Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The California Assembly has passed a bill (AB 1389) that places limits on impoundment of vehicles by law enforcement at DUI checkpoints. The bill now moves to the state Senate for consideration.

The bill's author, Assemblyman Michael Allen (D. - Santa Rosa), asserts that the bill is necessary to provide uniform standards for checkpoints. He is particularly concerned that the number of vehicles impounded at checkpoints has increased dramatically in recent years and far exceeds the number of people actually cited at checkpoints for DUI. For example, in 2009, over 24,000 vehicles were impounded compared to approximately 3,200 DUI arrests. Supporting documentation from Allen emphasizes that these impoundments have been disproportionally in areas with concentrations of low income populations. The result, he says, is financial hardship for the people who lose their vehicles, as well as diminished effectiveness of community policing as people come to distrust law enforcement.

The bill seeks to incorporate into law the principles articulated by the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) and used by CHP pertaining to a DUI checkpoint's location and purpose. Checkpoints would have to be placed at locations with a history of elevated numbers of DUI arrests and at a time that would reasonably be expected to deter driving under the influence.

If a person goes through a checkpoint without his driver's license, the vehicle would simply be moved to a safe location off the roadway. The purpose of the checkpoints would be restricted to looking for signs of intoxication, though the bill would still allow impoundment of vehicles that were used to commit crimes or have evidence pertaining to a crime.

Former Sacramento police officer Brandon Mullock was charged on Wednesday with 34 criminal violations by the Sacramento District Attorney's Office.

These charges come nearly a year and half after discrepancies in some of Mullock's reports brought about an investigation by the D.A.'s office and the Sacramento Police Department. It all began after Mullock was arrested in January, 2010, for brandishing a weapon. A review of Mullock's cases brought to light inconsistencies between what was in some of his arrest reports and evidence provided by audio and video recordings made with equipment on his patrol vehicle. In September, 2010, the D.A.'s office decided to throw out 79 cases - mostly DUIs - which used Mullock's reports or testimony in bringing charges against the defendants. Some of these cases had already resulted in convictions. The D.A.'s office had to then arrange for refunds of fees and removal of driving suspensions.

The charges against Mullock include 10 counts of perjury and 24 counts of falsifying police reports and carry a potential prison sentence of nearly 24 years.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this week that gives police more latitude to enter a person's home without first obtaining a search warrant.

The ruling in Kentucky v. King pertains to an incident that took place in Lexington, Kentucky. Police in Lexington saw what appeared to be a drug deal taking place in a parking lot and chased a suspect into a nearby apartment complex. As they walked by an apartment door, they smelled the aroma of burning marijuana. After they knocked on the door and identified themselves, the officers heard sounds that - given they were in pursuit of someone connected with drugs - suggested to them that drug evidence was being destroyed. They knocked down the door and found a man named Hollis King amidst marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. King was arrested, eventually convicted, and sentenced to 11 years in prison for drug trafficking.

The Court's decision in Kentucky v. King states that police can enter a home without a warrant if they believe that evidence is being destroyed. They classify this situation as an exigent, or emergency, circumstance that overrides the Fourth Amendment requirement that police obtain a search warrant before entering a person's home. The Court did state, however, that police entry without a warrant only applies as long as police do not create an exigent circumstance "by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment."

The Court contended that King could have taken actions that would have prevented his arrest, such as remaining silent and not responding to the police officers' knocks or coming to the door and stating that he did not consent to the officers entering his apartment. Instead, he tried to destroy the evidence, giving the officers the means to come in without a warrant.

The only dissenting vote was cast by Justice Ginsburg, who wrote that the majority's ruling dramatically expands law enforcement's authority to conduct warrantless searches. She wondered how secure people's homes are if police "can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity," all without a warrant.

As for Hollis King, his case goes back to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which will apply the ruling issued by the Supreme Court and determine if the incident in his apartment in fact constituted an exigent circumstance and therefore allowed warrantless entry by the Lexington police.

A California appellate court has issued an interesting decision on pimping and its relationship to the right of association.

The case of People v. Grant involves Sean Ali Grant, who in 2007 began an "intimate relationship" with a woman. The two later began sharing an apartment, which the woman apparently also used when she worked as a prostitute.

In March 2009, police came to the apartment in response to a call from the girlfriend - who was trying to move out but was concerned because Grant was angry. Grant fled the apartment but was run down and arrested by the police. He was eventually convicted of a variety of violations, one of which was pimping under Penal Code 266(h)(a).

According to the girlfriend's statements to police, Grant had advertised her services, scheduled appointments for her, and hid in their apartment closet while she performed her services. Grant would then pick up the money when the customers left, keeping some for himself and giving some to the girlfriend.

Grant challenged the pimping conviction on the grounds that it violated his constitutional right to freedom of association. He argued that sharing an apartment with a prostitute is not an illegal act.

The court didn't buy his argument. It said it was apparent that Grant derived "support and maintenance" from his girlfriend's earnings as a prostitute, meaning that he earned money from arranging her activities. This doesn't mean, however, that any person who accepts money from a prostitute is guilty of pimping. For example, a psychologist might provide treatment to a prostitute and be paid with money earned from prostitution, but the psychologist would not be guilty of pimping under 266(h)(a) because he "derives his support from his own performance of services." Grant could not make this sort of defense, though.

California law regarding possession of marijuana changed in important ways at the beginning of this year. In general, possession of up to one ounce of marijuana will now be charged as an infraction rather than a misdemeanor. In regards to possession of pot while driving, however, there are some factors that can result in more serious charges.

SB 1449, which took effect January 1, 2011, reclassifies possession of an ounce or less of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction. This is important because a misdemeanor comes with higher fines and the possibility of jail time and becomes part of a person's criminal record, while an infraction comes with a small fine and no jail time and does not become part of a criminal record. (Other sorts of infractions include traffic tickets and littering citations.)

California Health and Safety Code 11357(b) pertains to possession of marijuana in general.

Vehicle Code 23222(b) pertains specifically to possession of pot while driving, stating that possession of an ounce or less is charged as an infraction and results in a fine of up to $100.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that if you are pulled over and found to be high from marijuana, then you can be charged with driving under the influence according to Vehicle Code 23152(a). This is a misdemeanor charge which can result in thousands of dollars in fines, jail time, and a conviction on your criminal record. Moreover, DUI for marijuana could also result in felony charges if you have multiple previous convictions or there is a traffic incident involving injuries.