CALL US FOR A FREE CONSULTATION
831-426-5800
831-566-4357
303 Potrero Street, Suite 30,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Recent Blog Posts
Feds want states to use ignition interlocks in all DUI cases
In 2010, California began a limited pilot project in driving under the influence cases to test whether ignition interlocks should be used in sentencing for a DUI conviction. The pilot project is being conducted in four counties, and is expected to run through 2016. Sources say that many states are testing the devices in a variety of ways, and roughly 15 states require ignition interlocks in all DUI cases, even for first-time offenders.
Now lawmakers in the nation's capitol are seeking to force states to mandate the use of ignition interlocks in all DUI cases. Ignition interlocks generally are small devices that attach inside the car. The devices act as a portable Breathalyzer-like machine that drivers must use to start the car. The machines come with steep installation fees and monthly charges. If a driver fails the breath test, the car will not start.
Representatives in the U.S. House introduced a measure that would encourage states to require interlocks in all DUI cases. The measure was unveiled Tuesday as part of a transportation spending bill. The federal government cannot tell states directly what criminal laws to pass in individual states, but Congress can dangle money as a carrot to get their way.
Police: Face recognition software identifies California robbery suspects
While courts have been struggling with the validity and constitutional fairness of the use of technological gadgets used to create evidence in criminal cases, a law enforcement agency in California claims that a facial recognition program has linked two people to three California armed robberies. A sergeant from the Lancaster Sheriff's office says the facial recognition program is "only available to law enforcement."
The technology "is a relatively new program that uses advancing technology to compare clear facial photos to booking photos already in the database," according to the sergeant. Deputies say that a 31-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman were arrested last week, based at least in part on the new technology, to which only police have access.
Law enforcement claims that the man and woman teamed up to commit the alleged armed robberies at businesses that had no customers present at the time of the offenses. The Lancaster sergeant says that, "The male suspect would wait for the other patrons to leave the targeted businesses before approaching the cashiers."
Pleasanton schools decide to teach warrantless dog-sniff searches by example
School district trustees voted unanimously Tuesday to allow Pleasanton police dogs to stroll through the parking lots of the high schools to conduct random warrantless searches. The dogs reportedly will be allowed inside the physical education locker rooms when students are not present to sniff for contraband. Additionally, the high school principals will be authorized to seek approval to request warrantless searches.
Four of the five trustees voted to delay implementation of the new dog sniff protocol until the school district can develop a policy for conducting the random warrantless dog sniff searches. Sources say that could take until the end of February. One of the trustees voted against waiting to develop a policy, saying the drug problem is urgent.
Although the district superintendent claims that the alleged drug problem in Pleasanton schools does not involve every student, presumably, every student may be subject to the police dog scrutiny, even if the student is not involved.
US Supreme Court says cops need warrant for GPS tracking
With today's technology, constitutional issues can involve complex arguments in criminal cases. Last summer, this blog reported that the United states Supreme Court had agreed to review whether law enforcement's use of a global positioning system device without a warrant during a drug crime investigation was done in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Monday, the high court ruled unanimously that the Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant.
Although all nine justices ruled that the Constitution requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant, some questions may arise in the future from the Supreme Court ruling.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the court, in which four other justices signed on. Two other justices wrote concurring opinions that offer differing views of the constitutional interests at stake. The case arose out of an East Coast drug crime investigation.
Police had attached a GPS device on a possible suspect's Jeep, while the vehicle was parked in a public parking lot. Law enforcement tracked the suspect's every movement in the Jeep for four weeks. Police used the information to locate a suburban house, where law enforcement claimed the man stashed his cash and cocaine.
California man might face three strikes sentence
A late December probation check may lead to a three-strike prison sentence for a man from Southern California. Two deputies showed up at a motel in Old Town Victorville looking for a probationer. A man that the deputies say they were not looking for ended up being charged with possession of methamphetamine.
When law enforcement arrived at the motel, there were apparently five people in the motel room. Deputies claim that a 32-year-old man, who is believed to be a Blood gang member, tried to close the door on the deputies. They say they kicked in the door. What may have happened next is also open to dispute.
Prosecutors claim that the man who had shut the door on the deputies dove onto the bed when law enforcement kicked in the door. The man accused of diving on the bed says he was pushed toward the bed as the deputies exploded through the door.
The trouble arises from law enforcement's claim that they found 0.1 grams of methamphetamine on the motel bed in a room occupied by five people. San Bernardino County deputies arrested the man who they claim jumped on the bed. Deputies apparently believe the man was trying to hide the meth.
