Southern California Defense Blog

The California Supreme Court has made it harder for criminal defendants to demonstrate that their speedy trial rights have been violated by the prosecution’s delay in informing them of the charges. In a 7-0 decision handed down on March 29, the high court held that the chance to serve a concurrent sentence alone will not be sufficient to demonstrate a speedy trial violation. Instead, they “must show that the delay has impaired the ability to defend against the charged crime because, for instance, a witness has become unavailable, evidence has disappeared or the memory of a potential witness has faded.” People v Lowe, 2007 DJDAR 4195. Lowe contended that the prosecution’s delay in informing him of the charges against him prevented him from the opportunity of serving two separate sentences concurrently.

Lowe was arrested on October 18, 2002 after his estranged wife complained to police that he had been sending her threatening messages. When police found sitting in his car near her home, he was found to be in possession of a pipe bomb and under the influence of methamphetamine. Lowe spent four days in jail and was released because charges had not been filed by the date set for his arraignment. About a month later, on November 29, he was arrested in Alameda County on an alleged probation violation stemming from the pipe-bomb incident. He had been on probation in Alameda for an unrelated offense and his arrest on October 18th violated the conditions of probation. Lowe admitted the probation violation on February 6, 2003 and was sentenced to one year in the Alameda County Jail.

Four days later, on February 10, 2003, the Santa Clara DA filed charges stemming from the pipe bomb incident on October 18. An arrest warrant was issued on March 13 but Lowe was never notified of the charges or the warrant. The Alameda County Jail wasn’t notified of the warrant until June 26, four and a half months after the charges were filed. On July 8, Lowe finished his jail term in Alameda and thought he was getting out when he found out about the new charges in Santa Clara. He moved to dismiss the charges alleging the nearly five month delay between the filing of the complaint in February and his arraignment in July, citing the speedy trial provisions of the California Constitution. He also argued that the nine month delay from October 2002, the time the alleged crimes took place, to July 2003, when he was arraigned, violated his right to due process under both the State and Federal Constitutions.

Continue reading "Lowe Decision Has Negative Impact on Speedy Trial Rights" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

San Diego Police are writing hundreds of citations for Minor in Possession (Business and Professions Code § 25662). Many citations are for a misdemeanor. A guilty plea to a misdemeanor means you’ll have a criminal record. If you plead guilty the judge must suspend your driver’s license for one year.

A LAWYER THAT KNOWS THE SYSTEM CAN HELP. Often the charge is reduced to an infraction. Infractions are not reported on law enforcement criminal histories. Many, but not all, judges will suspend the driver’s license but give a restricted driver’s license. The restricted driver’s license often allows you to get to and from school, a job and drive on the job.

No matter what the evidence is, you can’t afford to be without a driver’s license for a year.

If there is a way to get the case dismissed, reduced, or save your driver’s license, WE KNOW HOW. Call Wallin & Klarich, California Juvenile Defense Lawyers.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Juvenile Offenses

Bookmark:

Like anything else in life, if you want to stand a good chance of a positive outcome when facing a DUI charge, it is all about who you have on your side and your “preparation” of your defense.

To know how to defend yourself you need to know what the “enemy” (The Prosecution) is looking for when they review the strength of a DUI case. In almost every DUI case the prosecution will be reviewing three key facts.

l. DRIVING OBSERVATION
2. FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS
3. BLOOD ALCOHOL RESULT

It is vital that you understand what each of these three areas means

l. DRIVING OBSERVATION

GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

A strong case for the prosecution is when the officer claims the defendant was weaving, swerving, driving on the wrong side of the road, hit a parked car, or other “erratic” driving behavior. This will help them show to a jury that the defendant was “impaired” due to consuming alcohol and that is why the defendant is driving in that manner.

Continue reading "Arrested for DUI? - Be Prepared" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

-- Information for Appellants --
This information will help explain what an appeal is about. It answers some of the general questions most often asked by our clients. Your individual attorney will help you understand your specific case.

