If you have questions about medical marijuana in California, call The Law Offices of John W. Bussman for a free consultation.  (714) 505-2468.  Thanks for reading.  

Rules for Possessing and Transporting Firearms in California

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece about California's wacky approach to weapons laws.  If you read that post, available here, you already know that it's legal to keep a machete under the driver's seat of your car, but it's illegal to keep a baseball bat in your own home if the bat's intended use is as a weapon.  You can carry a 12-inch Bowie knife on your belt, but you can be arrested for keeping an extendable baton under your bed for self-defense.  Samurai swords are legal; nunchucks are not. You may carry this concealed upon your person, but not this.  I never said these rules made sense.

All these California laws about knives, clubs and martial arts weapons were so goofy, I decided to save firearms for another day.  Well, today is that day.

California has some of the most complicated, restrictive gun laws in the United States.  To oversimplify things, here's a breakdown of the 3 main laws governing how and where you may possess firearms in California.  And of course, each of these rules contain exceptions, exemptions and caveats.  The Big Three laws regarding possession of firearms in California are as follows:

1) You may not carry a concealed (or "concealable") firearm in any public place or in the passenger area of your car (PC 25400).  The trunk is not considered the "passenger area".  Handguns must be locked and out of reach during transport.

2) You may not carry a loaded firearm within any incorporated city (PC 25850), and

3) You may not "open carry" any sort of firearm (handgun, rifle or shotgun) outside of your vehicle within any incorporated city (PC 26350 & PC 26400).  Since 2013, California is no longer an "open carry" state.  You may still, however, carry an unloaded rifle or shotgun in your vehicle, (e.g. in a gun rack).

Of course, these rules make allowances for police officers, military personnel, and licensed security guards to carry firearms as necessary.  There are also some common-sense exceptions to allow for things like shooting competitions, hunting, target ranges, gun buy-back programs, licensed "concealed carry", etc.

Some of the exceptions are less intuitive, but still make sense.  For example, these rules do not apply inside your own residence, place of business or other property that you own or lawfully possess.  You may also transport an unloaded gun between any of those places.  "Residence" even includes temporary residences, like campsites or hotel rooms (you may possess loaded and concealed weapons while camping).  You may even carry a loaded / concealed gun at your office if you own the place or you have your boss's permission to do so.

PC 25400 does not apply while a person is fishing, but PC 25850 does.  Essentially, this means that you may carry a concealed weapon while fishing, but the gun may not be loaded within city limits.  If you are fishing outside of city limits, you may carry a loaded, concealed handgun.

As mentioned, this is a very oversimplified glance at some of the laws regarding possession of firearms in California.  The rules are complicated, but this should help give you a basic understanding of your rights and obligations as a gun owner in the Golden State.

If you or a loved one is accused of any crime involving firearms, call our office for a free consultation. 714 449 3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Gun Lawyer

Why Privacy Rights Still Matter

Disclosures regarding the NSA's secret spying program have recently raised some debate in the United States over privacy rights and their limits.  How much government intrusion is too much and how should we balance the state's legitimate "need to know" against an individual's reasonable expectations of privacy?

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution assures our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Critics of the Fourth Amendment often claim that it only protects the guilty.  "If you aren't doing anything illegal, then what do you have to hide?", they ask.  There are lots of compelling responses to this stupid question, but perhaps the best defense of the Fourth Amendment was recently illustrated by the case of a New Mexico man named David Eckert.

Eckert was pulled over by police for failing to make a complete stop at a sign as he pulled out of a Walmart parking lot.  An officer noticed that Mr. Eckert appeared to be clenching his buttocks. Clenched butt cheeks can only mean one thing, police reasoned: Eckert must be transporting marijuana inside his rectum (because that's where people keep it?).  This was the "probable cause" that cops cited in obtaining a warrant to perform a 14-hour-long series of invasive cavity searches on their suspect.  

Police transported Eckert to an area hospital for exams.  Doctors initially refused to perform the requested procedures, citing medical ethics.  Officers then took Eckert to the Gila Regional Medical Center, where other doctors apparently had no such ethical objections.  

First, doctors performed x-rays of Eckert's lower abdomen.  No contraband was located.  

Then, doctors probed Eckert's anus with their fingers.  No contraband was found.  

Then, just to be safe, doctors probed Eckert's anus again with their fingers.  Still no contraband.  

Next, Eckert was subjected to an involuntary enema.  He was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police.  Police searched his stool for signs of contraband, but none was found.  

After that, doctors forcibly inserted an enema into Mr. Eckert's anus a second time.  Again, he was made to defecate in front of the doctors and police.  Again, no contraband was found.  

Can you guess what happened after that?  If you guessed "Eckert was forcibly subjected to a third enema", you're right!  Still no contraband.  

Now, after spending the better part of their afternoon elbow-deep in Mr. Eckert's colon, lesser doctors might have reasonably concluded that their patient was not hiding any contraband, at least not inside his rectum.  But these guys didn't get to be doctors by quitting when the going got tough. 

Mr. Eckert was then subjected to another x-ray of his abdomen.  Still no contraband.  

Finally, Eckert was prepared for surgery and sedated.  Doctors performed an involuntary colonoscopy to inspect the lower portion of his digestive tract.  No contraband was ever located.  

Mr. Eckert's only crime was failing to make a complete stop at a sign.  Police, acting on no more than a hunch, were able to obtain a warrant from a judge, authorizing a series of highly invasive "medical procedures", supposedly justified by some serious risk to public safety (suspected possession of marijuana).  Just imagine how police might have treated Eckert if he were suspected of something that was actually dangerous.

Some people will say that this type of government intrusion is making us safer by reducing the risk of a terrorist attack.  I'd rather take my chances.

If you or a loved one have questions about invasive police searches and your constitutional right to privacy, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton Criminal Defense Lawyer 

A Plea for Restraint

Attorneys finished presenting their closing arguments in the Kelly Thomas murder trial this morning.  Manuel "Manny Man" Ramos and Jay Cicinelli are each charged in the beating death of the 135-pound homeless man in Fullerton.  Ramos is accused of murder and manslaughter.  Cicinelli is accused of manslaughter and using excessive force.

