A federal appeals court has ruled that juvenile offenders in California can be required to register as sex offenders for at least 25 years. According to the 9th US Circuit Court Of Appeals in San Francisco, a law passed in 2006 that excluded sex offenders aged 14 and above from juvenile law confidentiality protections did not violate the persons’ constitutional rights.

The ruling came in a case involving 3 Montana youths, who were accused of forcible sex crimes on Indian reservations. These persons were aged between 14 and 17 at the time. Because the crimes occurred on American Indian reservations, the 3 were subjected to federal prosecution.

Now, the court has held that the men must register as sex offenders for 25 years after their release from custody. They must register within a month after being released, and must keep authorities aware of their whereabouts.

Their lawyers argued that requiring a potentially lifelong registration requirement for the offenders was cruel and unusual punishment and violated their constitutional rights. However, the Appeals Court has disagreed.

The persons will now be required to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. They will be subjected to all requirements of lifelong registration including informing officials about their whereabouts, and entering their names in the federal government registry, a government database that is accessible to the public.

Conviction of a sex crime is a serious matter, dramatically impacting the rest of a person’s life. As California sex crimes lawyers find, a person who has been convicted of a sex crime may be subjected to penalties that continue long after his prison term has been concluded. Inclusion in a sex offender registry is just one of those penalties. A registrant is required to inform local law enforcement officials about changes in name and address, and also faces restrictions on where he or she can live and work.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

A rule change by the FBI will soon extend the definition of rape to include male victims. The change comes after calls from victims’ advocates who have long protested the narrow definition of rape that only includes female victims.

Currently, rape as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and employed by California criminal defense lawyers, refers to the ‘carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.’ The change will modify that definition to define rape as the ‘penetration of another person regardless of the gender of the person, without the person's consent.’ The new definition of rape will also include penetration of other persons, both males and females, using a variety of objects.

The need for a new definition of rape that takes into consideration crimes against male victims too, has been felt for several years now. In September, a survey that included police chiefs of major cities found that 80% of them believed that the old definition of rape was not adequate in modern times. The FBI director has already approved the new rule change, which is expected to be phased in over the next 3 years.

Victims’ groups have strongly supported the new definition of rape, saying that this will allow for more accurate tracking of sexual assault crimes across the country. Because the current definition of rape does not include male victims and certain types of assault, there has been a discrepancy in the number of sexual assault crimes that are actually committed across the country, and the numbers that are reported to the federal agency.

This difference in the definition of rape has led to discrepancies in federal data. For instance, while the FBI recorded 84,757 rapes in 2010, the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics recorded a total of 188,380 sexual assaults that year. A more inclusive definition will help bring more victims into the fold, delivering more accurate tracking results, and helping prevent such crimes.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

Women are closing the gender gap in one more area. According to a new study, the number of women being arrested for DUI has increased substantially over the past few years. The study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation shows that the number of DUI arrests involving women has increased by a staggering 36% over the last 10 years alone.

The trigger for the study, which was funded by the Century Council, an association of distillers, seems to have been the 2009 New York DUI accident involving Diane Schuler, the woman who drove the wrong way under the influence of alcohol and crashed her car, killing herself, four children in her car and 3 other people. The accident, which received a lot of national media attention, really spotlighted the fact that little attention is paid to prevent women from driving under the influence in this country.

Another intriguing fact that emerged from the study was the profile of the average female drunk driver. These aren't young college-age women binge-drinking with a group of friends. The average female arrested for DUI in the United States is better educated than the average male drunk driver. Not only is she more educated, she's also older than the average male drunk driver. Additionally, these women are the primary caregivers for their children, and hold low-paying jobs. Some experts have tied an increase in alcohol use and drunk driving among women with the stresses of parenting.

Men continue to comprise the majority of DUI arrests in the United States, but the gender gap is definitely narrowing. Not only that, California DUI lawyers are also concerned about the fact that binge drinking among women is on the increase. According to statistics, approximately 39% of young women in the country now routinely engage in binge drinking, an increase of 30% in 3 decades.

The feds have begun to take note. This month, the Department of Transportation’s annual focus on drunk driving is expected to target women drivers.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

It’s a little rare for California criminal defense attorneys to come across a possession of child porn case involving witnesses. A University of Utah professor has pleaded not guilty to charges of watching child porn on his laptop aboard a Boston-bound flight.