“WHAT IS AN APPEAL?”
An appeal is not a new trial. The purpose of an appeal is to check over the proceedings in the trial court to see if the law was followed. An appeal can deal only with the matter shown in the “record.” The “record” includes only: (1) the papers in the trial court files and (2) a court reporter’s word-for-word record of what happened in the courtroom. The Court of Appeal cannot consider facts outside the transcripts. It hears no witnesses and takes no new evidence. The Court of Appeal has no power to decide “questions of fact,” such as whether you are guilty or innocent, or whether a certain witness was lying, or what a particular piece of evidence proves. Decisions like those are made only by the jury or trial judge. The Court of Appeal has no power to say what sentence you should get as long as the sentence you actually received is one allowed by law. The Court of Appeal cannot simply change it because it does not agree with it. The Court of Appeal deals with legal questions. It decides whether the trial court proceedings followed the law. For example, it might decide whether certain evidence was correctly admitted, whether the jury was properly instructed, or whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for choosing a particular sentence, and other questions of those types. If the Court of Appeal finds that the proceedings were conducted correctly, the judgment is “affirmed,” which means your conviction and sentence will not change. Even if the Court of Appeal finds a legal error was made in the trial court, your judgment will be affirmed unless the court finds “prejudice” – that the error made a difference in the trial. If there is “error” and “prejudice” your case will be “reversed” (in part or in full) and sent back to the trial court for a new trial, a new sentencing, or some other proceeding to correct the error. Some mistakes can be corrected by the Court of Appeal itself, without sending the case back.

Continue reading "UNDERSTANDING YOUR APPEAL" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Appeals

Bookmark:

While we all enjoy going to and throwing parties, a good time at a party can very easily turn into a criminal conviction, a jail sentence and a large monetary fine if we are not knowledgeable of the law pertaining to parties. In particular, people are often unaware of the law pertaining to alcohol and underage drinking. There are many harsh penalties that you may be charged with if you serve alcohol to a minor or if you are a minor who is found in possession of alcohol.

Serving Alcohol to a Minor

Serving alcohol to a minor can be criminally punished under a few different penal statutes. Persons who give alcohol to any person under the age of 21 years are guilty of a crime under California Business and Professions Code Section 25658. The penalties for a conviction under this section can include one year in county jail and a fine of $1,000. In addition, a person found guilty under this section may also be found guilty of violating Section 272 of the Penal Code. Section 272 makes it a crime for anyone to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Under this section, anyone who commits any act or omits the performance of any duty which causes or encourages any person under the age of 18 years to possess alcohol is guilty of a crime. A conviction under this section may be punished by a fine of $2,500, imprisonment in jail and probation for five years. A mistake as to the age of the person given alcohol is not a valid defense to either of these charges. So, combining the penalties of these two sections, if you serve alcohol to a person under the age of 18 years, even if you do not know that they are under 18, you can be fined $3,500 and imprisoned in county jail and placed on probation for five years. This is quite a penalty for throwing a party. The Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich specialize in alcohol related offenses and can often avoid this result by having your charges reduced or dismissed and/or by enrolling clients in programs before the court orders it. The most important thing you can do after you have been arrested is immediately call 1-877-4-NO-JAIL or go to www.wklaw.com to find out how Wallin & Klarich can help you stay out of jail and avoid a large fine. You will need to take action quickly in order to help Wallin & Klarich win your case.

Continue reading "Underage Drinking and Parties" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Juvenile Offenses

Bookmark:

Our firm gets many calls from potential clients who have already gone through a divorce or paternity matter which resulted in a judgment or order. All child and spousal support amounts have been decided on and child visitation is pretty clear. They call us because things have changed or things haven’t worked out and they want us to help them get the support or visitation terms modified.

Asking a judge to modify the terms of a judgment or order is often a good idea in these situations. However, there may be another option that most callers don’t even know about, and, sometimes, this other option is much, much better. This option is not just a modification of an existing judgment or order, but it is a complete set aside of the existing judgment or order.

When a party asks a judge to set aside a judgment, s/he is asking the judge to relieve him or her of the judgment, or part of the judgment, and the obligations, responsibilities, and benefits that go along with it. The same is true when asking a judge to set aside an order. The distinction between a judgment and order is important when we’re talking about set asides because the laws are different for a judgment and an order.

There are only a handful of reasons that would allow a judge to follow through with a set aside. As found in California Family Code §2122, the reasons a judge may set aside a judgment are: 1) actual fraud; 2) perjury; 3) duress; 4) mental incapacity; 5) mistake; and 6) failure to comply with disclosure requirements. As found in California Family Code §3691, the reasons a judge may set aside an order are: 1) actual fraud; 2) perjury; and 3) lack of notice.