The fates of both defendants are now in the hands of the jury.  Deliberations are likely to take several days.

It's hard to believe that 2 1/2 years have elapsed since Kelly's death.  In that time, Kelly's Army has shaken the bases of power in Fullerton, California.  Sustained protests forced Fullerton's Chief of Police to resign, 3 city council members were recalled from office, a grand jury indicted 3 police officers for their roles in the beating, the public image of the FPD was irreparably tarnished as this scandal shed light on the culture of corruption within its ranks, and the District Attorney took the unprecedented action of filing murder charges against an on-duty cop.

As this story nears its culmination, I wanted to take a moment to urge Kelly's Army to exercise restraint, however the jury rules.  Of course, any rational human with a heart and half a brain is crossing his fingers for convictions.  Convictions are the only way to start the process of closure for the Thomas family and for all the citizens of Fullerton.  Guilty verdicts are going to be necessary first steps toward rebuilding our trust in the FPD, protecting our most vulnerable and ensuring that this type of official abuse never happens again.

If the jury votes to convict, I want to urge Kelly's Army to restrain their celebrations.  Guilty verdicts will be a fitting conclusion to this story.  They'll represent the justice that we've all been screaming for since the story broke.  But celebrations still don't feel appropriate.  Kelly is still gone and the damage is still done.  Please show respect for the Thomas family by curtailing inappropriate celebration if the jury votes to convict.

Similarly, if the jury votes to acquit, I want to urge Kelly's Army to direct their anger towards the ones who were responsible and not elsewhere.  Out-of-town instigators should stay home and smash their own windows.

Update: Week 1 of the Kelly Thomas Murder Trial

I had an opportunity to sit in on part of the Kelly Thomas murder trial this morning, currently underway in Department 40 of the Santa Ana Courthouse.

Kelly Thomas is the mentally ill homeless man who was beaten to death by the Fullerton Police in July of 2011.  Officer Manuel Ramos is accused of murder and manslaughter in the case.  Corporal Jay Cicinelli is accused of manslaughter and excessive force.

So far, prosecutors have presented the case chronologically, in the order that events transpired on the evening of July 5, 2011.  The district attorney presented the synchronized audio / video that captures Kelly's last moments.  The audio recording of the confrontation includes threats of violence that Ramos directed at Kelly.  Those threats, the DA contends, escalated an otherwise-mundane encounter into a fatal one.  Prosecutors then called various first-responders, who described the scene immediately after the beating.

Today's proceedings included testimony from Captain John Zillgitt of the Fullerton Fire Department.  He was the lead paramedic responsible for overseeing the team of EMTs who loaded Kelly into the ambulance.  He stated that Kelly was unconscious and "hobbled" when he arrived -- Kelly's handcuffs were attached to his ankles.  "There was a volume of blood matted in his facial hair", said Zillgitt.  He further testified that Kelly's heart stopped while he was being transported in the ambulance and EMTs began performing CPR on their way to St. Jude Medical Center.

Dr. Aruna Singhania, forensic pathologist with the Orange County Coroner, also testified about Kelly's autopsy.  She determined Kelly's cause of death to be "anoxic encephalopathy [lack of oxygen] due to mechanical chest compression along with blunt cranial and facial injuries".

The jury is comprised of 12 jurors, plus 4 alternates.  I could not determine which of the 4 jurors were alternates based on where they were seated.  Of the 16, 6 are male and 10 are female.  They include 1 Asian male, one Hispanic male, and one Asian female.  The rest are Caucasian (the jury is overwhelmingly Caucasian and female).  

I will continue to attend as much of the trial as I can.  There were open seats in the courtroom today.  Members of the public are welcome to attend.  The Thomas family appreciates any support.  Trial will resume tomorrow at 8:45 AM in Department 40 of the Santa Ana Courthouse.  Stop by if you're in the area.  

Stay tuned for updates as they become available.  Thanks for reading.  

I Was Arrested for DUI in Riverside, CA. What Can I Expect?

Riverside County has some of the strictest penalties for first-time DUI offenders in California.  If you're convicted of DUI anywhere in Riverside County, you're likely to receive costly fines, loss of your driving privileges, mandatory classes and at least 3 years of probation.  Unlike other jurisdictions in California, though, anyone convicted of DUI in Riverside is also likely to serve some time in custody, even for a first offense.  The time you spend in custody may vary depending on the circumstances of your case.  You might also qualify for some alternative to jail (home detention, weekends, labor, etc.), depending on a lot of factors.

Anyone convicted of DUI in California is required to attend a mandatory, 3-month alcohol education program, called "AB-541".  Riverside County has chosen to make this process more complicated than necessary.  Rather than simply allowing participants to enroll into the classes, Riverside requires all attendees to participate in a mandatory "orientation" session.  Of course, they charge a fee for this "orientation".  If you fail to schedule your orientation within 5 days of your court appearance, you'll be required to return to court for a new referral.  You could also be accused of violating your probation, which may result in more jail time.

The budget crunch in Riverside County means that more defendants are being crowded into fewer courtrooms, resulting in longer waits in less comfortable seating.  Make sure that you arrive on time to court, though.  Leave plenty of time for the security line.  If you check in late, you'll be turned away.  A warrant will be issued for your arrest and you'll have to request a new court date.

At your arraignment (your first court appearance), the judge will inform you of the charges against you.  You'll have an opportunity to either, 1) admit all the charges and resolve your case on the spot, 2) request the services of the Public Defender, or 3) request some time to speak with a private attorney.

As a private attorney, I'd recommend option #3.  An experienced, local DUI defense attorney can help you navigate the complicated process of fighting a DUI.  We provide peace of mind by helping you understand the legal procedures and your options going forward.  We can review the evidence to determine the strength of the case against you, as well as any possible defenses.  Even if you're guilty as charged, your counsel can often help negotiate a fair deal to resolve your case.  As mentioned above, there may be options available that would allow you to keep your job and take care of your family, even while serving "custody".

