A total of 17 arrests were made for suspicion of drunk driving at two checkpoints in Orange County in the city of Garden Grove over the weekend before Christmas. Police have impounded 38 vehicles for drunk driving to include drivers who were driving without a valid license.
California Vehicle Code 23152(a) [VC 23152 (a)] prohibits any person from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Note that an amount of drugs is not specified so any amount of drugs or alcohol that impairs one driving as determined by the arresting officer and/or eventually a jury, can cause one to be convicted of that crime. Drugs can include prescription drugs taken as directed! This is distinct from California Vehicle Code 23152 (b) [VC 23152 (b)] which prohibits driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 0.08. The driver must be at or over the legal limit for vehicle code section 23152 (b) to apply. Also, it only applies to drivers under the influence of alcohol. A first time DUI carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a $1500.00 fine; however, most first time DUI offenders do no jail time as long as there was no accident or other aggravating factor.
In order for a "stop" to be valid at a DUI checkpoint, the police must follow certain rules. If they fail to follow the rules the stop can be ruled invalid and the evidence collected excluded which can cause the case to be dismissed regardless of the blood alcohol level or other evidence. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo has substantial experience working with checkpoint/DUI cases.
California Vehicle Code Section 12500 (a) states: "A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code."
Driving without a valid driver's license in California is a "wobbler" - meaning, depending on the circumstances, prosecutors can charge this offense as a misdemeanor or infraction. The police can charge you with a violation of this vehicle code section for any of the following: (1) never obtaining a driver's license, (2) failing to renew your driver's license after expiring, (3) failing to obtain a California driver's license after establishing residency, or (4) being ineligible for a drivers license in this state (for example, being an illegal immigrant).
The main factor that prosecution looks at in deciding whether to charge you with a misdemeanor or an infraction is your driving record. If this is your first offense or if you subsequently obtain a valid driver's license, they may charge you only with the infraction or even go on to dismiss the case with the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
One can receive up to six months in jail for the above misdemeanor offense as well as informal probation for up to three years and a maximum fine of $1,000.
As the New Year Holiday begins, remember don't drink and drive, use a designated driver. Happy New Year!
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
The discussion regarding legalizing marijuana and dispensaries in LA County continues to be in the spotlight. With the number of dispensaries growing in the county the debate of the impact of such establishments on the community is growing as well. There is the side that argues marijuana proves to be useful for managing medical conditions that involve pain. It has also been suggested that there is a significant amount of revenue the state could gain from legalizing pot (as well as a way to address the state fiscal crisis while not raising taxes). With more then four thousand signatures currently, a petition has been circling in order to add the issue to the November 2010 ballot. Federal policy has shifted for certain aspects of possession of a limited amount of marijuana, refocusing efforts on other fronts of the illegal drug trade instead. California voters could vote to allow local authorities like cities and counties to draft their own laws regarding medicinal marijuana. (See Health and Safety Code Section 11357(a, b), [H&S 11357(a), (b), Health and Safety Code Section 11358, [H&S 11358], Health and Safety Code Section 11360(a, b), [H&S 11360].
Here is KCAL9 News reporting recently on the Los Angeles City Council's decision to delay a medical marijuana dispensary vote until January 2010
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo, Orange County Criminal Defense (714) 547-4636
Bubba, an award-winning bulldog, was stolen last week on December 15th in Santa Ana, Orange County. The owners are offering a $2,000 reward for anyone who can return their prized possession.
California Penal Code Section 487e states: "Every person who feloniously steals, takes, or carries away a dog of another which is of a value exceeding four hundred dollars ($400) is guilty of grand theft." Bubba recently won second place in the Eukanuba dog show in Long Beach; he has been micro chipped and is worth more than $10,000. "I bring him out every day to work because he is kind of like my little kid," the owner said. "He's not only a show dog, but he's like my little baby." Grand theft is punishable under Penal Code Section 489 by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.
In Bubba's case, an employee accidentally left a door open and the bulldog wandered out of the building. Witnesses told the owner that two men about 20 years old cut across three lanes of traffic in their car to lure the dog inside. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo represent individuals accused of all crimes to include grand theft, Penal Code Section 487(a).