The setting aside of judgments and orders is not as common as their modifications. However, a set aside may be more beneficial for you and your case than a simple modification. Of course, that won’t always be true, so it is important to speak to a lawyer knowledgeable in the area of family law before you make any decisions. A good family lawyer will at least consider a set aside as a possible option, rather than ignoring the possibility altogether and heading right into seeking a modification.

If you have any questions about what you’ve read above, please call Wallin & Klarich now to speak to a family law lawyer about your situation. We can be reached at www.wkfamilylaw.com.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Family Law Issues

Bookmark:

Once a divorce petition is filed, both parties are restrained from removing the child(ren) from the jurisdiction (area) without prior written consent of the other party. Let’s say you have recently filed for divorce and you now want to move to Hawaii with your two young children. If the other party (your spouse) is opposed to this, your only other option is to ask the court to allow you to take your children with you when you move.

One way to do this is to file an ex parte motion requesting the court to allow you to move away due to some emergency situation. If the court grants your motion, then great, you’re set. If the court denies your motion, you will have to go back for another hearing and ask the court again to allow you to remove your children from the area. It is important to explain the details of the situation and how the move would benefit your children. If the judge is not inclined to allow the move, you may ask the court for a “730 evaluation.” (See California Evidence Code § 730.) A “730 eval.” Allows the court to appoint an expert to conduct an investigation into your situation. This investigation may include interviewing you, your spouse, the children, other friends or family members, work situations, etc. The expert (or experts) would then form an opinion as to whether or not you should be allowed to take your children with you when and if you move away. The court would then listen to the expert’s opinion and make a determination.

The “730 eval.” is not cheap. The judge may require you to pay for the cost of the expert or experts. Therefore, you should consider the cost when making your decision.

Continue reading "Asking the Court to Allow You to Move Away from Area with Your Child" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Custody Issues

Bookmark:

The California Family Code differentiates marriages that last for ten years or longer and marriages that last for less than ten years. Many Californians believe that this distinction means that, if a marriage lasts for ten years or longer, then the payer of spousal support (called the supporting party) must continue paying spousal support for the rest of his or her life. While it may at times appear this way that is in fact not the law.

Section 4320 of the California Family Code governs the factors a judge should consider when deciding whether (and how much) spousal support to award. The Code instructs judges that the main, all-encompassing goal is that the supported party become self-supporting within a reasonable time.

How much time is a reasonable time? According to the statute, generally it will be one-half the length of the marriage. This means if I were married for eight years, and upon getting divorced the judge ordered me to pay spousal support, then the judge may wish to continue the spousal support for four years. How will you know how long you have to be paying or receiving spousal support after your divorce? That will depend on many factors, including how smart and aggressive your lawyer is.

You may be thinking, “So what’s this I heard about some ‘Ten Year Rule’?” According to the Family Code, when a marriage lasts ten years or longer, we have good reason for calling it a “marriage of long duration.” A “marriage of long duration” is not generally subject to the “one-half the length of the marriage” rule. When spousal support is awarded after a marriage of long duration, the support may continue for a very short period of time, or for an extremely long time, until remarriage of the supported party, or until the death of either party. There simply is no way of knowing. But, the kicker is, the statute itself states that, even though a marriage may have lasted longer than ten years, nothing in the statute “limits the court's discretion to terminate spousal support in later proceedings on a showing of changed circumstances.” This means it is up to the judge to decide whether or not the spousal support should continue. And it is up to you (or your lawyer) to convince the judge why he or she should continue or terminate the spousal support.

Now you should have realized that, even if you were divorced after being married for ten or more years, this does not mean that you received a sentence (or lottery) of a lifetime of spousal support.

(As of 4-16-07, some of the applicable CFC sections are: 4320, 4322, 4323, 4333, 4336, and 4337.)

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Family Law Issues

Bookmark:

In light of the decision in Miranda v. Cornelius, 429 F3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005), the California courts have now weigh in on the issue of impounding vehicles pursuant to an arrest. In the most recent decision in People v. Williams, 2006 Cal.App. LEXIS 1932, the officer impounded a vehicle driven by an individual arrested on a warrant and found to be in possession of a gun. Although the vehicle was legally parked and not evidence in any criminal case, the officer relied on the provisions of Vehicle Code section 22651(h) since the driver had been arrested.