A private attorney can often make your court appearances for you, without you being personally present.  Save yourself the headache of appearing in court -- just send your lawyer.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for DUI in Riverside, California, call our office for a free attorney consultation.  951 683 4613.  Ask for John.  Thanks for reading.

Riverside DUI Lawyer

Give a Loved One the Gift of a Fresh Start -- Affordable Expungement Packages Now Available

Does someone in your life have a criminal conviction that's standing between them and the things they want to achieve?  Husband can't find a good job because of an old DUI?  Daughter can't get into school because of mistakes she made years ago?  This holiday season, give someone you love a gift they really need...an expungement!

As I've previously written on this blog.  An expungement is California's way of dismissing a case after someone has successfully completed serving his or her penalties.  After an expungement is granted, it's like the conviction never happened (for most purposes, some exceptions).

An expungement can dramatically improve your job prospects and your chances of holding various professional licenses or being admitted to a good school.  Give someone you love a second chance to accomplish all the things you know they're capable of.

Expungements aren't for everyone.  There are several strict criteria that a petitioner must meet in order to earn the expungement.  Specifically, it's important that the petitioner:

1) Successfully completed probation.  If probation was not granted, petitioner must wait one year from the date of the conviction.

2) Is not currently on probation in any other cases.  If the petitioner is still on probation, we might be able to help terminate probation early.

We provide free consultations to help determine whether or not you or your loved one qualifies for an expungement.  If you do not qualify, there may be other options available for you.  After your consultation, we will prepare all necessary paperwork to begin the process of petitioning for your expungement.  The documents are fairly simple, but any small error can result in a denial of the petition.  After preparing the documents, we will take care of serving those documents on the prosecutor and properly filing them with the court.  We will also appear in court on your behalf for any necessary appearances.  In most cases, you do not need to be personally present in court for these hearings (some exceptions may apply).

Call us for your free consultation at 714 505 2468.  Thanks for reading.

Kelly Thomas Trial Date Approaching

The trial of Fullerton police officers Manny Ramos and Jay Cicinelli is now scheduled to begin in Department C-40 of the Santa Ana Courthouse on December 2, 2013.  Members of the public are encouraged to attend.

Officer Ramos and Corporal Cicinelli are accused in the 2011 beating death of transient Kelly Thomas, pictured, at the Fullerton Transit Center.  Kelly was severely beaten by six Fullerton police officers on the evening of July 5, 2011.  He suffered severe injuries, including facial fractures and broken ribs.  Kelly never regained consciousness.  He died after being removed from life support five days later.

The incident was captured by both audio and video recorders.  Ramos is accused of provoking the fatal encounter by threatening Kelly with unlawful force.  At one point in the recordings, Ramos can be seen putting on latex gloves.  He says to Kelly, "See these fists?  There's getting ready to fuck you up".  As Kelly gets up and attempts to run from Officer Ramos, Officer Joe Wolfe strikes Kelly with a baton.  Wolfe and Ramos quickly take Kelly to the ground as more police arrive to assist.  Corporal Cicinelli deploys his taser several times, then begins striking Kelly repeatedly in the face with the butt of his weapon.  Six officers dog pile onto Kelly and continue their assault until Kelly stops breathing.

After Kelly lost consciousness, the officers made no effort to provide medical attention.  Even as the homeless man lay dying in the parking lot, officers prevented emergency responders from rendering aid to him.

Kelly's death helped to expose a "culture of corruption" within the Fullerton Police Department.  Several other incidents were later revealed in which Fullerton Police had used excessive force, fabricated reports, suppressed exculpatory evidence, and engaged in acts of dishonesty.  Chief Michael Sellers was forced to "resign" in the wake of the investigation.  Fullerton voters also held a special recall election, in which 3 council members were removed from office for their roles in the scandal.

The Fullerton Police Department has a long way to go if it hopes to restore the public's trust.  "Guilty" verdicts for Ramos and Cicinelli will be a crucial first step in the healing process, both for the City of Fullerton and for the Thomas family.

The defense is expected to make two key assertions.  First, they will argue that Kelly caused his own death by refusing to follow the commands of officers and by attempting to flee.  Attorneys will claim that the officers used the appropriate degree of force to restrain a violent, dangerous individual and that their force would have ended immediately upon Kelly's compliance.  Secondly, the defense will likely argue that the cause of Kelly's death cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty and that some reasonable doubt must, therefore, exist.

Stay tuned for developments as they become available.  I will try to attend as much of the trial as possible.

Myth of the Day: Is it Really Illegal to Eat an Orange in Your Bathtub in California?

This is a persistent myth that has made its way around the internet, thanks to social media and the general willingness of gullible people to repeat asinine things that they've heard.  This particular myth, though, has even been repeated by some major, mainstream outlets, including Gerri Willis from Fox Business.  If you're still getting your news from the "Faux" Network...well...there's your first problem.

Despite the many sources that make claim, none actually cite to any relevant statutory authority or case law.  Luckily, I was born with a rare genetic condition called "curiosity", so I decided to devote some valuable time to finding this mysterious and arcane law.  I actually did something that Gerri Willis couldn't be bothered to do -- I checked my sources.

Turns out, no such law exists in California.  Of course not.  Just think for a minute about how absurd a law like that would be.  It would obviously be impossible to enforce and it would likely be stricken down as "without rational basis".

Moral of the story: if you hear a legal myth that sounds too ridiculous to be true, it probably is.  Also, Fox Business is lying to you.

If you or a loved one has questions about any other legal myths, call our office for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney

How to Clean Up Your Criminal Record, Part II

I've previously written a post, available here, about the process for obtaining an expungement in California.  Today, I want to discuss the procedure for obtaining a Certificate of Rehabilitation & Gubernatorial Pardon.