This news video courtesy of KABC-TV Los Angeles:
Criminal Law Updates by William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Steven Burky, age 37, was arrested December 14, 2009 for stalking Jennifer Garner and violating a restraining order protecting the family. Jennifer Garner's stalker was arrested in Santa Monica outside Violet Affleck's school. At his arraignment, Burky pleaded not guilty on two counts of felony stalking and two misdemeanor counts of violating a court order. The judge ordered him to stay 500 feet away from Garner and her family if released.
Garner was granted a restraining order against Burky in November 2008 after she told the court she believed he posed a threat to her and her family. Garner said Burky had been stalking her since 2002. The order, which required Burky to stay 100 yards away from the family's cars, homes and schools, was set to expire in November 2011.
In California, a restraining order or civil harassment order, is available to victims being harassed by someone they do not have a domestic relationship with-- such as a friend, neighbor or even a stranger. If the victim has a domestic relationship with the person harassing them, then he/she should apply for a domestic violence restraining order instead.
A civil harassment order can last up to three years and may be renewed after that. A victim can qualify for a civil harassment order if the harasser has intentionally committed a series of acts which are frightening, annoying or harassing, and which have caused the victim substantial emotional distress. The harasser does not have to be related to the victim in any way, but the victim must be able to identify the person and find him or her to serve the papers.
A civil harassment order can order the harasser: to stay away from the victim, the victim's home, school, work or children's school; not to telephone or contact the victim; not to frighten, intimidate, annoy or harass the victim; not to threaten or make any physical contact with the victim; not to keep the victim under surveillance or follow the victim; and not to block the victim's movement in public places. It can also protect the victim's family or anyone else in the home from the harassment. Violation of the order is a crime. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo Petition and Defend Restraining Orders as well as defend against stalking charges (Penal Code Section 646.9).
Criminal Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Remember Jeffrey Woods? He was the guy who caused an accident which killed 14-year-old Danny Oates as he was riding his bike in Orange County, California. On December 11, 2009, I was present at his sentencing as Orange County Superior Court Judge Marc Kelly ordered Woods to serve six years in state prison for the crime of vehicular manslaughter (Vehicle Code Section 192.5) with gross negligence while intoxicated. Apparently, Woods had been on his cell phone sending text messages while driving under the influence of two prescription drugs when the accident happened. The case was the Orange County District Attorney's Office first prosecution of a felony manslaughter jury trial that involved text messaging.
The judge told Woods, "What caused this accident was your selfishness, your careless indifference for human life." Despite the judge's harsh words, he refused to give Woods the maximum sentence of 10 years as he had no criminal history before the fatal crash which took place on August 29, 2007. Woods' own father told the judge that his son "deserved prison time" because he needed to be held accountable for his actions. Bob Woods further extended his sympathies to the Oates family, saying: "We haven't gone an hour without thinking of you guys."
Friends and family on both sides spent more then two hours during the sentencing telling the judge how Danny Oates' death has not only changed their lives but their community. It was a tearful room with Kleenex being constantly passed around.
Jeffrey Woods' neighbors, friends and former teacher said he was a kind and compassionate man who helped others and had no malicious bone in his body. Woods was also sentenced to three years parole, had his driver's license revoked for three years and will be required to pay $28,000 in restitution to the Oates family.
This video is provided by FOX 11 News:
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
If you "Google" the phrase "shoplifting during the holidays" you will find hundreds of news items from across the country discussing how shoplifting increases during the holiday season. Not surprising, the number of shoplifting arrests increases as well. Here is video from WBKO which discusses how one major US retailer, TARGET, deals with shoplifters.
If you find yourself or a family member being accused of shoplifting (petty theft), remember retaining legal counsel is very important. Here is one client's experience.
