Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer Blog

Most people have heard the phrase "drunk in public" before, but they may not be fully aware of its meaning. Having a beer while out at a restaurant may seem innocent enough, and it usually is; however, depending on the circumstances, a person may be arrested for being drunk in public.

Under California Penal Code Section 647(f), it is against the law for a person to be in a public place while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and show signs of the following:

• Being unable to demonstrate care for personal safety as well as the safety of others; and/or
• Interfering with, obstructing or preventing the free use of any street, sidewalk or other area (public way).

A law enforcement officer may place a person who appears to be carrying out the above acts and behavior in civil protective custody. Under Section 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, an individual may be taken to a facility for a 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates (substances such as alcohol and/or drugs that cause intoxication).

A California drunk in public charge is a type of disorderly conduct offense, which can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. If a person is convicted of this offense, he or she may face probation, steep fines, and even jail time. While these consequences are intimidating, there is no reason a person should not try to build a strong defense against the charges being held against them.

Daniel Kann has been defending the rights of those charged with a wide range of criminal offenses for many years. As a Los Angeles misdemeanor defense lawyer, Mr. Kann is prepared to inform you of your legal rights and options for defense. To learn more about how Mr. Kann can help you get your charges reduced or dismissed altogether, call 310-954-9356.

The case that has recently attracted national attention in regards to free-speech rights has come to an end. According to The Los Angeles Times, seven students from UC Irvine and three from UC Riverside have been found guilty of two misdemeanors to conspire and then disrupt a February 2010 speech at UC Irvine by the Israeli ambassador to the United States. A jury in Orange County deliberated for over two days.

One of the case's main debates related to opposing views as to who was being censored during the speech. The prosecutor claimed that Ambassador Michael Oren was "shut down" by students interrupting his speech who took turns shouting phrases that were allegedly planned. The defense argued that the students were being singled out and that they were only displaying typical behavior seen at other college protests. During trial, the defense stated that a guilty verdict could squash student activism and the free exchange of ideas at colleges throughout the nation.

Another issue was whether this particular incident needed to be prosecuted at a criminal level. Some students were disciplined by University administrators through the suspension of the campus Muslim Student Union for an academic quarter. Pending the fulfillment of 40 hours of community service, the charges against one defendant have been tentatively dismissed. The dean of UC Irvine's Law School stated that university sanctions were enough for the students for something so minor and that criminal sanctions go too far.

Although there are varying points of view on the guilty jury verdict, it does raise some valid questions about freedom of speech laws.

If you are facing criminal charges, no matter how minor or serious, it is important to seek legal counsel from an experienced criminal defense attorney in California. Even though felony charges have more severe consequences, a misdemeanor charge on your record can still have life-altering effects. Daniel Kann has worked exclusively as a criminal defense attorney throughout Southern California providing his clients with skilled legal representation. Call 888-744-7730 today for more information about your rights.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over much of the West Coast of the United States including Los Angeles County has ruled that strip-searches of incoming jail inmates are constitutional and necessary to prevent the smuggling of drugs and other forbidden items into lockup facilities.

This decision comes on the heels of a 2008 Ninth Circuit decision that such searches are so intrusive and dehumanizing that they violate a person's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure unless there is good cause to believe that someone is in possession of contraband.

The ruling is the result of a class-action lawsuit brought by nine antiwar protester against San Francisco arising out of their arrests at a 2002 demonstration.

Judge Sandra S. Ikuta attempted to justified the ruling by stating that the strip-search policy was "reasonable under the Fourth Amendment" as such searches resulted in hundreds of instances where money, drugs, and weapons were seized and that such items can jeopardize the safety of jail staff as well as other inmates.

Judge Sidney R. Thomas was joined by three other judges on the panel in his dissenting opinion. In his opinion Thomas stated that one of the plaintiffs had been arrested at a peaceful protest, slammed to a concrete floor during booking, stripped and subjected to a body-cavity search, then left naked in a cell for eleven hours. She was subsequently strip-searched a second time and then released without charges.

Thomas had ruled in 2008 that without probable cause such searches cannot be upheld as "the intrusiveness of body-cavity searches cannot be overstated."

While one's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure may be somewhat diminished in a lockup facility, in an automobile, or even in a school setting, under most circumstances, one cannot be detained or searched without ...

Continue reading "Strip-Searches of Incoming Jail Inmates Ruled Constitutional by Ninth Circuit" »

Prosecutors dismissed pending DUI charges against Hills star Stephanie Pratt in Los Angeles Superior Court in exchange for a no contest plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge of Exhibition of Speed.

As part of the plea negotiation, Ms. Pratt will be required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for eight weeks, complete a twelve week alcohol education class and she will be placed on unsupervised misdemeanor probation for three years.

Often times when one is faced with California Vehicle Code Section 23152, for DUI or drunk driving in California, there is the potential for an experienced DUI attorney to reach a plea bargain solution with the prosecutor for a plea to a reduced charge in exchange for a dismissal of the original charge of DUI. This may be an option when the client's blood alcohol content as measured by a breath or blood chemical test administered by the arresting officer is relatively low or there is some other weakness in the prosecutor's case.

Some examples of reduced charges that may be an option in California DUI cases in descending order of severity are, Wet Reckless, Dry Reckless, and as in Ms. Hill's case, Exhibition of Speed.

As for the reduced charge of California Vehicle Code Section 23103.5, Wet Reckless, some of the benefits as compared to a standard DUI conviction are, less expensive fines, less severe impact on car insurance premiums, and little to no alcohol education classes. Also, a plea to a charge of Wet Reckless will not be considered a second time DUI for the purposes of enhanced penalties where the driver has suffered a prior DUI conviction within the past ten years. However, a DUI conviction within ten years of a Wet Reckless conviction will be considered a second DUI and the client will suffer enhanced penalties. Moreover plea to a Wet Reckless charge will not result in the suspension of one's drivers license. However, the DMV can still suspend one's license pursuant to a separate DMV hearing also known as an Administrative Per Se or APS hearing.

An even more desirable option is that of Vehicle Code Section 23103, known in the context of DUI plea bargaining as a Dry Reckless. A Dry Reckless plea avoids court ordered ...

Continue reading "Hills Star, Stephanie Pratt Pleads to Reduced Charge in DUI Case After Successful Plea Negotiation" »