If you read my post on expungements, you'll know that an expungement dismisses a case against you AFTER you've successfully completed probation and satisfied all terms of your sentence.  An expungement will not "seal" your record -- your criminal record will still exist and it will still be public.  Rather than showing a conviction, however, your criminal record will show a dismissal after the expungement is granted.  This allows you to honestly state that you have no criminal convictions when you apply for jobs in the future.  An expungement will not restore your right to possess firearms and will not relieve you of your duty to register as a (fill-in-the-blank) offender.

If you were sentenced to state prison in a felony case and were not given probation, then you are not eligible to apply for an expungement.  Luckily, there may be another option available to help you clean up your criminal record.

Individuals who have been committed to state prison may apply for Certificate of Rehabilitation (hereinafter, a "CR") after a specified period of time has elapsed.  Unlike an expungement, a CR will not dismiss the charges against you.  It will, however, serve as an official acknowledgement of your reformation and continued good conduct.  When prospective employers run background checks on you, they will see that you made mistakes in your youth, but also that you learned from those mistakes and that you remained law-abiding thereafter.  A CR may also improve your prospects of obtaining various state-issued licenses (e.g. to become a nurse, chiropractor, attorney, etc.).

The amount of time that you must wait before applying for a CR depends on the nature of the crime for which you were convicted.  Generally, an applicant must remain law-abiding for 7-10 years after his or her release from prison before becoming eligible to apply for a CR.  You must also show that you have resided in California for the required period, have not been incarcerated since your release from prison, and are not currently on parole or probation.

To begin the process, an applicant must file several documents with the local court.  These documents are referred to as the "Petition for Ascertainment", the "Declaration of Rehabilitation" and an "Order Declaring Petitioner to be Rehabilitated".  A judge will review the application packet to determine the petitioner's eligibility.  Aside from the factors listed above, the court is specifically looking for 4 criteria:

-Has the petitioner lead an "honest and upright" life since his or her release from prison?
-Has the petitioner conducted himself or herself with "sobriety and industry"?
-Has the petitioner exhibited "good moral character"?, and
-Has the petitioner conformed to and obeyed the laws of the land?

If the court is satisfied that you are eligible for the relief requested, the judge will sign the Order that you provided with your application packet.  Once it is signed by a judge, the Order becomes a "Certificate of Rehabilitation".  A judge has essentially declared you to be "officially rehabilitated".

The court will then send a copy of the signed Order to the governor's office, along with a recommendation that the governor grant the petitioner a full Gubernatorial Pardon.  This is done automatically, without any further requirements of the petitioner.  If granted, a GP will dismiss the charges completely, similar to what an expungement does.  Unlike an expungement, however, a GP may restore firearms rights and may even relieve some petitioners of their duty to register as sex offenders.  A GP also differs from an expungement in another key regard -- having received a pardon does not allow the pardoned person to state on a job application that he or she has no criminal convictions.  It will allow a previously-convicted felon to serve on a jury, but it will not necessarily prevent deportation.

So, that's the process in a nutshell.  There are a lot more boring details that I'd be happy to discuss with anyone who cares to ask.

If you've ever wondered about your eligibility for an expungement, a Certificate of Rehabilitation, and / or a Gubernatorial Pardon, call my office for a free consultation. 714 449 3335.

Thanks for reading.

How to Avoid Being Pulled Over for DUI

Here's a question that I hear often:  What can I do to reduce the chances that I'll be stopped on suspicion of DUI?  The short answer is, "Don't drink or use drugs before driving".  Duh.

If only it were that easy.

Though they won't admit it, cops are often under immense pressure to make a lot of DUI arrests, even if those arrests don't result in convictions.  Awards, promotions and grants are often tied to the number of arrests that an officer or a department makes in a given year, with little or no regard for the arrestees' actual guilt or innocence.  Cities make big money on towing and impound fees and police get to tout their aggressive stance against drunk drivers.  Too often, this leads cops to err on the side of making the arrest, even when the evidence is lacking.

The DA might eventually decline to pursue the case against you, but the harm may already be done.  By the time you're exonerated, you've probably had one of the worst nights of your life -- you've been handcuffed and transported the local jail, booked and photographed, thrown into a crowded holding cell full of real criminals and released some time the next day.  Good luck explaining everything to your boss and your kids.

Here are some easy steps that you can follow to reduce the chances that you'll be stopped on suspicion of DUI --

1.  Obey all traffic laws:  Breaking some minor traffic law is the #1 reason that people are stopped and arrested for DUI.  Use your turn signals, obey the posted speed limits and don't do anything to draw unnecessary attention to yourself.  Some of the rules that follow are simply reiterations of this basic no-brainer.  Remember, police don't need "probable cause" to stop you -- they only need "reasonable suspicion".  Reasonable suspicion is what it sounds like -- some set of facts that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that you might be up to something illegal.  Don't give them that reason.

2.  Ensure that your vehicle is "up to code" and in proper working order:  Are ALL exterior lights functioning?  This includes the little light above your license plate and the third brake light in your rear window.  ANY non-functioning exterior light can be cause for a traffic stop, even if the light itself is superfluous or not required by law.  It sounds ticky-tacky (and it is), but cops can and will stop you for a single non-functioning LED bulb anywhere on the exterior of your vehicle.

-Are your tags current?

-Are your windows illegally tinted?

-Is your exhaust illegally modified?

-Do you have a front license plate?

-Are you wearing your seat belt?

-If you drive a lifted truck or jeep, are your fenders up to code?

-Is your music too loud?

-Do you have objects on your dashboard or in your rear window that might be obstructing the driver's view?

-If you're smoking, don't litter with your cigarette butt (this goes for everybody at all times, not just drivers.  Seriously, some of us live here.)

These are the kinds of non-moving violations that can lead to unwanted contact with law enforcement.

3.  Don't talk on the phone or text:  This goes back to rule #1 -- don't break the law.  Even if the police don't see you using the phone, taking your eyes off of the road may cause you to "drift" or "weave".  That drifting / weaving can be misinterpreted as "impaired driving" and could be the basis for a traffic stop.