"I was charged with Penal Code Section 488 (Petty Theft). I was alleged to have taken items worth $415.00 from a store without paying. I hired Attorney William W. Bruzzo to represent me in this matter. My most important concern was keeping my record clean. After I hired Mr. Bruzzo he made the appearances in court without my being present. Prior to my hiring Mr. Bruzzo I learned that he is extremely familiar with the District Attorneys in Orange County and this permits him to get better results for his clients. After Mr. Bruzzo made several appearances in court without my being present, he was able to negotiate a DISMISSAL with the District Attorney once I completed community service and other requirements. I truly believe that without Mr. Bruzzo's knowledge of the courts and the District Attorneys in Orange County I would not have had such a favorable result. I highly recommend Mr. Bruzzo for any Petty Theft or criminal matter." ~~ AL, May 14, 2009
Notably, while these charges usually concern "street drugs" like Cocaine and Methamphetamine they can also apply to substances commonly thought of as medications.
If you are found in actual possession of the drug or "constructive" possession of the drug you may be found guilty of the offense. Constructive possession means that the drug may not be on your person but you knowingly exercise control over or the right to control the drug, either directly or through another person or persons. In order for the prosecution to prove its case they must show that the person knew the substance was a controlled substance and that there was enough of the drug to constitute a usable amount.
In California this offense is a felony and you may face up to three years in prison. Here is a recent case result:
"I was charged with Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a)(Possession of a controlled substance HS 11377(a)a felony which carries a maximum of 3 years in prison. I had previous convictions for the same charge and I had similar charges pending. I was also charged with driving on a suspended license (Vehicle Code Section 14601.1 - VC 14601.1) and possession of paraphernalia (Health and Safety Code Section 11364 - HS 11364(a)) as misdemeanors. I hired Mr. William Bruzzo because he was recommended by another attorney and because of his familiarity with the Orange County courts and the District Attorney. The original offer prior to hiring Mr. Bruzzo was 180 days in jail and pleading guilty to a felony. Mr. Bruzzo convinced the District Attorney there was not a useable amount of the controlled substance and that my driving on a suspended license was justifiable by Necessity, even though I had priors [convictions] for [that charge] too. Mr. Bruzzo got the possession charge DISMISSED [Health and Safety Code Section 11377(a) - HS 11377(a)]and the Vehicle Code Section 14601.1 [Driving on a suspended license - VC 14601.1] DISMISSED. I pleaded guilty to one count of possession of paraphernalia as a misdemeanor [Health and Safety Code Section 11364(a) - HS 11364] and I got CAL TRANS [instead of jail]. I would enthusiastically recommend Mr. Bruzzo for any possession of a controlled substance case or any criminal matter." ~~ CK, December 9, 2009
As the holidays are upon us now is a good time to consider the effects of drinking and driving and how you can avoid an arrest or causing an accident. My experience comes from 15 years of legal representation.
Even though the legal limit in California and many other states is a 0.08 blood-alcohol level most forensic toxicologist (folks who study the effect of alcohol on the body) will say that alcohol really starts to effect people at the 0.05 blood-alcohol level. Almost half of the legal limit! Under California Law even if you are under the 0.08 level you can still be prosecuted for driving under the influence if it can be shown that alcohol in your system impaired your driving. Some people can suffer physical impairment from alcohol at levels lower then other people. While it is important to know your limits it is much more important to count the number of drinks you have ingested over a particular time frame so nothing is left to chance. What follows is a general guide for deciding based on your weight, number of drinks and amount of time, whether you should drive.
First we have to start with ground rules: (1) a 12 ounce beer, a shot (normal size) and a 4 ounce glass of wine all have the same amount of alcohol and will effect you almost entirely the same; (2) every hour your body will burn off the equivalent of the alcohol in a 12 ounce beer, a shot or a 4 ounce glass of wine through the natural metabolism process of the body. That is, your body will naturally eliminate one of each of those amounts of alcohol about every hour. We get drunk when we drink in excess of what our body can eliminate in a given time frame.
The best way to illustrate how much we can drink is to use examples. Remember, these are approximations but they give a pretty good idea of when you may be intoxicated for driving.
(1) First subject: 110 lbs person (man or woman does not matter) drinks 2 twelve ounce beer starting at 7:00 p.m. and finish drinking both beers at 7:45 p.m. What is the person's blood alcohol level at 8:00 p.m.? If you weigh around 110 lbs every alcoholic beverage you ingest will peak at a blood alcohol level of about 0.03 when the beverage is fully absorbed and before elimination. So by 8:00 p.m. that first beer will have been fully absorbed and eliminated from the body, which will leave one beer still in the system and thus the person will have a blood alcohol level of about 0.03.