Woman arrested for alleged drug crime while visiting son on probation
Officials at a Southern California youth probation camp say they saw an increase in contraband entering the camp. Authorities say that conducting searches at such probation camps are not unusual, even searches of visitors who come to the camps to see probationers. However, due to the perceived increase of drugs, primarily marijuana, allegedly found in dorm rooms at the Sam Dimas area camp, authorities stepped up efforts during searches of visitors.
A 44-year-old Pomona woman who recently went to the probation camp to visit her son was arrested on suspicion of possession of illegal drugs. Authorities at Camp Glenn Rockey in San Dimas say they found bundles of marijuana and a medical marijuana card during a search of her purse. Authorities claim the marijuana card is fake.
After the alleged discovery of marijuana at the controlled juvenile facility, police arrested the woman on serious California drug possession charges. She was taken to the Century Regional Detention Facility and booked on suspicion of drug charges, and held on $35,000 bail.
Supreme Court throws out murder conviction for undisclosed evidence
During the same week that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision to leave eyewitness identification analysis alone, the high court threw out a murder conviction because prosecutors did not disclose that an eyewitness who testified against the defendant at trial initially told police that he could not identify the killer. For nearly 50 years, prosecutors have known that the Constitution requires that the state must turn over material evidence that prosecutors have that may be favorable to the criminal defense.
In overturning the criminal conviction, Chief Justice John Roberts writes, "We have observed that evidence impeaching an eyewitness may not be material if the state's other evidence is strong enough to sustain confidence in the verdict." Eight justices on the Supreme Court agreed in Tuesday's ruling that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the evidence in the murder case violated the defendant's rights, requiring a reversal of the conviction. Justice Clarence Thomas was alone in dissent.
US Supreme Court makes no change to eyewitness identifications
After she made the identification of the hand-cuffed man, law enforcement brought the woman to the police station to look at a photo-lineup. She could not identify the man. Nonetheless, the man was convicted of theft charges and sentenced prison on the East Coast. The identification procedure used was the focus of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case.
The issue of unduly suggestive police identification procedures has been argued in court rooms and law schools all across the country for years. Over the past 30 years roughly 2,000 studies have been conducted on the issue. This blog discussed the eyewitness identification issues in last August.
One law professor writes in his book, "Convicting the Innocent," that of the first 250 people who were exonerated by DNA testing after being wrongfully convicted, as many as 190 were convicted through the testimony of a mistaken eyewitness identification.
The United States Supreme Court has not considered the issue since 1977, until this term. Wednesday, the high court handed down its decision in the parking lot identification case, ruling that the identification was not a problem. The court declined to modify how eyewitness identifications should be dealt with in court.
The New Year also brings a new wave of California laws
Many Santa Cruz area residents ventured out to ring in the New Year last weekend. For many, the New Year is a time for a new beginning. New Year's Day is also often the beginning day for new laws in California, and Santa Cruz DUI defense lawyers understand that several new provisions went into effect Jan. 1 that relate to driving under the influence in California.
A significant new provision has been sitting dormant for roughly 15 months. In Sept. 2010, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a measure that will now allow California judges to revoke a person's driver's license for 10-years if the driver has at least three DUI convictions on his or her record.
The new DUI license revocation provision includes a process for drivers to apply for potential reinstatement of their licenses after five years if certain conditions are met. One significant condition requires the driver to install an ignition interlock device on his or her car, which can be an expensive prospect after paying installation and monthly service fees.
US Supreme Court asked to rule in warrantless dog-sniff search issue
The case did not originally arise in California. However, if the Supreme Court accepts the case for review, the court's decision will certainly affect whether or not law enforcement agencies in California, including along the Central Coast, can use drug-sniffing dogs outside a personal residence without a warrant.
The issue arose out of a Florida investigation into an alleged urban marijuana growing operation. Police say they received a tip of a possible marijuana cultivation operation inside a Miami home.
Law enforcement apparently put the home under surveillance and without obtaining a search warrant brought in a drug-sniffing dog. Law enforcement says the canine smelled along the base of the closed front door of the home, and sat down, indicating to law enforcement that the dog detected the scent of drugs.
Later police used that information to obtain a search warrant, and subsequently charged a man with drug crimes. The trial court threw out the evidence as the fruit of an illegal, warrantless search of the home. An appellate court reversed that ruling and the Florida Supreme Court ultimately ruled the dog-sniff as an unconstitutional search, agreeing with the trial court judge. Prosecutors now seek to have the U.S Supreme Court decide the issue.
Contact Our Firm
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I have read and understand the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
