Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A report from the California State Auditor shows that evidence regarding the oversight and cost effectiveness of DUI checkpoints is limited. Even the report's title - "Office of Traffic Safety: Although It Exercises Limited Oversight Of Sobriety Checkpoints, Law Enforcement Agencies Have Complied With Applicable Standards" - reveals the inability of the auditors to come to hard conclusions.

The report documented that between October 2009 and September 2010, police, sheriff, and CHP personnel throughout the state conducted 2,562 checkpoints, which resulted in approximately 7,000 DUI arrests and nearly four times as many citations for driving without a license (nearly 28,000). All of this came at a cost of $16.8 million dollars in overtime pay to law enforcement officers.

Everyone wants to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. The question, though, is whether this is the most cost effective way of achieving that goal. As the auditor's report shows, there are no state or federal regulations for these checkpoints. Moreover, there is an almost complete lack of oversight and evaluation. Though the Office of Traffic Safety produces an annual report with data on the number of checkpoints and arrests, this data is reported by the local law enforcement agencies conducting the checkpoints and is neither verified nor evaluated by OTS. In fact, oversight in the field by OTS over the last four years has consisted of the monitoring of 24 checkpoints by two retired police officers.

Finally, as a result of previous documentation of the large number of vehicle impounds at DUI checkpoints, a new law for this year bans the practice of impounding vehicles at checkpoints if the only violation is that the driver in unlicensed. This was done because some local governments were impounding vehicles of unlicensed drivers as a means of generating revenue from fees that had to be paid to retrieve the vehicles.

The federal Ninth Circuit Court has issued a ruling in U.S. v. Shetler that nicely explains why a confession obtained by police after they have conducted an illegal search should be deemed inadmissible at trial.

This case begins in September, 2009, with a tip to the Pomona Police Department that Scott Shetler was manufacturing methamphetamine in his house. When officers arrived, they found the garage door open, saw that the back of the garage was hidden behind a partition, and smelled chemical odors that could be associated with methamphetamine production. They entered the garage and visually inspected its contents, finding items related to the manufacture of meth. They then went to the front door, where they were met by Shetler. After handcuffing and detaining Shetler, police brought out the two other occupants of the house, Shetler's girlfriend and her daughter. Police then entered the house and conducted a search. A half an hour later, they approached Shetler's girlfriend and obtained her permission to search the premises. After a nearly five hour search, which found chemicals and other items used in meth production, Shetler was read his Miranda rights. Shetler then confessed to manufacturing methamphetamine in his garage.

At trial, the court ruled that the initial warrantless search of the garage was legal but that the warrantless search of the house was illegal. The evidence obtained as a result of that search was suppressed, or excluded from trial. Shetler's confessions, however, were ruled admissible because, the court said, they were "sufficiently the product of the initial search of the garage."

The Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed, saying that the confession came as the result of the evidence obtained from the illegal search of the house. Shetler was in his yard throughout the search and was aware of the evidence that the police were finding. Thus the actions of the police during the illegal search influenced what he said when questioned.

Shetler did not, however, get the acquittal he was seeking. Instead, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the conviction and ordered that the matter be retried.

U.S. v. Shetler

Thefts of metals - particularly copper - from buildings, utilities, construction sites, and infrastructure have increased in recent years as the value of those metals has gone up. The incidence of these arrests has risen so much recently that three California news organizations - the Sacramento Bee, KTVU in the Bay Area, and the Ventura County Star - ran stories on the issue in recent weeks.

Here in Sacramento, the important aspect of the story is that the District Attorney's Office has changed the way it views these violations and is prosecuting them much more vigorously. Gone are the days when copper theft would be charged as a misdemeanor. Instead, many of these cases are being charged as felonies. The DA's office is even seeking prison time for people with prior strikes.

Justice System Cracks Down on Sacramento Metal Thieves, Sacramento Bee

Copper Wire Thieves Target State Parks, KTVU

3 Arrested in Moorpark Copper Theft, Ventura County Star

The California state Assembly yesterday passed AB 327, which would give voters the opportunity to modify the state's three-strikes law. The bill now goes to the state Senate. Approval of the measure there would place the initiative on the November ballot.

AB 327 seeks to change the law to require that a third strike be categorized as violent or serious to result in a 25-year to life sentence. Non-violent or non-serious third felonies would instead result in a doubling of the applicable sentence.

The bill does come with restrictions, however. For example, the 25-year to life penalty would still be imposed for a non-violent, non-serious third strike if either of the previous strikes were for murder, rape, or child molestation.

AB 327 comes as part of a movement to assess the impact of three-strikes laws. The Legislative Analyst's Office reported in 2005, after 10 years of three-strikes enforcement, that there was considerable variation across the state regarding application of three-strikes penalties. Prosecutors in different counties have different policies about seeking sentence enhancements. Judges employ different standards is using their discretion to dismiss prior strikes. And policies within counties change as different district attorneys come into office.

In addition, it's not clear what impact three-strikes laws have had on crime rates. A Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice report showed that the California counties with the highest rate of imprisonment using three-strikes laws (including Sacramento county) actually saw reductions in crime rates that were SMALLER than the reductions seen in the counties that employed three-strikes most sparingly.