(2) Second subject: 190 lbs. person drinks 3 twelve ounce beers and 3 shots of tequila (6 drinks total) starting at 7:00 pm and finishing the last drink of alcohol at 7:45 p.m. What is the person's blood alcohol level at 8:00 pm? If you weigh 190 lbs one twelve ounce beer or shot will raise your blood alcohol about 0.02. So by 8:00 p.m. one of the drinks will have been eliminated which means there are still five drinks in the system which means the individual's blood alcohol level will be approximately .08-.10. This level is over the limit of course and many forensic toxicologists will say that driving may be impaired at 0.05. or about half that amount.
The elimination of alcohol varies from person to person so the rate for one person may differ slightly from another. Also, if you are unsure of how many drinks you have then waiting an hour before driving will eliminate one drink. Be safe out there!
DUI checkpoints were determined to be legal by the United States Supreme Court; however, there are strict guidelines which must be followed. In California, many drivers do not know about these rules. For example, police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop. So an officer may not stop an individual driver without a legitimate basis. Furthermore, police operating DUI checkpoints may only detain each driver long enough to question him/her and look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he/she should be permitted to leave without any further delay. If the driver is ordered out of the vehicle and asked to perform a field sobriety test (i.e. walking in a straight line, touching your nose or reciting the alphabet), he/she may refuse. The officer may also ask to search the car. The driver may refuse that request as the officers do not have legal grounds to search the car. Many times, officers don't follow all the rules. In such instances, the stop may be considered illegal, and any evidence establishing the crime of driving under the influence may be thrown out. The California case controlling this area is Ingersoll v Palmer 241 Cal. Rptr. 42 (Cal. 1987).
However, if impairment is observed, then the driver may be taken to a separate area for field sobriety tests and further investigation, which must be based on probable cause.
In Orange County, the Garden Grove and Santa Ana police departments conducted DUI checkpoints from 7 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. on Sunday, December 13, 2009. The checkpoints were planned for Westminster Avenue near Enterprise Drive and Susan Street. Officials say there have been many fatal collisions involving drunk drivers on Westminster Avenue. The California government website reports that "early 23,000 people are killed every year in alcohol-related traffic collisions" and "one American life is lost every 22 minutes in an alcohol-related traffic collision." Officers also look for those driving without a valid license. The checkpoints focused on drivers who have been drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs or abusing prescription medications while driving.
So please be weary of DUI checkpoints when you're out on the road, as the consequences for a DUI can be very serious. This can include license suspension, high fines and possible jail time. Most importantly, don't drink excessively-live to see the holidays next year.
Here is a Garden Grove TV3 News Video which covers the Garden Grove Police Department sobriety checkpoint on October 24, 2009:
On December 4, 2009, an Italian jury found American student Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito guilty on all counts in the stabbing death of British exchange student Meredith Kercher. Knox was given a 26-year sentence; Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years. Both will be appealing their cases. In the meantime, below is a brief comparison of U.S. vs. Italian Justice. Which would you prefer?
The former University of Washington student was arrested in November 2007 and charged with the murder of her British roommate while in Perugia, Italy studying abroad. Police arrested Knox and Sollecito soon after Kercher's death, along with Guede, a native of the Ivory Coast who opted for a separate, fast-track trial and was convicted of murder and attempted sexual assault back in October 2008.
Unlike the American justice system, in which appeals center on issues of law, in the Italian system, appeals are automatic and defendants can ask to retry their entire case in the first round of appeals. From there, the case can go to Italy's highest court, which is required to hear every appeal. However, it may be years before a definitive sentence is reached.
Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were held in jail for a year before prosecutors moved to formally charge them with sexual assault and murder. This was not unusual-- in Italy, a suspect can be held for up to 12 months without being charged with a crime. Fortunately in the U.S., for suspects who are in custody, speedy trial laws typically require prosecutors to file charges, if at all, within 72 hours of arrest. Some jurisdictions require prosecutors to charge a suspect even sooner. For example, California requires that charges be filed within 48 hours.
