In an effort to curb state spending and move toward greater efficiency in inmate healthcare, Gov. Schwarzenegger is proposing to have the University of California provide medical attention to state inmates. This move would could save California $300 billion this year alone according to the Los Angeles Times article. In order to reduce spending the new system would include electronic record keeping that can be easily accessed by doctors, buying medicines in bulk, and using video communication between doctors and inmate patients. The state would no longer send inmates to community hospitals instead the prisons would send their inmates to hospitals designated under the plan. Some details still have to be worked out with worker's unions for current employees that might have to be let go or work within the new system. Also, any concerns lawmakers or federal judges may have still need to be considered. Oversight of the prison healthcare service would be removed from federal judges and taken on by the University of California. A state agency comprised of governor appointees, federal court representatives, and correctional administrators would check the UC and make sure care and spending are appropriate.
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Police still do not have any suspects or new information surrounding the disappearance of 81 year old Robert Merle Harrod of Placentia in Orange County, California. He was last seen by his son in law on July 27, 2009. Harrod left his glasses and car at his house. Jeff Michael, Harrod's son-in-law, had been doing work around the house and left to go to Home Depot. When he returned Harrod was gone and the house was locked with the housekeeper waiting to have someone let her in. They went inside and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Both left the home after each finished their tasks. After Harrod's daughters could not locate him by telephone they called Fontelle Harrod, their dad's new wife who was getting ready to leave Missouri to join him in Orange County. They had been married on June 29, 2009 and she was flying in on July 29. Mrs. Harrod called in a missing person's report and police have been investigating ever since. According to Harrod's doctor his patient did not suffer from dementia, police say that even if he did, someone would have recognized him from media reports. There was no sign of forced entry to the house and there has been no activity reported for any of Mr. Harrod's financial accounts. Police have looked into his new wife and his daughters as being suspects but there is no evidence that they were involved in kidnapping or killing Harrod. His wife Fontelle would have gained financially from Harrod's disappearance but she had not been added to any of his accounts yet. It is an ongoing investigation and police are treating it as a homicide as Police Chief Jim Anderson explains 'because you can't go back in time and retrieve evidence."
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Here is a report from ABC's Good Morning America which aired on August 1, 2009
An ordinance, adopted January 2009, in the city of Lancaster in Los Angeles County is seeing positive results after imposing stiff penalties on dog owners. Owners of "potentially dangerous" and "vicious" dogs such as pit bulls and Rottweilers are prevented from using their dogs to bully people or cause physical harm to others.
Since the passage of the law, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control impounded 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers and of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by owners.
Lancaster's Mayor, R. Rex Parris, said that a year ago "these individuals delighted in the danger these animals posed to our residents, often walking them without leashes and allowing them to run rampant through our neighborhoods and parks." According to Parris, Lancaster is a lot safer now since the ordinance was passed. Parris said there was a 45% drop in Lancaster's violent gang crime, which includes homicide (Penal Code Section 187), rape(Penal Code Section 220), robbery (Penal Code Section 211) and aggravated assault (Penal Code Section 245(a) (1).
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Huntington Beach bars and restaurants might have one more rule to adhere to: no Beer Pong allowed. According to the Orange County Register the city is considering banning the popular drinking game from being played at businesses with an alcohol license. The reason for the ban stems from a general attitude shared by council members and residents that it is necessary to control bad behavior by drunken customers of those very popular watering holes in Huntington Beach. Residents dislike discovering urine or vomit on their lawns; meanwhile the city has passed rules designed to "improve downtown's image". Those wanting to ban the game explain that a drinking game is not something a business establishment should promote since the city might be negatively affected. Yet the game is so popular there is a championship in Las Vegas and it has caused enough problems that Huntington Beach is not alone in having issues with the drinking game. In New Jersey one city has already passed a law prohibiting Beer Pong and there was a Time Magazine article on the subject of banning the ping pong based alcohol-drinking game. Some Beer Pong participates might find themselves charged with a violation of Penal Code Section 647(f) (Drunk and Disorderly). Commonly, police will stop individuals who appear drunk, usually while they are walking and conduct field sobriety tests at the scene. The tests determine whether they are a risk to themselves and/or others. If so, they can be arrested and face fines and fees as well as a maximum of 90 days in jail. A skillful attorney can get the court to allow first time offenders to take a class and get the case dismissed.
Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
Enjoy a TIME Magazine Video, August 13, 2009, "Beer Pong Strikes Back"
Two months ago, I was cited in Orange County for using my cell phone while driving. I was written up for a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23123 and given a court date on which to appear. This Vehicle Code Section went into effect on July 1, 2008.
This law prohibits the use of handheld cellular phones while driving. However, a handheld cellular phone can be used during an emergency, to call the police, fire department or other emergency services.
A violation of this section constitutes an infraction, which is a petty violation of the law and is less serious than a misdemeanor. It is punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars for a first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. However, with the addition of penalty assessments, the fines can be more than triple the base fine amount.
The conviction appears on one's DMV driving record; however, the violation is not added as a point and therefore does not affect insurance premiums.
Today was the court trial for my citation. After the officer's testimony and presentation of all the evidence, the judge ruled I was NOT GUILTY of the above offense. I was able to show the court that I was not talking while holding my Blackberry in my hand. I demonstrated how my phone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking through Bluetooth. The law specifically allows for the use of one's phone if it's through a hands-free medium. Therefore, I fit the exception and walked out with a NOT GUILTY!
A man and a woman were arrested for committing a string of robberies in Santa Ana while impersonating police officers. Robbers were acting like cops. The individuals suspected are charged with robbing nearly $2,000 from five victims during four separate incidents in one month. Police are still looking for the third suspect.
During the robberies, one of the suspects was wearing a security-type uniform and carried a handgun. The other suspect wore all black clothing and a jacket that said SECURITY. Santa Ana Police Commander said, "The suspects' demeanor was that of police officers and the victims did not realize they were being robbed until the suspects fled with their money."
Robbery, a felony, may be punished by 3 to 6 years in State Prison. California Penal Code Section 211 defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. Fear means fear of injury to oneself or the person's family or property or to someone in one's company. The value of the property taken does not matter.
An important element for robbery to be established is force or fear. Only an experienced criminal defense attorney can present a robbery defense by demonstrating that no force or fear was used to take the property or to prevent the victim from resisting. See also Penal Code Sections 211, 212.5 and 213; Criminal Law Updates from the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636