However, as with so many other issues, the Court was mildly interested in state statutes authorizing the seizure of property since the Constitution controls these issues. Just like the Ninth Circuit in Miranda, this Court required that the officer justify the impound within the parameters of the so-called “community caretaking function”. In other words, the mere fact that the driver was arrested, there was no other reason to impound the vehicle since (1) the driver was licensed, (2) the vehicle was properly registered and insured, (3) the vehicle had not been reported stolen or otherwise evidence of a crime, (4) the vehicle was legally parked (in front of the suspect’s residence), and, (5) there was no suggestion of risk of vandalism or danger because of the parked vehicle. While the Court might have upheld the impound of the vehicle (and admitted the resulting evidence seized during such impound), there simply was no evidence that this vehicle could be impounded under the “community caretaking function”.

In light of this and the Miranda decision, it is apparent that officers must exercise sound discretion in impounding vehicles even when seemingly authorized by California statute. Simply arresting the driver may no longer be sufficient and officers should articulate as many of the above listed “community caretaking” factors as possible when impounding vehicles.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

1ST DUI OFFENSE

If convicted, the court no longer orders a 90 day restriction. Pursuant to VC23538(1)(2), the license is suspended for 6 months under VC 13352(a)(1). The department may issue a restricted license pursuant to VC 13352.4. Pursuant to VC 23538(a)(3), the court can prevent the issuance of a restricted license if the court feels that the individual poses a threat to public safety. Additionally, the court can impose a longer program based on the licensee’s record of convictions for PC647(a) and DUI’s in which case, the DMV will thereafter require the court ordered program as a condition to full reinstatement of the license.

If the DMV has administratively suspended the driving privilege pursuant to VC 13353.2, then pursuant to VC 13353.3, the license will be suspended for 4 months. Pursuant to VC 13353.7(a), the licensee may apply for a restricted after 30 days subject to a 5 month restriction, VC 13353.7(a)(3). The licensee can no longer terminate the restriction early after completing the program and 60 days of restriction, VC13353.7(a)(5) (inoperative as of 9/20/05)

If a licensee is under administrative suspension/restriction and receives notice of a conviction, the suspension under VC 13352(a)(1) must be imposed (see VC13353.7 and 13353.3) subject to 13352.4 which authorizes a restricted license for the length of the program ordered by the court. Pursuant to VC13353.3(c), both the suspension under VC 13352 and VC 13353.2 run concurrently with the total period not to exceed the longer of the two. Credit is given for time served under suspension towards the total period that the license is affected.

2nd DUI OFFENSE – WITHIN 10 YEARS

If convicted, the court will no longer have any authority to order an 18 month restriction. Under VC 23542(a)(2), the license will be suspended for 2 years pursuant to VC 13352(a)(3). The licensee can apply for a restricted license after 12 months, including any time served under suspension as a result of VC 13353.3. The court has authority under VC 23542(d) to prevent the issuance of a license after 12 months if the court feels that the individual would pose a risk to public safety.

Continue reading "DUI LAW CHANGES AS OF 1/1/05" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Search & Seizure – Cell Phones & Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest – United States v. Jacob Pierce Finley

In an opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit on January 26, 2007, the Court clearly answered an important question about the legality of searching the contents (text messages and call records) of cell phones taken from a person you have arrested.

In United States v. Finley, Midland Police Officers and DEA agents arrested Finley in a motor vehicle shortly after he and his partner delivered methamphetamine to a police informant. When they arrested him, they seized a cell phone from his pocket, then delivered him to an address at which other officers were serving a search warrant. They questioned him about the delivery and other drug transactions, and believed his answers to be untruthful. During the questioning, a DEA agent began searching the phone’s call records and text messages, a number of which appeared to be related to drug trafficking, and confronted Finley with the incriminating messages.