4.  Don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself:  Remember what I said above -- Cops don't need probable cause to pull you over; they just need a reason to suspect that something might be wrong.  You can be stopped even if you're not breaking any laws.  Accelerating or braking too quickly or too slowly might attract police attention, even if those acts are not necessarily crimes in themselves.  The same goes for taking turns too fast or hitting dips too hard.

5.  If you've already stopped before the police make contact with you, don't talk yourself into trouble:  Here's a situation that I see very often --

Abe and Ben are leaving the bar after having a couple drinks each.  Abe is driving Ben's car.  He's not wasted, but he's close to the legal limit.  They run out of gas on the freeway, so Abe pulls to the side of the road, makes a phone call, and waits for a friend to bring them a gas can.  After a few minutes, a CHP cruiser pulls up and the officer asks Abe if he's OK.  While speaking to Abe and Ben, the officer notices that they both smell like alcohol and appear to be displaying several objective symptoms of intoxication.  Here's where Abe makes his big mistake -- Abe tells the officer that he and Ben just left the bar and that he was driving Ben's car on the freeway when they ran out of gas.  He states that he was driving Ben's car because Ben had drank too much.  Abe denies consuming any alcohol since driving.  He further states that he smoked a small amount marijuana earlier in the day, but he's a qualified medical patient and he denies feeling any residual effects from the drug.

Abe has just convinced the officer to arrest him.  If he had simply exercised his right to remain silent, he might sleep in his own bed tonight.

If you're ever in this situation, remember that it is a crime to lie to the police.  You do not need an elaborate alibi.  Making false statements to the police can get you into more trouble than you're already in.  That being said, you don't have any obligation to incriminate yourself or to provide police with crucial pieces of evidence that will form the basis of the case against you.  You should politely refuse to answer any questions regarding where you were coming from, where you were going, whether or not you were the driver, what time you were driving, whether or not you have consumed any alcohol or drugs, whether or not you feel the effects of any alcohol or drugs, etc.  You must provide your name, driver's license, and proof of registration / insurance.  Always be polite, but never volunteer more information than necessary.

As always, be safe, be smart, but if you're neither, you know what to do.

Posting "Revenge Porn" is Now a Misdemeanor in California

PC 647(l) makes it a misdemeanor to post online, distribute or otherwise disseminate nude photos of your ex. Anyone convicted under this section could face up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first offense, with the penalty doubled for a second offense.

The bill, proposed by Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres), was signed by Gov. Brown and took effect in 2013. It provides, in relevant part, the following:

"...that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct."

Put simply, you can be arrested and prosecuted if you share (or post, or publish, or upload...) nude pictures of someone without that person's permission. Even if you had permission to take the photos when they were created, or even if the photos were sent to you, you may not distribute those photos without the subject's permission. 

Disseminating revenge porn may also be the basis for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. Even though we don't typically think of revenge porn as being an act of "domestic violence", a judge will grant a domestic violence restraining order if the the victim requests one because the act of posting revenge porn can constitute "harassment". Aside from being arrested and possibly jailed, you will be barred from possessing firearms if a restraining order is granted against you. 

Finally, you are likely to be sued if the victim can prove that you breached his or her privacy by publishing intimate photos.

There are many possible defenses to the crime of distributing revenge porn. Our office has experience fighting these types of charges and we can help if you have been arrested or if you believe that you are under investigation. Call us for a free attorney consultation. 714 449 3335. 

Thanks for reading. 

Orange County Revenge Porn Lawyer

Why Publicize DUI Checkpoints?

If you follow my Facebook page (and you should), you've noticed that I like to post warnings about local DUI checkpoints.  I'll usually give the heads-up a few days in advance whenever I discover that a local police agency intends to operate one of these dragnets.  I get a lot of feedback when I publish my warnings, mostly negative.  I've been called names and had my posts reported as "spam" or "abuse", but I won't be deterred.  My DUI checkpoint warnings should be regarded as a valuable public service, not just for commuters, but also for anyone who pays taxes, expects accountable government, and respects the principles enshrined in the US Constitution.

The 4th Amendment ensures the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures".  The "reasonableness" of any particular search and / or seizure depends on the unique facts of each situation.  To determine whether or not a given search is "reasonable", the courts perform a balancing test.  On one hand, they weigh the state's interest in public safety.  On the other, they consider an individuals expectation of privacy in the given situation.  The court will consider the methods by which the search was performed and whether or not other, less intrusive means are available to law enforcement to decide whether or not a search passes constitutional muster.

Obviously, the state has a strong interest in preventing and deterring drunk driving.  Drunk driving is a major safety concern on the roads.  Alcohol is the biggest single contributing factor in fatal auto collisions.  I think we all agree on this: drunk driving is bad.  We all want to keep drunk drivers off the road.  We also want to achieve this directive in a manner that is cost-effective -- saving the most lives per dollar spent.  Along those same lines, we all want to preserve the rights and privileges that make America great.

The flip side of the coin is this:  DUI checkpoints are plainly examples of warrantless, suspicionless searches and seizures.  A typical DUI checkpoint can screen thousands of drivers in a given night. Commuters will be subjected to traffic delays and unnecessary police interrogation.  Everyone is a suspect at DUI checkpoints.  This is clearly not what the Constitution's Framers envisioned. Americans have the constitutional right to move about the country, free from unnecessary government intervention.  You don't need the cops' permission to drive down your street -- you own the street and the cops work for you.  DUI checkpoints turn this principle on its head.

To rectify the conflict between public safety and individual privacy, the US Supreme Court has provided a set of guidelines to be considered when determining the constitutionality of a particular DUI checkpoint.  Among the Court's list of factors, it ruled that:

• Checkpoints should be publicized 
• Checkpoints should be set up in areas where there is already a high occurrence of drunk driving and DUI-related accidents
• Drivers should have an opportunity to avoid the checkpoint (Note: Police have gotten around this one.  If they provide some opportunity to turn away before entering the checkpoint, there will usually be "chasers" in position.  The chasers are cops whose job is to watch for anyone who avoids the checkpoint.  They will follow you until they find a reason to pull you over, imagined or otherwise.)