When a case finally goes to trial, the accused do not swear an oath as in the American courts and are therefore under no obligation to answer questions truthfully. The defendant, who is permitted to interrupt the proceedings or refuse to respond at any time, is expected to lie, legal analyst Lisa Bloom reported on CBS News. The trial has also taken nearly a year - long by American standards but fast by Italian standards.
As in the U.S., the Italian constitution calls for defendants to be presumed "innocent until proven guilty." However, the supremacy of the prosecutor essentially negates this presumption. The Italian prosecutor, Guiliano Mignini, is under investigation himself for the abuse of power. However, this did not prohibit him from acting as the prosecutor in Ms. Knox's trial.
The Italians also don't afford the luxury of unanimity available in most state courts. The jurors' decision called a sentence (referred to as "verdict" in the U.S.) is determined by a majority vote of eight jurors --six ordinary citizens and two judges. Only five have to utter the word "Si". Dissenting opinions are not made public; however, an official explanation for the majority opinion must be rendered in the next 90 days.
For more information about the Italian justice appeal process view this CBS News video.
The degree of injury to the victim will decide if a domestic violence case is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Regardless of whether the matter is charged as a felony or a misdemeanor if the client is found guilty or pleas guilty he/she must complete a 52-week batterer's course, 8 hours of community service and pay various fines and fees.
In order to avoid a client doing the 52-week batterer's class an agreement must be negotiated with the District Attorney whereby a non-domestic violence charge (Disturbing the Peace, Assault) is substituted for the domestic violence charge.
Each domestic violence charge needs to be thoroughly investigated by defense counsel. Depending on the facts of the domestic violence case and the record of the client, agreements can be reached whereby even if the crime occurred attendance at an anger management class (10-weeks) or counseling can relieve a client of the normal requirements of a domestic violence charge.
Here is a recent case result:
"I was charged with Penal Code Section 243(e) (1) [Domestic Violence Battery on a Spouse]; a conviction of this crime could have caused me to spend up to 1 year in custody. This case arose from an incident whereby I was alleged to have struck my spouse causing injury. I hired William W. Bruzzo to represent me in this matter because of his effectiveness in court and his knowledge of the law. Mr. Bruzzo told me that a conviction for a violent act such as this would have been detrimental to my record and therefore my future. In addition I was told that such a conviction could cause me to lose my job. This was especially significant because I have a family to feed and my spouse does not work. Mr. Bruzzo worked hard to get the charge changed to include going to the supervising district attorney. In the end he had the charge reduced to a Penal Code Section 415 [Disturbing the Peace]. The Domestic Violence Charge was dismissed. I truly believe that without Mr. Bruzzo's familiarity with the Orange County Courts and the law I would not have received such a good result. I would enthusiastically recommend him for any criminal matter." ~~JC, December 2, 2009
The holiday season is a good time to talk about hit and run violations. You might wonder why someone would commit a "hit and run". Sometimes the accused party is afraid, not thinking straight, might be uninsured, might be driving under the influence, might be driving without a license, or they might even believe that since no-one witnessed the event...no harm, no foul. In today's world of cell phones, flip video cameras, intersection cameras, security cameras...it is pretty hard not to have your actions captured on film. In California a hit and run charge is serious(Vehicle Code Section 20002(a))and you should always seek legal counsel.
Here is a testimonial from one client who faced a six month jail term. Solutions are possible with good representation.
"I was charged with one count of hit and run (Vehicle Code Section 20002(a)) for causing more then $5,000.00 in damages then allegedly leaving the scene. I could have faced up to 6 months in jail I hired Attorney William Bruzzo to represent me in this case as I was told he is very familiar with the judges, courts and the district attorneys in Orange County. Mr. Bruzzo spoke with the District Attorney but felt he could get a better deal so he turned to the Judge and in the end negotiated a civil compromise (Penal Code Section 1377) whereby the victim was compensated and the case was DISMISSED. I am truly grateful to Mr. Bruzzo for his representation in this matter as it spared me from going to jail and having a conviction on my record. Also, this case could have been filed as a felony yet remained in the misdemeanor court. As such, I would enthusiastically recommend Mr. Bruzzo for any criminal matter."
