Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, including here in the Sacramento region, are mounting a wide-ranging campaign leading up to Labor Day to convince people to not drink and drive, and to arrest those who do drink and get behind the wheel.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety Association, MADD, and other organizations are sponsors of the national "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest." initiative, a multi-year effort that combines increased and highly visible enforcement of DUI laws with a media campaign to educate drivers on the dangers and consequences of drunk driving. $13 million will be spent nationally on the media campaign alone in late August and early September.

Here in the Capitol region, the Sacramento Police Department is conducting what it calls a surveillance "sting operation" of traffic court to make sure drivers who have lost their licenses because of DUI do not drive away from court. It will also provide officers with DUI "Hot Sheets" with information on people whose licenses have been suspended for DUI or are sought on a DUI warrant. Similar efforts, including sobriety checkpoints, will be made in Placer, Yolo, and El Dorado counties.

In line with a recent post (August 15, 2009) in which we wrote about the increase in women drunk drivers, the Governors Highway Safety Association points to FBI data showing a nearly 29% increase between 1998 and 2007 in the number of women arrested nationally for DUIs involving alcohol or drugs.

In California alone in 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, 30,642 people were injured and and 1,491 killed in traffic crashes involving alcohol.

Press Release, August 13, 2009, Sacramento Police Department
Press Release, June 18, 2009, CaliforniaAvoid.com
"States Increase Efforts to Combat Drunk Driving," Governors Highway Safety Association
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
StopImpairedDriving.com

Today we thought we'd shed some light on two simple questions: What's the difference between the police, sheriff, and CHP? and, Which court handles a case when a person is arrested?

Before going over each law enforcement agency, a brief primer on our system of government is necessary. Our Founders created a federal form of government. This means that governmental power, which flows from the people, is fragmented among national, state, and local governments. This was done because of the Founders' fear of centralized authority. Divide power among multiple government entities, they reasoned, and the possibility of infringement of individual rights diminishes. Thus the Constitution apportions some powers to the national government and some to state and local governments.

In the Sacramento area there are three main agencies charged with enforcing the law.

• First there are the various police agencies that serve cities. Police enforce local laws - things mostly related to public order, such as traffic and noise regulations - and all state laws - theft, murder, drug possession or anything else that has been legislated as criminal activity by the state legislature and governor.
• Each of the 58 counties in California has its own sheriff's department, which enforce state laws as well any laws passed by the county government. In Sacramento, the sheriff's department patrols in the unincorporated areas (those areas that are outside the boundaries of any city, like Arden-Arcade).
• And finally there is the California Highway Patrol, which as its name suggests, patrols California's expansive system of highways and major thoroughfares. The chief job of the CHP is to enforce traffic rules (e.g., no speeding) and ensure that highways are used for legal activities only (e.g., no drug trafficking).

So what happens to a person arrested by one of these agencies? Who handles their case? Though a person might deal with a city department (the police), a county department (the sheriff), or a state agency (the CHP), all cases are funneled through a county court system. Thus, a person arrested by any of these three agencies in Sacramento will find himself in the Sacramento County Jail, which is staffed by Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputies. Moreover, his case will be charged by the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office.

Continue reading "The Differences Between Police, Sheriff, and CHP, and What Happens if You're Arrested by One of These Agencies" »

The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated important limitations on police officers' authority to search a vehicle after the vehicle's occupants have been arrested. The Court's majority in Arizona v. Gant stated that "Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to [after] a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." In other words, once a person has been arrested and moved away from the vehicle, police may not initiate a search unless that search pertains to evidence related to the crime for which the person was arrested.

Through the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, all United States citizens enjoy a protection against unreasonable search and seizure on the part of the government. This limitation is not absolute, however, with exceptions existing for instances when time and circumstance do not permit obtaining a search warrant from a judge, such as when police are chasing a suspect and that suspect enters his home.

The Court has looked to balance the need to preserve evidence and ensure police officer safety with the need to protect individual's privacy. In Gant, the Court ruled that once a vehicle's occupants have been arrested and police officer safety has been secured, police may search the vehicle only when it is "reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle."

So in practical terms, Gant means this: once a suspect has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car, a warrantless search of the suspect's vehicle can only be conducted by the police for evidence related to the particular crime for which the person was arrested. If someone were arrested for a traffic violation, for example, the police can't conduct a general search of the vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. If someone were arrested on drug charges, though, a search for drug related items would be justified according to the Court's decision.

One way that these rules have been circumvented is when a person is arrested and does not have anyone to drive his/her car home. Police can then impound the vehicle and conduct an "inventory search." Evidence discovered in that search might then be used against the suspect.

Continue reading "Limits to Vehicle Searches by Police Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court" »

In yet another opinion that deals a blow to the rights of criminal defendants, the United States Supreme Court has eased some limits on police tactics to obtain incriminating statements after defendants have been appointed legal counsel.

The case of Montejo v. Louisiana involves the arrest of Jesse Montejo for the robbery and murder of Lewis Ferrari. Montejo waived his Miranda rights, and during interrogation by the police eventually admitted to committing the murder. At a subsequent hearing, a judge ordered that Montejo be appointed legal counsel since he could not afford to hire an attorney. Later that day, before Montejo had met with his attorney, police detectives convinced Montejo to accompany them on a search for the murder weapon. After again being apprised of his Miranda rights, Montejo went with the detectives. During that trip he wrote a letter apologizing to the victim's widow. After returning from the excursion, Montejo finally met with his attorney. Though Montejo's attorney objected, the letter of apology was used by prosecutors during trial. After being found guilty, Montejo was sentenced to death.

In subsequent appeals, Montejo argued that since he had not yet met with his court appointed counsel, the police should not have been permitted to talk with him and cajole him into going with them to locate evidence.