If the traffic delays and suspicionless interrogations don't bother you, consider the cost of these dragnets.  DUI checkpoints usually cost taxpayers about $10,000.00 to operate per night.  The funds come from various sources, including federal and state grants to local police agencies.  The checkpoints are staffed by officers on overtime.  Next time you're sitting in traffic waiting to go through one of these time-wasters, at least you'll be comforted by the fact that the cops are being paid time-and-a-half.

Of course, police unions are the most vocal lobbyists in favor of more checkpoints.  Their members get to stand around and eat catered food while getting paid extra to do safe, easy "work".  I like to call the dragnets "DUI Checkpoint Fundraisers", because I think that accurately describes their function.  DUI checkpoints don't just raise funds from state and federal grants, they also boost department coffers with towing and impound fees.  Did you forget to pay a ticket from out-of-county when you were on vacation?  Did your wife forget to mail in your insurance check?  If so, you might be surprised to learn that you have a suspended driver's license.  You'll be even more surprised when police impound your car, hold it for 30 days, and charge you thousands of dollars to release it at the end of the month.

So there are avoidable traffic delays and suspicionless interrogations that erode the public's faith in law enforcement.  There's the tax dollars being squandered on unnecessary overtime pay and the wasted police resources that aren't being utilized while the checkpoint is in operation.  Any other reasons people should avoid DUI checkpoints?  Here's one:  they simply don't catch drunk drivers.  As I mentioned above, a typical DUI checkpoint can screen thousands of drivers in a single night.  On average, though, a checkpoint will net less than 1 DUI arrest.  If the purpose of DUI checkpoints is to catch DUI drivers, then they're not working.  Just imagine if all those cops working the checkpoint had been in their cars, cruising high-DUI areas, watching for intoxicated individuals and responding to actual alcohol-related incidents.  Remember what I said above about lives saved per dollar spent?

DUI checkpoints are wasteful in every respect.  The sooner we figure this out, the sooner we can start implementing strategies that actually reduce the harms associated with DUI driving.  For my part, I will continue publicizing advance notice of DUI checkpoints in Orange County on my Facebook page.  Check back often for updates as they become available.

As always, please don't give the cops anything to do.

Fishing Regulations in California: How Not to Get Bagged

As its name implies, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (formerly the "Department of Fish & Game") has the responsibility of governing fishing and hunting with the state.  The DFW has the authority to author its own rules and regulations to that end. Those regulations (written, enforced and interpreted by the DFW) carry the full weight of the law. Any violation of the DFW's self-imposed rules can carry hefty penalties, including jail time, fines, loss of hunting / fishing privileges in the future and even forfeiture of property used in the commission of the alleged offense. Laws on the subject are incredibly complicated and, unfortunately, ignorance of those laws is generally not a defense.

So the DFW, an un-elected, executive agency, can make up laws, enforce those laws, and decide for itself how those laws are to be interpreted? Basically, yes. The District Attorney and the courts play a role, but the bulk of hunting and fishing regulations in the State of California are issued by an agency that is virtually insulated from popular pressure. The legislature also contributes to the mish-mash of gaming regulations in the state, resulting in more laws than any one man could possibly wrap his mind around.

If you or a loved one is accused of unlawful hunting or fishing in California, call an attorney with experience in defending against local hunting and fishing violations. Luckily, you've already made the right first step. I'm not only a criminal defense attorney, I'm also an avid fisherman here in Southern California. When I'm not in the courtroom, you can find me ripping lips in Newport Beach, trapping lobster with hoop nets in Mission Bay, or getting my line wet wherever the opportunity presents itself. I've even been hassled by cops for fishing in the water hazards on golf courses.

If you're going to enjoy some of the outdoor sporting activities that the Golden State has to offer, you'd better get familiar with some local regulations before your next fishing trip. I want to share a few tips to help prevent other fishermen from accidentally (or negligently, or intentionally) running afoul of California's complicated Fish & Wildlife Regulations.

The California coastline is divided into 7 "regions". Each region has its own set of regulations to govern the types of fish that can be caught, permissible methods for catching various species (nets, hook & line, traps, spears, bare hands, etc.) closed seasons, minimum sizes, bag limits and other restrictions. This post will focus on rules and regulations within the "South Coast Region", stretching from Point Concepcion to the Mexican border. This region includes the southern portion of Santa Barbara County and all of Ventura County, Los Angeles County, Orange County and San Diego County. The South Coast Region is home of the warmest water in the state, as well as the largest population of fishermen. The warm water and heavy angling pressure has contributed to a unique set of challenges, both for the fisherman and the fish in Southern California. Accordingly, the DFW has imposed specific rules to account for the specific circumstances in the waters between Santa Barbara and Mexico. For example, it is currently unlawful to catch Dungeness Crab in Southern California, but perfectly lawful to do so in Northern, CA. Dungeness Crab season will reopen in the South Coast Region on November 2 of this year. It is also illegal to take Abalone from the South Coast Region year-round.

The South Coast Region is also home to several "Marine Protected Areas", or "MPAs". Each MPA has its own strict rules. It is the angler's responsibility to understand the location and regulations of each protected area.  Here is a link to more information regarding Marine Protected Areas within California. Fishermen love to argue about the wisdom and efficacy of the MLPA. Many commercial anglers and sport fishermen feel that the MPAs were imposed arbitrarily or without due consideration for the local economies that depend on fishing certain waters during certain times of the year. Conservationists, on the other hand, welcome the state action to prevent the decimation of our precious fisheries. Wherever you come down on the MPLA, it's important to pay close attention to the locations and regulations affecting each protected area along the California coastline. Ignore them at your own peril.