Professor Grant Smith is a professor in the University of Utah's materials science and engineering department. He was arrested on Saturday, soon after he disembarked at Boston airport. He was seated in the first class section on the flight when a passenger seated right behind him, found Smith watching child porn images on his laptop. He became concerned, and took cell phone pictures of the professor in the act. The man then informed the flight attendant. The flight attendant e-mailed a relative, and asked the person to inform police. Police were waiting for the professor when the plane landed.

According to prosecutors, when the flight attendant told the professor to turn off his laptop, he became concerned and tried to delete the images of child porn. Police checked the contents of the laptop at the airport, and found several images of nude and semi-new children, including girls as young as 6 years old.

Regardless of the outcome of the case, the penalties against Professor Smith have already begun. Smith has no criminal record, and has been an employee of the University of Utah for the past 14 years. The University has already placed him on administrative leave. If convicted, the university is likely to fire him.

In California, persons who have been convicted of possession of child pornography can face up to one year in a county jail and up to 3 years in state prison. The most devastating consequence may be mandatory registration in a federal sex offender registry for life.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

Across California, fewer people needed to meet with a California DUI lawyer this year, although some areas of the country recorded an increase in DUI arrest activity. The California Highway Patrol says that there were more DUI arrests this Thanksgiving holiday in Orange and San Diego Counties. However, overall DUI arrest numbers across California were down.

Officers arrested 69 people for DUI in Orange County over the Thanksgiving holiday, as of Sunday morning. Last year, the number of arrests was 39. In San Diego County, the number of people arrested was 88. Last year, 85 people had been arrested over the same period of time.

Overall, the number of people arrested for DUI across California was down this year. 1,350 people were arrested this year for DUI in California. Last year, 1,419 people had been arrested for DUI. However, the number of people dying in accidents caused by alcohol use was up across the state. Last year, 12 people were killed in driving drunk driving accidents in California. This year, the number had increased to 21.

Holiday season is typically busy season for California DUI attorneys. Not only are more people likely to drink and drive during these holidays, but their chances of being pulled over are also high because of increased law-enforcement activity during holidays. In fact, the police presence on the streets is likely to increase over the next few weeks with a spike in shoppers.

Motorists are more likely to be pulled over for DUI as we get closer to Christmas and New Years’. The California Highway Patrol will step up its enforcement activities and place more troopers on streets and highways. Local law-enforcement agencies are likely to follow suit. In addition to drunk driving crackdowns, law-enforcement agencies also conduct seatbelt crackdowns during the holidays, and these checkpoints often result in DUI arrests.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

Michael Jackson's doctor Conrad Murray, who was on trial for involuntary manslaughter in the singer's death, was convicted last week. His defense lawyers plan to appeal the verdict. The doctor was taken to the Los Angeles county jail after the verdict. An appeal is likely to come only after his sentencing on November 29.

Conrad Murray was on trial in Jackson's death because he allegedly administered the powerful aesthetic to the singer. A Los Angeles coroner ruled that Jackson’s death had been caused by acute propofol intoxication. Murray’s lawyers insisted that Jackson had administered the sedative himself when the doctor was out of the room.

The jurors were asked to decide on a main question - was the sedative administered to Jackson using an intravenous drip, or did Jackson inject himself with the propofol using a syringe? His lawyers tried to show that Murray was just one in a team of physicians treating Jackson, and that Jackson injected himself using a syringe. However prosecutors successfully built a case painting Murray as a man who was paid $150,000 month to administer propofol infusions to the star.

Murray could be sentenced to four years in state prison, but his lawyers are likely to ask for probation and county jail time. California criminal defense lawyers believe that Murray could benefit from a new state law that is aimed at reducing county jail and state prison overcrowding in California.

Sentencing for the doctor will take place later this month. However, he is already finding his life falling apart. Murray has already had his medical license suspended. The Medical Board of California will soon consider whether to completely revoke his medical license altogether.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have prevented law enforcement officers from conducting warrantless searches of cell phones of those under arrest.

The bill, SB 914, had been sent to the Governor's desk after being passed by the California legislature. The bill would have overturned a decision of the California Supreme Court in connection with a cell phone search. That decision involved a man who was arrested in 2007. During his arrest, a Ventura County Sheriff's Department officer checked his cell phone text messages, and found incriminating information. The Supreme Court ruled that police in California can search cell phones of a person under arrest without a warrant.

The Supreme Court's ruling is not limited to text messages, but includes other information stored on a cellphone such as Internet browsing history, photographs, contacts, voicemail messages, chat logs and other data. The bill, which had been widely supported by privacy groups and Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers, would have prevented such warrantless searches of a person’s cell phone and other devices upon arrest.

Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys believe that the Governor's decision to veto the bill will lead to an increase in the number of law enforcement officers choosing to rummage through a person’s cell phone to find incriminating evidence.

Privacy experts recommend using a password or encryption to lock access to the data on one’s cell phone, making it more difficult for police to browse one’s personal information without review by a judge.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

A Hawaii-based entertainer, who was arrested last month for sex crimes in California, has pleaded not guilty to charges of sexual abuse of minors. Sixty-six-year-old Cecilio Rodriguez has been charged with abuse of children under 14. The suspected abuse occurred in the 1990s.

Rodriguez is a renowned entertainer in Hawaii, and is part of the musical duo, Cecilio and Kapono. He was arrested in September after one of the victims admitted the abuse to her father, who then contacted the police. The women were apparently family friends of the entertainer. If convicted, Rodriguez could face a maximum sentence of ten years in prison.

Sex crimes are some of the most serious offenses, and persons who are convicted of these offenses can be sentenced to imprisonment, and required to register in a sex offender registry. Registration can severely limit a person's options for living and working. For instance, a person who has been convicted of a sex offense cannot live close to a school, park or any other place where children gather, once he is released or paroled. Since the definition of “where children can gather” can include a vast number of locations, this severely limits the accommodation options open to those convicted of sex offenses.

No one denies that it's important to keep children safe from sexual predators. However, such protection should not come at the cost of incarcerating innocent people. Unfortunately, in sex crime cases, Los Angeles sex crimes defense attorneys often find that persons are presumed to be guilty until proven innocent - a gross violation of their rights.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

According to new data by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than half of all drug arrests in the United States last year involved marijuana crimes. In fact, 2010 saw more people being arrested for marijuana crimes than in any other year.

Last year, 853,000 people were arrested for marijuana-related crimes. That comprises 52% of all drug arrests across the country in 2010. Out of these 853,000 arrests for marijuana-related crimes, 80% were only charged with possession of marijuana, and not cultivating or distributing it. Overall, since the year 2000, approximately 7.9 million people have been arrested for marijuana-related crimes.

The percentage of marijuana arrests was highest in the Midwest where these arrests comprised 63.5% of all drug arrests. The South also saw high numbers of marijuana-related arrests with 57% of drug arrests in these states. The number of marijuana-related arrests was lowest in the West, where these comprised 49% of the total number of arrests for drug crimes.

Overall, more than 1.6 million people were arrested for drug crimes in the United States last year. Not surprisingly to Los Angeles drug crime defense lawyers, arrests for drug crimes surpassed arrest rates for all other types of crimes. In fact, in 2010, one person was arrested every 19 seconds for possession, production or manufacture of drugs. More than 81% of these arrests were for possession of drugs. In all, 750,591 drug arrests in 2010 were for possession of drugs, while just over 103,000 arrests were for production or manufacture of drugs.

Federal law enforcement agencies have to understand that arresting people every minute for a drug crime hasn't achieved any objectives, and has not made the community safer.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink

A new book by Roger Lancaster, professor of cultural studies at George Mason University, is forcing the review of popular attitudes towards sex offender registries. In the book, Lancaster argues that these registries are not just ineffective in preventing sex crimes, but as California criminal defense lawyers also find, also unfair to the millions of people who are included in registries with barely any violation to their name.

In the book, Lancaster talks of the unfairness of a registry system that prevents sex offenders from living or working within 2000 feet of a school, playground or any other place where children gather under Jessica's Law. Such restrictions dramatically reduce a person's chances of living a normal life after incarceration, and defeat any attempt to reintegrate the person into society. According to Lancaster, we should rethink this approach, which resembles techniques of governance in authoritarian or even totalitarian states.”

He also compares the sex offender registry system in the United States with that in Britain, which also requires sex offenders to register themselves. However, in Britain, the number of persons actually on sex offender registries is much more limited, and is a much smaller proportion of the population.

In order to understand how sex offender laws in the United States have run riot, consider this - in the United States, the ratio of registered sex offenders to the general population is 228 per 100,000. In Britain, the ratio is 46 per 100,000. Additionally, in Britain, the majority of offenders are classified as minimal risk, and require low supervision. Information from the registries is closely guarded, and can be accessed only by parole officers, law enforcement officers and other interested parties.

This is unlike in the United States, where anybody can access a sex offender registry, and make uniformed assumptions about a person's character based on his inclusion in the registry. Further, in the United States, a substantial chunk of sex offender registrants are those involved in relationships simply because one of the persons involved in the relationship was under the age of eighteen.

(2) Comments | (0) Trackback | Permalink