~~ MH, December 1, 2009
Pro golfer, Tiger Woods, avoided criminal charges and instead received a traffic citation for his accident that occurred in the early hours after Thanksgiving. There was speculation that a domestic violence incident had occurred after Woods was left mildly injured following an accident where he drove his Escalade into a water hydrant and then ran it into a neighbor’s tree directly outside his home. Following an investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol, Woods will only be cited for careless driving, an infraction which carries a $164 fine and four points on one’s driving record. A police spokesperson stated, "There is insufficient evidence available to issue a subpoena for any additional medical information that might exist in this case... (and) there are no claims of domestic violence by any individual." Woods took full responsibility for the accident in a statement released on Sunday, November 29th and has since pulled out of his own golf tournament that was to take place in California.
The results of the official investigation has not deterred massive speculation regarding Woods' injuries and whether they were truly caused by the car crash or inflicted by his wife prior to the accident during a domestic dispute concerning his recent "transgressions." Many are commenting that Woods seemed to suffer injuries inconsistent with the accident, while Bill Sharpe-an attorney for the neighbors said Woods' injuries were "consistent with a car wreck and inconsistent with him being beat up." Sharpe stated, "The scratches on [Woods']face were consistent with someone who maybe was in a minor car accident and hit his head on the windshield. ... None of his injuries looked like he was beat up by his wife." Woods' wife, Elin, told police she used a golf club to smash the back windows only to help Woods out of the vehicle. Neighbors who called 911 said they saw no indication Woods was beaten or driving under the influence.
Had there been evidence of injuries consistent with a domestic violence Woods' wife could be charged with domestic violence. In California two penal code sections pertain to domestic violence incidents. The first is Penal Code Section 243(e) (1). This law states that when a person purposefully touches his/her partner in an offensive or angry way, he/she is guilty of domestic violence. "Offensive touching" includes smashing a car window when someone is still inside. And, if an injury results from the contact, then one can be charged with Corporal Injury on a Spouse under Penal Code Section 273.5(a). In addition to fines and jail time, a person must complete a one year batterer's treatment program if convicted on one of the above offenses. Had Woods' wife inflicted his injuries during the course of an argument or smashed the car window out of rage, she might be found guilty of domestic violence. Notably, the victim committing adultery is NOT a defense to domestic violence although presumably it could be considered a mitigating factor in a minor case. The only defense to domestic violence is self defense, where the Defendant asserts any injuries sustained by the victim were a result of him defending himself.
This story continues to develop. Here is a short video from the Associated Press showing the Florida Highway Patrol's photos of the vehicle. According to the AP: "A final report on Tiger Woods' car accident outside his Florida home shows he caused $3,200 in damage to property other than his SUV. The report was released by the Florida Highway Patrol. (Dec. 2)"
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
The Santa Ana Police Department(SAPD) is able to connect crimes and their perpetrators by using ballistic imaging. The equipment and training is provided by ATF, the Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive. This system compiles ballistics images of firearm cartridges linked to crime scenes. After creating a digitalized image from a gun confiscated by SAPD that image is compared to previously collected crime scene evidence. The markings on a gun cartridge are made by one specific gun, similar to a fingerprint, linking that particular gun to other incidents where matching cartridges were found. There is always the possibility that the same gun was used in various incidents but it does not mean that the same person was responsible in all cases. Low level crime circles can easily sell a gun to get quick cash or simply let others use it for a short period of time. What is possible is that whoever had it at the time of confiscation might know something about previous owners creating a chain of connection between people and eventually leading to the perpetrator of the crime. The Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo has previous experience with ballistic comparisons in criminal cases.
Chidi Uzomah was arrested October 30, 2009, for stalking television and radio personality--Ryan Seacrest--at his workplace of E! News in Los Angeles. Uzomah was carrying a three-inch folding knife, but was captured before he got anywhere near the "American Idol" host. Uzomah, a Special Forces reserve, is the same man who attacked Seacrest's security guard just last month outside Orange County hospital during a charity event. A judge had placed Uzomah on three years probation for the prior incident and ordered him to stay away from Seacrest by issuing a temporary restraining order.
For this incident, on November 17, 2009, the judge granted Seacrest a permanent restraining order against Uzomah, which prevents him from coming within 100 yards of Seacrest, his home, his car and his workplace for the next three years. In addition, Uzomah is not allowed to have any direct or indirect contact with Seacrest. He is currently being held on felony stalking charges.