Once you've determined your region and checked for MPAs, there are even more rules to govern the various methods by which you will be fishing (from shore, from a boat or diving?) Targeting or taking certain species of fish from boats is prohibited during certain times of year within certain regions. Those same fish may be targeted or taken year-round if you're fishing from the shore or diving.  For example, here in the South Coast Region, it is unlawful to target or take any species of Rockfish, Cabezon or Greenlings from a boat between the dates of 1/1 - 2/28. Shore-based fisherman and divers may target those species year-round. Anglers may take Leopard Sharks from boats within designated bays year-round (including within Newport Bay, Los Alamitos Bay, Mission Bay and San Diego Bay). Anglers may also take Leopard Sharks from shore year-round, but Leopard Shark season is only open to anglers aboard boats outside of the above-designated bays between 3/1 - 12/31.

See how quickly these regulations get complicated? I haven't even gotten into bag limits, size limits and maximum allowable depths for various species. To make things even more confusing, the DFG likes to issue "In-Season Fishing & Regulation Changes", just to keep everyone on their toes. These rule changes can go into effect with as little as 10 days of advance notice to the public.

Species identification is another area that may cause confusion among novice anglers.  Here's a link to a handy illustration that can be used to distinguish among some types of fish that are commonly found near shore in California. Notice how similar many of the rockfish species appear. The bocaccio and chilipepper varieties look nearly identical. The bocaccio, however, has a statewide bag limit of 2 per angler, while the chilipepper rockfish has a bag limit of 10 in the South Coast Region. It's easy to see how an innocent mistake could transform a novice angler into a misdemeanor defendant.

Accidentally violating a DFW regulation can be expensive. Fines for minor violations start at around $500 (including all mandatory state penalty assessments and court fees). The District Attorney may pursue misdemeanor charges over seemingly innocent mistakes (You didn't know that it's illegal to possess a halibut fillet that's less than 19 inches long? You've never filleted a halibut before and you really botched this one? Too bad. That's a misdemeanor conviction on your record). In some cases, prosecutors may even pursue forfeiture actions against violators. They can take your boat, your expensive gear, even the truck that you used to pull the boat if they believe that those items were "instrumentalities" used in the commission of some poaching offenses.

The intricacies of California fishing laws are obviously too complicated to fully explain in one blog post. The short version of the story is this: pay close attention to the local rules and regulations wherever you're fishing. If you're trying out a new stretch of coastline, always check the MPA maps first. You don't want to accidentally wander into a protected area.

If you are accused of poaching or violating any fishing regulations, call an attorney with extensive knowledge of the rules and regulations that govern fishing in Southern California. We offer free fish stories with every consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.

Keep your lines tight.

Orange County Fishing Lawyer

Scam Alert: Rip-Off Artists Pose as Law Enforcement Charities

CNN recently teamed up with the Tampa Bay Times to compile a list of the 50 Worst Charities in America. The investigation revealed host of "non-profit" organizations that spent exorbitant sums on fundraising and salaries compared to the amounts actually spent on performing charitable work.  Many of the worst offenders have raked in millions, while spending less than 1% of their revenue on the cause for which they were founded.

After reviewing the list, I was surprised at how many of the scams involved charities that supposedly benefit law enforcement organizations.  By my count, about 20% of the most egregious rip-offs were perpetrated by groups with names like "The American Association of State Troopers", or "The United States Deputy Sheriff's Association".  The "Disabled Police Officer Counseling Center", for example, only spent 0.1% of their funds on counseling for disabled police.  If you donated $100 to help injured cops receive treatment, a whopping 10 cents of your donation actually went towards that cause.

The sheer scale of these scams is staggering.  A major source of the problem can be traced to the cozy relationship between the "charities" and the for-profit fundraising groups they employ.  Over the past decade, the "International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO" reaped $57.2 million in donations.  Of that $57.2 million, they paid out $41.4 to for-profit solicitors.  During that same period, they spent $286,000 directly on charitable aid.  In case you don't have a calculator handy, that's about a 145-to-1 ratio of fundraising-to-charitable activity.

Think twice before you donate to any pro-law enforcement group (or any unverified "charity", for that matter).  Even groups with official-sounding names and endorsements are often nothing more than fundraising machines.  Unfortunately, very few of those funds ever make their way to the people who need them most.  Do the research and demand to see financial disclosure statements before you sign that check.  Don't be fooled by any scammers claiming to represent law enforcement groups.

Sovereign Citizenship as a Legal Defense?

"Sovereign Citizenship" is the latest rage among the tin foil hat-wearing crowd. Put plainly, "SC" is the (totally false) belief that an individual may simply declare himself "sovereign" and, therefore, not subject to the laws of the land in which he lives.

Adherents to this nonsensical belief typically subscribe to a complicated set of right-wing conspiracy theories, sprinkled with plenty of pseudo-legal jargon and a healthy dose of crazy.

Online scammers have made themselves rich by peddling "Sovereign Citizen Handbooks" and manuals that purport to teach readers "how to unsubscribe from the system and protect yourself and your estate from public exploitation". According to one such scammer, "Standard law books are written in a code that typically confounds the common man. So, rather than waste your precious time digging up case law and code to protect yourself from predatory government agents or dishonest lawyers, we've done it for you."

More and more frequently, courts are encountering "self-represented litigants" who insist on making totally specious arguments bathed in SC theory. Until recently, these cases usually involved debt collection or foreclosure actions. The "sovereign citizen", acting as his own attorney, would claim in open court -- and with a straight face -- that he was immune from the court's authority because he is a nation unto himself. He is, therefore, "sovereign" in the same way that Mexico and Canada are "sovereign". Usually citing some imaginary secret language hidden within the Uniform Commercial Code, the sovereign citizen would argue that his creditors or the government actually owed him money.

While the legal theories surrounding the SC movement should strike most rational adults as laughable, the basic idea simply refuses to die. In fact, SC-based legal defenses seem to be gaining popularity within the criminal courts. In the past few weeks alone, I have personally observed several self-represented defendants attempt, however unsuccessfully, to defend themselves by relying upon some extremely silly sovereign citizen arguments.

