An appellate panel of Orange County Superior court recently ruled that photos and videos submitted by police were inadmissible as evidence in red-light ticket cases. Photo and video are considered hearsay because no officer actually saw the driver run the red light and the company that maintains the cameras did not testify in the case.

This recent court decision could affect citations across the country. Since this decision, several citations have been dismissed, but how future judges interpret this decision remains to be seen. It’s still an evolving area.

Cities such as Santa Ana, Laguna Woods, Garden Grove and San Juan Capistrano, are still issuing citations. Santa Ana, in particular, is looking to file a motion to have the recent decision unpublished, which would limit its impact on future cases. Vehicle Code Section 22350.

Alex Trujillo had a 0.11 blood alcohol level and was also under the influence of prescription drugs when his vehicle swerved on to the sidewalk striking a woman who was riding her bike and killing her. The incident occurred in 2008 in the City of Seal Beach located in Orange County. Mr. Trujillo will be charged with murder for this incident and face 15 years to life because he had been previously convicted of a DUI in 2002. A recent change in the law resulting from the case People v. Watson, allows Defendants to be charged with 2nd degree murder if they had a previous Drunk Driving conviction and should therefore know of the risks of driving drunk. Mr. Trujillo’s trial begins Wednesday. See, Vehicle Code Sections 23152 (a), (b); 23153(a), (b).

Tuesday, January 19, 2010, the National Weather Service gave out a tornado warning for Orange County as thunderstorms headed in that direction. Several vehicle incidents were reported due to the severe weather conditions. Winds flipped over a car in Huntington Beach in Orange County and deputies had to push a stalled BMW SUV out of the water on the highway. Just south of Riverside County, road crews scraped mud off the roadway thereby closing Ortega Highway. Mud and debris were also blocking lanes at Trabuco Canyon Road. Indeed, drivers have some challenging conditions to deal with in this torrential downpour. Notably, drivers must modify their driving practices to reflect all driving conditions to include weather. Reckless driving (Vehicle Code Section 23103) can be a violation drivers get cited for in such weather conditions. Persons may be charged if driving in a “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” Punishment can be up to 90 days in jail, in addition to a maximum fine of $1,000. Drivers should take necessary precautions and drive according to road conditions in addition to posted speed limits.

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

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

Misusing a California Handicap Parking Placard has always been punishable with a fine, but did you ever think about facing a $1000 fine and also being charged with petty theft? What many people forget is that not only does the California handicap placard allow you to park in convenient spots, you are also allowed to park free of charge. Imagine the revenue dollars that go uncollected via this mode of theft. On January 1, 2010, a new law will go into effect in California AB144 Handicap Placard Misuse, an act to amend Section 1465.6 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 22511.57 and 42001.13 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. Recently, the New York Times had an interesting article about AB144 “In California, a Fight Against Faux Disabilities and Fake Permits.”

As January 1, 2010 approaches, we invite you to view an
Informational Video on Suspected Placard Abuse video and read a testimonial from one of our clients who was accused of misusing a stolen handicap placard.

“I was charged with Penal Code Sections 496 (Receiving Stolen Property) and 485 (Petty Theft of Lost Property). I was alleged to have received a stolen handicap parking placard and unlawfully appropriating it for my own use. I hired Attorney William W. Bruzzo to represent me in this matter. My most important concern was keeping my record clean as I am planning on becoming a teacher some day. 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 a class. 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.” ~ RC, August 7, 2009

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!