California Penal Code Section 646.9 (a) states that "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison."
Subsection (b) further states that any person who violates the above section when there is a temporary restraining order already in place shall receive imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years.
A red-headed 12-year-old boy was assaulted in Los Angeles on November 20th because of a Facebook message declaring Friday as "Kick a Ginger Day." A "ginger" is a label for someone with red hair, fair skin, and freckles. A group of seventh and eighth graders at A.E. Wright Middle School in Calabasas beat up the red-headed student on two occasions in the same day. A "South Park" episode that focused on prejudice against "gingers" is said to have ignited the Facebook message. Lieutenant Richard Erickson said the boy was "accosted by seventh- and then eighth-graders" and was "kicked and hit with fists in various areas of the body." Fortunately, the 12-year-old did not suffer any serious injuries.
Detectives are investigating the incident as a possible assault with a deadly weapon. California Penal Code Section 245(a) (1) defines this serious crime. The law states: "Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment." Notably, a vehicle and almost any instrument that can be held in the hand and even a person's foot can be deemed a "weapon" for the purposes of this law.
Penal Code Section 245(a) (1) is applicable to adults as well as children pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602. Under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602 anyone under the age of 18 can be declared a ward of the court if they are alleged to have violated a penal code section. They are then prosecuted in the juvenile court.
The week prior to Thanksgiving someone apparently intentionally set a fire in the men's restroom of the Orange Public Library. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the building was evacuated and the restroom sustained some minimal damage. The fire is under investigation.
California Penal Code Section 451 states, "A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property."
So, to prove that someone is guilty of the crime of arson, the State must prove that (1) The defendant damaged or destroyed with fire all or part of something; And (2) The defendant acted on purpose intending to defraud, annoy, or injure someone else.
Arson includes burning someone's clothing or trash not belonging to anyone. The punishment for arson varies depending on what damage results from the fire. The crime can be charged as a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years if great bodily injury results. Arson of property (not one's own) is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two, or three years.
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Michaele and Tareq Salahi came all dressed up for a party at the White House-a party they never actually were invited to. It was President Obama's first state dinner, held on November 24th, for the Prime Minister of India. The couple shook hands and talked to the President, even though their names were not on the list of invited guests. It is unclear as to what the couple told officers at the checkpoint that allowed them to go through the security screening.
Both are now facing possible charges for lying to federal officers and could be charged with trespass or some other violation. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify statements on matters within the federal government's jurisdiction. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code specifies that:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism, imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
Motives behind crashing the party are unclear, but some surmise it could be for publicity as Michaele Salahi is being considered as a participant in the upcoming "The Real Housewives of D.C." program.
You can view here Matt Lauer interviewing Mr. and Mrs. Salahi
Across University of California campuses students have been protesting a 32% increase in tuition. According to the Orange County Register about 300 students protested at the University of California, Irvine in Orange County, California. Last week at UC Berkeley students had been arrested during protesting. Reportedly $800 million has been cut from state funding for the public university system. During a protest there are areas in which people cannot gather, for example blocking the entrance or exit of a building and blocking a public sidewalk. People arrested during this type of gatherings can be subject to violations of Penal Code Section 407 for unlawfully assembly which is a misdemeanor. They may also be arrested for a violation of Penal Code Section 602, Trespass. However, if the people occupy a space without blocking access or have a permit to gather then they are not in violation of the law. Similarly, if authorities ask protesters to disperse and they refuse then it's a violation of Penal Code Section 416 (assembly for purpose of disturbing the peace). If people refuse to leave officers may ask protesters to place there hands behind their backs and explain that they will place plastic ties on their wrists and be taken in. Some follow these instructions others simply remain motionless but do not resist either. They just lie there on their backs and the officer has to position the person to be cuffed and taken in. These individuals may be charged with the most serious of these sorts of offenses, Penal Code Section 148, which prohibits obstructing an officer or resisting arrest.
Here is a video taken at the UCI, where protesters were maced last month: (Warning Contains Some Graphic Language)
Criminal Law Updates by Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
