Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A proposed ruling by Yolo County judge Kathleen White would restrict the actions of West Sacramento gang members. Specifically, the injunction - due to become final in the next few weeks - would place limits on members of the Broderick Boys gang associating in public, as well as institute a curfew from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

This marks the latest stage of an over six year struggle between Yolo County law enforcement, residents of West Sacramento, and civil rights attorneys representing gang members. The district attorney's office and police argue that the actions of the Broderick Boys constitute a public nuisance that requires the injunction to protect West Sacramento residents. The gang members and their attorneys view it as a violation of their civil rights.

Attorneys representing the Broderick Boys vow to appeal the decision when it is issued in its final form.

The Sacramento Bee reports that only 12% of people convicted of DUI in Sacramento County since July 2010 have installed ignition interlock devices (IIDs) in their vehicles, even though a pilot program requires them to do so before regaining driving privileges. The Department of Motor Vehicles, which administers the program, says that the low compliance rate might be attributable to the fact many people convicted of DUI have not yet completed their license suspension period. But it does seem that some people are not having the IIDs installed as the law mandates.

The article also touched on a topic covered in previous posts on this blog: the possibility that the federal government might in the future require installation in new vehicles of devices that would be able to detect if a person's blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit. These devices could be like the current models that require the driver to breathe into a tube or optical technology that scans a person's skin.

"Tough DUI Law Slow to Show Results," Sacramento Bee, March 14, 2011

The Sacramento Police Department plans stepped up enforcement pertaining to DUI and underaged drinking during the week leading up to St. Patrick's Day.

The effort will have three parts. The first targets consumption of alcohol by minors, as well as enforcement of laws that make it illegal to provide alcohol to people under the legal drinking age of 21 years. The second part will focus on enforcing outstanding warrants pertaining to past DUIs. The third part consists of increased DUI patrols throughout the city, as well as a DUI checkpoint that will take place next weekend at a location and time to be announced later.

As always, we recommend that if you plan on going out drinking, take a few minutes and determine who will serve as the designated driver. If you don't have a designated driver, set aside enough money to pay for a cab and keep the phone numbers for cab companies in your cell phone.

Next Tuesday, March 8, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of People v. Zambia, which presents the following issues: (1) Does the offense of pandering require the specific intent to encourage another person to become a prostitute? (2) Can a defendant be convicted of pandering for offering to act as a pimp for a woman who appears to be already working as a prostitute?

In other words, the Court is going to define what is meant by the word pimp.

The case stems from the 2007 arrest in Los Angeles of Jomo Zambia, who drove up to a woman he thought was a prostitute (she was an undercover cop) and asked her to get in his car, saying he was pimp who would provide her shelter and clothing. Even though Zambia was not a pimp - he lived at home and worked for the family business - he was arrested and sentenced to state prison for violating California's pandering law. He has since been paroled.

At issue in this case is the meaning of the word "become." California law declares it illegal to induce, persuade, or encourage "another person to become a prostitute."

Does "become" in this sentence mean convincing someone to begin working as a prostitute (changing occupations)? Or does it mean encouraging someone who is already a prostitute to move from one pimp to another (changing bosses)? Or could it even mean merely soliciting the services of a prostitute?

The California Supreme Court will decide.