Plan To Change CA's Three Strikes Law Moves Toward November Ballot

California voters may once again have the opportunity to change the state's three-strikes mandatory-sentencing law.

An initiative to change the law has been cleared to gather petition signatures, a potential step toward the November ballot. The proposed change would reduce the sentences of some currently serving time, and reduce prison time for those who are convicted of nonviolent felonies and already have two prior felony strikes.

In an economic analysis of the measure, the state's legislative analyst said the initiative, if passed, would save the state money but could increase costs for local governments.

"The changes would result in state prison savings, potentially ranging up to the high tens of millions of dollars annually in the short run, possibly growing in excess of $100 million annually in the long run," the analyst's report said. At least some of those savings would be offset by increased court and jail costs for counties, the analyst wrote.

Proponents of the measure must now gather more than 500,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. California voters rejected a change in the law in 2004.

Innocent But In Jail

Last week provided yet another reminder of just how serious the problems are in the Los Angeles County jails. As if reports of assaults on prisoners by sheriff's deputies were not disturbing enough, a Times investigation has revealed that more than 1,400 people over the last five years were wrongfully incarcerated. Some were held for days, others for weeks. All were cases of mistaken identity, in many instances made worse because protests of innocence were disregarded. In one case, a construction worker with no prior arrests said he was assaulted by inmates and ignored by deputies. In another, a man whose identity was stolen by his brother pleaded with deputies to check his wallet, where he kept a judge's order indicating that a warrant with his name on it had been wrongly issued. But his jailers refused. He was booked and his fingerprints scanned. Deputies found no matching prints, even though the warrant indicated that prints were on record, according to his lawyer. Yet he was held for days.

Those are cruel deprivations inflicted on innocent people, and they should spur Sheriff Lee Baca and his department to adopt safeguards for ensuring that they have the right people behind bars.

To be fair, the problem isn't limited to Baca's department. Similar mistakes occur in jails throughout the state. And in many cases, suspects who arrived at Los Angeles County jails had been arrested by other law enforcement agencies and undergone previous rounds of checks, including confirmations of name, date of birth and other identifying information used in warrants. What is clear, however, is that the department's rules for dealing with such claims are deficient.

The department's written policy requires that deputies investigate claims of innocence involving warrants issued by judges. But it does not set strict time lines or establish rules for handling such claims in cases that do not involve warrants. The Times' investigation concluded that deputies followed the rules in only a fraction of cases in which wrongfully jailed individuals were eventually released by courts. Baca has pledged to form a task force to investigate the problem.

That's fine, but the proliferation of task forces examining problems in the county jails — there's already one looking into allegations of deputy abuse — in an important sense misses the point. For years, monitors and others have highlighted failings in the management of the jails. What Baca needs now is not another task force to help him see what's wrong; it's to revisit the recommendations for improvement and aggressively implement them.

New DUI Checkpoint Law for 2012

Effective January 1, 2012, California police will no longer have the authority to place a 30-day impound on vehicles being driven through DUI checkpoints by unlicensed drivers. Current law allows the more than 100 city and county law enforcement agencies who routinely operate DUI checkpoints to ticket unlicensed drivers, issue a fine and impound the vehicle their vehicle for up to 30 days.

Some lawmakers - particularly those advocating for the state's Latino contingent - argued that the law allowing unlicensed drivers' vehicles to be impounded discriminated against peaceful illegal immigrants who are unable to obtain a valid drivers' license because they do not have proper documentation. They state as evidence for the theory that the DUI checkpoints were unfairly targeting low-income and illegal immigrant populations the fact that state records reveal that 2009's DUI checkpoints netted 3,200 drivers driving while under the influence of alcohol; those same checkpoints resulted in over 24,000 impounded vehicles, mostly in areas that were predominantly populated by the less-fortunate and those in the country illegally.

What Will Happen to Unlicensed Drivers in 2012?

Once the new law takes effect in January, unlicensed but sober drivers stopped at DUI checkpoints across the state will no longer face an automatic impounding of their vehicles. They will still face a fine for driving without a license, but they will have the option of relinquishing control of their vehicle to a licensed driver to avoid having it towed and impounded. Since towing and impound fees are usually at least $100, this makes the punishment - a fine and citation - much more fitting of the crime than before.

Law enforcement officials have protested the new law since Assembly Bill 353 was introduced, arguing that it lessens their ability to keep the roads safe by allowing unlicensed drivers to get back behind the wheel as soon as they are out of sight of police. Police agencies will no doubt also feel the financial sting of the lost revenue once generated by impound lot fees - a 30-day stay at a police impound lot can easily run a driver $1500 or more.

 

 

Tough New DUI Law For 2012

A new bill sponsored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, has been signed into law providing a tough new penalty for 3rd time DUI offenses in California, effective from January 1, 2012.

Under Bill AB1601, judges will have the option to revoke a license for up to 10 years when sentencing third-time California DUI offenders.

Currently, the penalty for a third DUI offense in California is a three-year license suspension (or since 7/1/2010, a six-month suspension followed by a restricted license used in conjunction with with an ignition interlock device) under the authority of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Prompted by many high-profile cases in California featuring repeat DUI offenders, the new bill is promoted as “an important step toward making California’s roads safer”. Assemblyman Hill estimates it will take 10,000 repeat offenders off the road.

Bill AB1601 has yet to be approved by the California State Senate but is widely expected to become state law.

For Your Planning ~ Don't Say I Didn't Warn You

Holiday DUI Checkpoints: Los Angeles County

Dec. 29 - Saturation patrol from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. Dec. 30 in the Olympic station area in Los Angeles;
Dec. 30 -- Sobriety checkpoint from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. Dec. 31 at Figueroa Street at 9th Street in Los Angeles;
Dec. 30 -- Sobriety checkpoint from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. Dec. 31 at Van Nuys Boulevard at Haddon Avenue in Pacoima.
Dec. 31 -- Sobriety checkpoint from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. at Lincoln Boulevard at Maxella Avenue in Marina del Rey;

Jan. 1, 2012 - DUI Saturation Patrol from 2 PM to 10 PM in Mission Area.

How Does Being Charged With A Federal Crime Affect My Immigration Status?

The federal court system is very different than the state court system. This is especially true if your immigration status is in question.

In some instances, a person may or may not know if he/she is a U.S. citizen. For example, birth abroad does not automatically exclude U.S. citizenship because a person may acquire or derive U.S. citizenship from one or both parents.

The immigration code sections setting forth the rules on acquisition and derivation of citizenship are among the most difficult to decipher, and Congress frequently amends the relevant statutes, sometimes making the new provisions retroactive and sometimes prospective.

Whether an individual born abroad has acquired or derived U.S. citizenship turns on the confluence of several factors, including:

• Year of the person’s birth
• Whether both parents are U.S. citizens?
• If not, which parent?
• When the parent(s) became citizen(s)?
• The marital status of the parents
• If born out of wedlock, whether the person was legitimated?
• The length of time the citizen parent(s) resided in the U.S. prior to the person’s birth abroad
• Whether the person was legally admitted to or resided in the U.S.
• Whether the non-citizen’s parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the U.S. or ever became naturalized U.S. citizens

Top 2 Comfort Food Hot Spots In Hollywood

                                                  

1. Stout Burger

best bet: The Morning After Burger - rosemary bacon, egg over easy,

aged cheddar, chipotle ketchup

Add some beer battered onion rings

Wash down with the Old Speckled Hen Cream Ale

2. The Oaks Gourmet Kitchen

best bet: Wild Mushroom and Truffle Oil Pizza (Brick Oven)

Add a side of Mac and Cheese

Wash Down with any one their South American or Australian Wines