Here are some of my favorites. Remember, these are not based upon any actual laws. If you attempt to defend yourself by citing to these arguments, you will lose. Don't blame me, but here they are:

-If the prosecutor, judge and police officers refuse to provide a defendant with copies of their Oaths of Office, they lack the authority to prosecute (or preside, or testify, or whatever the sovereign citizen imagines) and the case must be dismissed.

-If the flag flown in a courtroom has gold fringe around its edges, then it is not a "legal" American flag.  An American flag which incorporates a 4th color (yellow) actually represents no nation or constitution. Since the flag in the courtroom is legally improper, the entire court loses any authority over the defendant and the case must be dismissed.

-If an individual denounces his American citizenship, he may form his own country, along with all of the rights and privileges that statehood encompasses. This includes the right to design one's own license plate and to issue a driver's license to one's self. An individual carrying a self-issued driver's license may drive on public streets without insurance or registration.

If each of the above arguments strikes you as outrageously silly, then congratulations; your bullshit meter is properly calibrated. These arguments obviously appeal to a special breed of ignorant, desperate, paranoid, Glenn Beck-watching fruitcake. Of course, these very people are disproportionately over-represented within the crowded halls of the Superior Court.

For more information about the sovereign citizen movement, visit the Southern Poverty Law Center's website.

If you or a loved one is considering relying on some novel, crackpot legal defense, call us for a free attorney consultation first. (714) 449 3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

AB 473: Turd Stew's Worst Enemy

State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D - San Francisco) recently introduced a bill in the state legislature that could finally bring some clarity to the convoluted mess surrounding California's tangled medical marijuana laws.  This blog regularly refers to CA's current MMJ framework as "turd stew", because it's murky, it's unappealing, and it's not what any of us ordered.

As previously discussed here, California voters overwhelmingly approved Prop. 215 (commonly referrred to as the "Compassionate Use Act", or "CUA") in 1996, which exempted "qualified patients" from most marijuana-related laws.  Those protections were extended in 2003 under SB 420 (also known as the "Medical Marijuana Program", or "MMP").  The MMP allowed patients to "collectivize" in order to help each other procure their medication.  MMP "collectives" quickly evolved into storefront dispensaries that served walk-in "patients".

As dispensaries proliferated over the following decade, cities and counties struggled with many unforeseen effects of marijuana's quasi-legal status.  In the absence of adequate zoning regulations, fly-by-night dispensaries sprung up (often without business licenses) in apartment buildings, near schools and in other sensitive locations.  Neighbors complained about crime, traffic, noise, odors, and related concerns.  Without any sort of legal oversight or inspection process, growers stole electricity by circumventing electrical meters.  Unpermitted outdoor grows contaminated waterways and damaged sensitive fish spawning grounds.  Meanwhile, patients had no way of knowing if their cannabis was tainted with pesticides (or actual pests), mold, etc.

Cities and counties experimented with various methods of controlling the heretofore unchecked proliferation of storefront dispensaries.  As previously discussed on this blog, the city of Long Beach implemented a lottery system, whereby applicants paid huge fees for a chance to win one of a limited number of "dispensary licenses".  Other cities imposed zoning restrictions or prohibited the shops altogether.  Californian patients were left with a mishmash of local laws that varied wildly from town to town.

Ambiguities within the existing laws were filled in by the courts, sometimes with contradictory results.  Consequently, there is still very little agreement in California today over what the various laws actually mean.  This is, in a nutshell, how we achieved today's current state of "turd stew" -- just a big, steaming bowl of something we don't even recognize.

As if things weren't bad enough already for Californian medical marijuana patients, enter the DEA.  The Obama administration began an aggressive new policy of targeting medical marijuana collectives in 2011.  Publicly, the Justice Department stated that it would not go after any clubs that were in "clear and unambiguous compliance with state laws".  Unfortunately, NOBODY is in "clear and unambiguous compliance" with CA law because nobody understands what CA law actually is.  As a result, every clinic in CA is subject to a federal raid at any time.  This has created a climate of fear and uncertainty among dispensary operators and patients.

Fortunately, help could finally be on the way.  Assemblyman Ammiano, longtime friend of the decrim community, has introduced a prescription that could help alleviate MMJ's growing pains.  His proposed law, AB 473, would allow the state's Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (the "ABC") to create reasonable rules and regulations to more uniformly govern the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana.  The bill would impose uniform fees and taxes upon businesses engaged in the sale of marijuana.  Proceeds derived from those fees would be deposited into a "Medical Marijuana Fund", which would then be used to administer and enforce the law.  The ABC would be charged with ensuring the safety of cannibis provided to patients, as well as preventing harmful cultivation practices and the diversion of marijuana for non-medical uses.

Quintin Mecke, former spokesman to Assemblyman Ammiano, recently told the Huffington Post that the DEA was using the lack of statewide regulation as a justification to enforce a crackdown on local cannabis clubs.  Said Mecke, "If we create regulations, we've removed every reasonable explanation on their part to justify the crackdown."

CA NORML and other patient groups have unanimously endorsed the proposed bill.  Medical marijuana advocates hope that new regulations will ensure safe access to medical cannabis while helping to reduce or eliminate many of the negative effects that dispensaries have had on communities and preventing future hostile action from the DEA.

The bill is slowly winding its way through committee now.  It cleared a major hurdle in April when the Committee on Public Safety voted to recommend its approval.  The bill now goes back to the Committee on Appropriations for further amendments and analysis of the law's fiscal effects.

AB 473 has the potential to create a huge impact on CA MMJ law by ensuring public safety and reducing many of the harms currently associated with the medical marijuana industry.  We can expect a long, arduous fight as this bill works its way through the legislature.  Police unions have joined forces with the California District Attorneys Association to aggressively lobby against the proposed legislation.  Of course, the law enforcement industry will always oppose any common sense approach to marijuana policy reform.

It's too soon to guess whether AB 473 will ever even make it to the floor of the Assembly for a vote.  When (if) the bill ever makes its way out of committee, there remains the chance that amendments, riders, addenda and "tweeks" will render the legislation unrecognizable.  That's what makes this whole process so exciting!

Stay tuned for updates as they become available.  Thanks for reading.