Evidence of the text contents was used against the Defendant at trial after the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress the evidence. Defendant’s Suppression Motion was based on the argument that the search of the cell phone was unlawful because it had occurred without a search warrant. Ultimately, the Defendant was convicted in US District Court and appealed the conviction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Continue reading "Search and Seizure - Cell Phone Records" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

On January 12, 2007, DUI Court was implemented at North Justice Center. This is a project that Orange County has already undertaken in the Harbor Court with much success. The goal is to enhance public safety through the reduction of recidivism in DUI driving. The program is very tough on offenders. The DUI Court program requires offenders to undergo treatment for substance abuse in conjunction with education, judicial monitoring, formal probationary supervision and frequent alcohol and drug testing. South County has realized, since the programs inception in October 2004 a reduction in repeat offenders by 10%.

DUI Court is voluntary for the offender. The program targets those drivers who have at least one prior DUI arrest. Once accepted into the program (in lieu of jail time), the offender must meet very strict requirements in order to “graduate”. The participant will have weekly probation visits, counseling sessions, alcohol testing three times a week, self help meetings four times a week, court attendance twice a week, a curfew and electronic confinement at home. These requirements are met in four phases and usually take the offender 14 months to complete.

In order for someone to qualify for DUI Court, they must first be willing to enter a guilty plea to their misdemeanor DUI case filed at North Justice Center and also fall within the following criteria:
• Must have a prior misdemeanor DUI offense (not conviction)
• Must be an adult
• Live in Orange County
• Have no violent offenses or drug-sales convictions

An individual is not eligible for inclusion into DUI Court if he/she has the following:
• Is a juvenile
• Lives outside Orange County
• Is already on parole
• Has a gang affiliation
• Has a mental health issue that would interfere with the ability to comply with the program’s requirements
• Has any felony offense
• Has a DUI collision with significant injuries

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN LOSE YOUR LICENSE IF YOU ARE ARRESTED AND CITED FOR DUI OR DRUGS? IN ADDITION IF YOU ARE ON PROBATION AND A TERM OF PROBATION IS DO NOT DRIVE WITH ANY MEASURABLE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL IN YOUR SYSTEM, THIS CAN BE REPORTED TO DMV FOR ACTION AGAINST YOUR LICENSE.

Speaking with a supervisor with the DMV’s Driver safety office, Officers are instructed to complete the Admin Per Se form (form ds367) for DUI’s where an officer arrests the driver for DUI for “DRUGS ONLY”. Officers are being instructed to do the Admin Per Se form on these “DRUGS ONLY” cases. On the front of the form they are instructed to check the box for “0.08% or more BAC chemical test results”, put a line through it and then write “DRUGS ONLY”. The officer will not take the driver’s CDL and will not give the pink copy of the Admin Per Se to the driver like they normally do with DUI arrests involving alcohol. If there is a situation where there is a combo of drugs and alcohol but the BAC is below .08, the officers are instructed to do the exact same thing as described above: Write “DRUGS ONLY”, DON’T take the CDL and DON’T give the suspect the pink copy. If they have a DUI with drug/alcohol combo where the BAC is .08 or more, the officer’s are instructed to do the Admin Per Se form (DS367), taking the suspect’s CDL and giving him the pink copy. The officers are being reminded that, when they have a DUI where they suspect a drug/alcohol combo, they still have to offer the breath test. If they choose to take a breath test, we do the breath test then call a blood tech in so we can detect the drugs.

Once the DMV gets the Admin Per Se Form on the “DRUGS ONLY” case, they will get a copy of the blood results. Once they get a confirmation that there were drugs in the suspect’s system, they will require the suspect to come in for a “re-examination”. The officer’s are being instructed to be detailed in their narrative on the Admin Per Se’s on the suspect’s bad driving. This “re-examination” CAN result in the suspect’s CDL being suspended, even if the suspect comes to his re-exam appearing to be sober of drugs or alcohol.

Continue reading "Saving Your License After a DUI" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DMV Hearings

Bookmark:

There has recently been a great deal of confusion concerning physical and legal custody of children upon divorce. At the conclusion of a divorce proceeding, parties commonly come to a stipulation or agreement where they will share both physical and legal custody of children, but rarely do they know what they are exactly getting into. Hopefully, this will help to clear up some confusion.

There are several arrangements with child custody:

Exclusive custody (“legal and physical)

This is where one parent has the right to make decisions regarding the child’s residence, health, education and welfare. The non-custodial parent has reasonable visitation rights.