The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Montejo's waiving of his Miranda rights allowed the police to talk with him and ask for his help in locating evidence. The mere appointment of counsel, the Court ruled, does not preclude police from attempting to gather evidence or obtain incriminating statements. The Court did say, though, that once a suspect invokes his/her right to counsel under Miranda, the police must cease interrogation without the presence of counsel.

This ruling highlights the necessity for citizens to closely protect their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. When being questioned by the police for possible involvement in a crime, it is best to be prudent and say that you will not answer questions without a criminal defense lawyer present. As United States citizens, we are blessed to have our Natural Rights enshrined in our Constitution and embedded in our legal code. This ruling by the Supreme Court, however, provides police with more opportunity to extract incriminating evidence from citizens not familiar with the legal process.

Montejo v. Louisiana, U.S. Supreme Court
"The Supreme Court Moves to the Right, Perhaps Sharply to the Right," California Bar Journal, August 2009

The Sacramento Police Department announced that it has received $12 million in federal grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal economic stimulus plan. These grants will be used to hire 35 officers and to upgrade the department's information technology network infrastructure, in car computers, and shooting range. The funds for hiring officers will allow the department to replace some of the 103 officer positions that were lost in recent years because of decreased funding due to poor economic conditions. Federal funding for the new officers will last for three years; the Sacramento Police Department must guarantee funding for a fourth year.

The Sacramento Sheriff's Department, in contrast, has received no federal stimulus funds and has had to layoff 130 deputies because of County of Sacramento budget problems. The Sacramento Police Department is considering hiring some of these deputies to fill the their 35 new positions.

Press Releases, July 28 and 31, 2009 - City of Sacramento Police Department
"Hire deputies due for layoff, Sacramento police chief urged by union," Sacramento Bee

Today's post is our reminder to everyone to do the things that will keep you from needing a criminal defense attorney. This might seem an odd topic for a defense lawyer blog, but no one wants to see another person get into trouble with the law. And a little forethought and some common sense can do a lot of good.

Take DUIs for example. Most people arrested for DUI violations are good citizens who have some drinks with friends and then get behind the wheel.

Some of our clients who made this mistake, were arrested, and want to prevent it from happening again have shared these ideas with us:

• If you're going to drink alcohol, only do so with people who will look out for your well-being. If you're not certain that they'll step up to do what is necessary to keep you safe, find some other friends.
• Carry enough cash with you to pay for a cab home. One former client puts $50 in a separate part of his wallet so that he's sure he will have it available at the end of the evening.
• Hire a driver, whether it's for a large group or just one person. One client found someone through craigslist.com who wanted to make some extra money and was willing to act as a chauffer. Our client figured paying for a driver was significantly cheaper than the thousands of dollars a DUI would cost him.
• Program phone numbers for cab companies into your cell phone. If you have an iPhone, there are many apps that will list cab companies in your current location using the phone's GPS.

Whether for DUIs or other infractions, do what's necessary to keep yourself and others safe. As always, a little planning and some good sense about the people you associate with are the best preventive measures.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that evidence obtained by police in some illegal searches and arrests may still be used by prosecutors against defendants during trial.

The case Herring v. United States involved Bennie Herring, who was arrested in Coffee County, Alabama, after police there were told by law enforcement personnel from neighboring Dale County that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. During the subsequent arrest, police found a weapon and drugs. Charges were brought against Herring for both of these violations. It turns out, however, that the Dale County personnel had made a mistake: there was not actually a warrant outstanding for Herring's arrest

Herring's attorneys filed a motion to suppress, or exclude, the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained illegally. In other words, they argued that if the Dale County personnel had not made a mistake, Herring would never have been arrested and not be facing a prison sentence. Previous Supreme Court rulings, including Mapp v. Ohio, have articulated and upheld this "exclusionary rule" barring improperly obtained evidence.

The Supreme Court ruled, however, that even though there was not a warrant and Herring should not have been arrested, charges could still be brought against him for possessing the weapon and drugs because the police in Coffee County had acted in good faith. That is, they did not intentionally conduct an illegal search. They believed that they were acting on correct information.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Eases Restrictions on Police Searches" »

The Sacramento Bee reports that arrests of women for DUI offenses have risen dramatically in recent years throughout California, with marked increases in Sacramento County.

Since 2000, female DUI violations in Sacramento County have increased 60%, triple the increase seen for men.

Statewide, females under 18 years of age accounted for nearly a quarter of DUI arrests in 2007, up from 17 percent in 1998. In fact, the percentage of DUI arrests for women rose in all age groups during that time period.

"Female DUI arrests soar in state, capital area," Sacramento Bee

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in July that drivers arrested for drunk driving may in some cases challenge the legitimacy of Breathalyzer tests.

Under California law, DUI suspects are generally charged with two violations: driving under the influence, which is determined through observation of behavior such as driving erratically or failing a field sobriety test like walking a line [23152 (a)]; and having a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher [23152(b)].

Determination of blood-alcohol content can be done by Breathalyzer or blood test. Breathalyzer tests measure the alcohol level in a person's breath and then use a standard formula to convert that level to an estimate of blood alcohol content.

The problem is that the same formula is used for all people in all conditions. A person's weight, gender, and other physical characteristics, and even the weather conditions at the time of the test, can influence Breathalyzer results.

Because of this, the Court ruled that Breathalyzer results may still be used as evidence, but criminal defense attorneys will be able to challenge those results in defense of their clients, highlighting the importance of quality legal representation when fighting DUI cases.

"California Supreme Court allows challenges to Breathalyzer results," LA Times, July 10, 2009
"California Supreme Court says DUI breath test accuracy can be weighed," San Jose Mercury News, July 9, 2009