Sole physical custody

This is where the child resides with and is supervised by one parent, subject to the other parent’s reasonable visitation rights. Although one parent is the sole physical custodian, the other parent still has decision making power about how the child should be brought up. (ie: whether child should attend public or private school, whether child should be brought up Christian or Jewish, and etc.)

Sole legal custody

This is where a parent has the exclusive right to make decisions regarding the child’s health, education and welfare. This however is normally ordered along with exclusive physical custody to one parent.

Joint custody

Under this arrangement, neither parent has sole physical or legal custody. Both have the authority to control and supervise the child, and the child’s presence is shared.

Joint legal custody

In this case, both parents share the right to make decisions regarding the child’s health, education and welfare. Joint legal custody may be granted without granting joint physical custody (see below). In some instances, the court will order joint legal custody, but sole physical custody to one parent. The child shall reside with and shall be under the supervision of the physical custodian.

Joint physical custody

Joint physical custody is awarded when each parent has significant periods of physical custody. Child must have frequent and continuous contact with both parents in such a custody arrangement, but this doesn’t mean that custody must be equally shared.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Family Law Issues

Bookmark:

In California the right to drive is a privilege. One of the easiest ways to ensure that your license to drive will remain secure is to become informed. After reading this article, you will learn the some of the many different actions that can result in loss of your driving privilege. This is the third in a series of three articles on this topic.

This section deals with the driving privileges of minors and the actions that can result in their loss of their license. For more information on these matters, call the California DMV Lawyers at Wallin & Klarich.

Drug and Alcohol Related Offenses Committed by Minors

Drug and Alcohol Related Offenses by Person under Age 21
If you are a minor and convicted of an offense involving drugs or alcohol, a court will suspend your driver license for one year. If you do not yet have a driver license, the court will order the delay of the issuance of your license for one year.

Driving Under the Influence by a Minor
The DMV will revoke your driver license if you are a minor and are convicted of a DUI. The DMV may revoke your license for one year or until you reach 18 years of age, whichever is longer.

Continue reading "Maintaining Your Driving Privilege - Part 3" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DMV Hearings

Bookmark:

A lawsuit was filed recently in LA Superior Court by residents of the City of Los Angeles seeking to stop the Los Angeles Police Department from enforcing its longstanding “Special Order 40.” The lawsuit alleges that Special Order 40, as well as the practices of the LAPD relating to that Order, run contrary to the mandates of California Health & Safety Code § 11369.

Special Order 40 was first enacted in November 1979 by then Police Chief Daryl Gates. The Order instructed officers to “not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person.” The Order continues that officers are prohibited from arrest[ing] or book[ing] persons for violation of Title 8, Section 1323 of the United States Immigration [sic] Code (Illegal Entry).” The Order states further that, upon arresting an “undocumented alien” for “multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high grade misdemeanor or a felony offense,” the LAPD is required to notify the immigration authorities of the arrest of the individual, and forward the individual’s arrest report to immigration officials.

A 2000-2001 study by the Rampart Independent Review Panel, which was assigned to investigate the Rampart scandal and report its findings to the LA Police Commission, found that, in practice, the LAPD “go[es] beyond the limited provisions of Special Order 40.” The Panel’s investigation found that LAPD officers do not notify immigration authorities of the arrest of an “undocumented alien” as they are required to do under the provisions of the Order. The Panel found that, in practice, immigration authorities are only notified of the arrest of an undocumented alien by LAPD, if, after the arrested person appears in court, the judge orders the person to be held in the Los Angeles County Jail. At this point, immigration authorities are notified by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, and not LAPD. Thus, in practice, according to the findings of the Rampart Panel, LAPD never notifies immigration authorities that an undocumented alien has been arrested.

This recently filed lawsuit challenges these practices by the LAPD as being contrary to the requirements of state law, to wit: California Health & Safety Code § 11369, which provides that, “[w]hen there is reason to believe that any person arrested for a violation of [certain enumerated drug related crimes], may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.” It seems clear that the LAPD policy of not notifying immigration authorities of the arrest of a person on such certain enumerated drug related crimes runs contrary to the requirements of this California statute.

Continue reading "LAWSUITS CHALLENGE LAPD IMMIGRATION POLICY" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Immigration Matters

Bookmark: