Gallo's criminal defense attorney filed the appeal with the high court Aug. 30. In it, she argues that Orange County Register readers rated Adenhart's death as the most important story of the year in an online poll, eclipsing the death of Michael Jackson, the economy and the inauguration of Barack Obama. In a phone survey, she said, 76 percent of potential jurors said they believed Gallo was guilty. Similar arguments have already been rejected in the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Orange County Superior Court, although the judge in the case says he may consider a change of venue for the verdict or sentencing. Gallo is accused of driving drunk when he ran a red light in his minivan and slammed into Stewart's car, pinning it against a lamp post. In addition to killing Stewart, Pearson and Adenhart, the accident also seriously injured passenger Jonathan Wilhite. Gallo had a previous DUI and was driving on a suspended license, leading prosecutors to charge him with second-degree murder rather than DUI manslaughter.

As Garden Grove DUI criminal defense lawyers, we hope that the lower courts are right that Orange County jurors can be fair to Gallo. But we believe that Gallo has a reasonable argument that they may not be. Courts allow changes of venue when the case has gotten so much publicity that it's not clear whether jurors can be fair and unbiased. Given the publicity around the trial, and especially the phone survey cited in the Supreme Court filing, this appears to be an open question. So we hope the Supreme Court considers the petition carefully. A lot is riding on this outcome, because Gallo is accused of very serious crimes. In particular, the prosecutors have chosen to charge him with second-degree murder rather than manslaughter, reasoning that his prior conviction means he knew drunk driving was wrong when he did it anyway. A conviction on those charges alone could put Gallo in prison for 45 years, rather than the 12 to 30 years he would have faced for DUI manslaughter. Anyone with this much at stake deserves a fair trial.

The letter from ASA (PDF) came two weeks after the ruling, which said unanimously that federal law alone does not preempt state law, and that the court should explore the issue of whether state law can preempt local dispensary bans. The letter said that this shows that local dispensary bans may violate state law, and asked cities to reconsider. No news reports show that any city has changed its laws in response. In fact, media reports show that at least two cities are considering their own dispensary bans, including the city of Downey in Los Angeles County as well as the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove. At least one of the proposed bans is based on the same federal preemption argument that was discredited in the Qualified Patients ruling. That ruling is the only such ruling thus far in California, although observers expect the issue to eventually reach the state Supreme Court. The letter ends by noting that ASA will "explore [its] legal options," although the accompanying press release does not mention litigation.

As Ontario medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we hope no further lawsuits are necessary. We are disappointed in the attempt by Downey to ban medical marijuana based on federal preemption, since the ruling explicitly said this alone is not an acceptable reason for an outright ban. Both cities also use arguments that dispensaries attract crime, which were discredited as unproven in the ruling, as well as by an ASA study (PDF) showing that well-regulated dispensaries actually see a slight decrease in crime. ASA's letter to the cities with dispensary bans offered to help those cities develop appropriate regulations to achieve this. However, we suspect cities will continue to fight for outright bans, using the same spurious arguments. Not only does this deny patients access to the medicine they have been legally prescribed, but it makes them and the dispensary operators into criminals for doing what they are legally allowed to do under state law.

Before the crackdown, it was estimated that about 580 dispensaries were operating in the city, which has 470 square miles of land. The ordinance regulating dispensaries was expected to shut down about 400, according to the LA Weekly. However, the Times wrote that using that ordinance to eliminate dispensaries left just 41 in the city, which even co-author and special assistant city attorney Jane Usher said was a surprise. A spokesperson for the city clerk said the office took a very strict interpretation of the ordinance, which required no more than one change of location, no changes in management and no serious criminal record for managers. Because the number left was so low, the article said, the city has suspended its efforts to choose between dispensaries, which could have inspired a new round of lawsuits by eliminated businesses. Instead, the city planned to file its own lawsuit Aug. 26, asking a judge to declare that its selection process was legal. No one will be shut down before a court ruling.

As the article notes, the city already faces almost 30 lawsuits by 85 dispensaries that have been asked to shut down. Our Torrance medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers suspect that it's right to expect more lawsuits from this admittedly strict selection process. This is particularly true because, as the LA Times notes, some of the eliminated dispensaries are among the most reputable in the city. Fundamentally, we believe the city is regulating medical marijuana dispensaries so harshly because politicians are trying to please a vocal minority that is against marijuana despite the lack of any real evidence of problems. For example, opponents of dispensaries frequently say they attract crimes, but have failed to cite statistics that show a greater-than-ordinary amount of crimes in and around the dispensaries. In that context, it's difficult to see the point of shutdown orders that make reputable collectives and cooperatives into ordinance violators and, by implication, dangerous "drug dealers."

Lallana and the unnamed woman had worked together at a mortgage company since 2005, the article said. But it wasn't until Jan. 14 of this year that the woman noticed feeling "sickened and irritated" by her water, which she threw away. The article said Lallana had allegedly sneaked into her office and discharged his bodily fluids into the bottle that day. Later, on April 9 of this year, Lallana allegedly committed the same crime. This time, after the woman drank from it and felt sick, she sent the water to a private laboratory to be tested. The results from that test came back in June, confirming that the water contained semen. The woman called the Orange Police Department, and that department connected the semen to Lallana through DNA. A prosecutor told the newspaper that they believe Lallana did this for sexual gratification. Prosecutors had reportedly considered felony charges against Lallana, but could not find a felony charge that fit the circumstances.

That's one of the issues in this case that interest our Cypress sex crimes criminal defense attorneys. This is an unusual enough act that it's not surprising that no crime exactly fits it. We commend the prosecutors for accepting that, rather than using inappropriate felony charges. However, because we defend people accused of sex crimes, we'd also like to talk about the special allegations that Lallana did this for sexual gratification. Many people don't realize this, but if a jury agrees that any crime was committed for this purpose, the accused will face more penalties as well as an obligation to register as a sex offender. This is why Lallana could end up on the registration list, even though the charges against him are misdemeanors not on the list of offenses that automatically trigger sex offender status. However, a conviction on the assault and offensive material charges does not automatically mean he will be convicted of the special circumstance.

The article says Schmitz was driving through a residential area with two other adults when a sheriff's deputy pulled them over. The deputy said she thought Schmitz was lost. When she saw that his arms were covered in abscesses, which is typical for intravenous drug users, she asked if he or anyone else in the vehicle was on probation or parole. Schmitz was not, but his front-seat passenger was. The deputy then asked for permission to search the car. Schmitz did not answer, so she searched the car anyway and ordered the occupants out. In that search, the deputy found a purse containing two syringes, a syringe cap and some methamphetamine, which eventually led to the charges against Schmitz. In its opinion, the appeals court said that even though the parolee passenger did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because he was on parole, Schmitz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in every part of the vehicle but the seat where the parolee was sitting.

Our Corona drug crimes criminal defense lawyers are pleased to see that the appeals court is willing to uphold citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, even when the citizen may not have been blameless. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and property seizures, and part of those protections is the right to deny police permission to search you unless there are circumstances allowing it. Evidence of a crime might be one such circumstance; parolee status is another. Because the parolee status of the passenger did not apply to Schmitz, the appeals court said the police should not have searched his car. We want our clients to take away an important lesson from this story: When the police violate your civil rights, you can and should challenge the evidence they get from doing so. Even though Schmitz actually pleaded guilty to the charges against him, the court in this case threw out his conviction, because the guilty plea came on charges that should never have existed in the first place.

The article said Orozco and Olivia had stopped their vehicle at 12:30 a.m. on Aug. 13 because one of the women was feeling ill. Both got out and stood on the side of the road, along with fellow passenger Omar Guzman, 25, of Oceanside. A fourth person, 21-year-old Gerardo Cortez of Oceanside, had remained in the car. Guzman had just stepped away from the women when Sumi's Jeep swerved into the stopped car and the women. The crash killed both women and flipped the Jeep, also killing Alvarez. Authorities later discovered that Sumi did not have a valid driver's license or insurance. Neither Sumi nor Alvarez was wearing a seat belt. Guzman was reportedly not hurt, but Cortez, who remained in a front seat, suffered minor injuries after being thrown from the car. The North County Times reported that Cortez had been wearing a seat belt, but the Jeep hit the car with such force that it broke his seat.

The article does not say exactly what charges Sumi may face, but as San Clemente DUI criminal defense lawyers, we suspect they will be extensive. Sumi could face up to three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, to account for the three victims. These charges alone carry four to 10 years in prison for each count, meaning she could face a total of 12 to 30 years in prison. Those are in addition to the drunk driving charge. The article does not report any prior drunk driving convictions for Sumi, but we noticed that she was driving without a valid license. This is unfortunately not an uncommon choice for people who have already lost their driver's licenses due to a prior DUI conviction. And if you have no valid driver's license, you cannot buy auto insurance, no matter how much money you have. If this was the situation for Sumi, she will face at least her second drunk driving charge. Under the circumstances, this charge could also mean prison, plus alcohol treatment and other penalties.

The ruling in Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim (PDF) was widely anticipated because both sides believed it would set a precedent on dispensary bans. Instead, the 38-page ruling addresses other issues. In the original case, Qualified Patients Association -- medical marijuana advocates -- argued that state law allowing medical use of marijuana should invalidate Anaheim's ban on dispensaries. They also argued that the ban discriminated against disabled people in violation of state civil rights laws. In essence, the court said the civil rights argument was wrong, but the state preemption argument had merit and should not have been dismissed without a hearing. In concluding this, the court did not determine whether state law did or should preempt local ordinances, but it did say federal law alone does not preempt state law. It also ruled that state civil rights law applies only to business establishments, meaning the patients could not use that law to claim they were discriminated against by the city, a non-business.

On the whole, our Murrieta medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers are pleased by this ruling. While it is not the strong precedent against the ban that we had hoped for, it is a carefully considered ruling that will strengthen the case against the ban. By sending the case back to trial court, the appeals court said the federal preemption issue is not as clear-cut as the city of Anaheim had argued. Indeed, the appeals court wrote that it would be odd to conclude that the city may criminalize a use of property that is expressly allowed by state law, especially since the Legislature has explicitly departed from federal policy in other areas. The disability rights ruling is disappointing, but not unreasonable after a close reading of the statute. And the ruling does not necessarily foreclose a disability rights claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which does explicitly ban discrimination by public entities.

According to the article, officers saw Barreau's vehicle on 101 north near North San Pedro Road early on the morning of Aug. 8. They say she was weaving, but there are no allegations that she was driving under the influence. Rather, the officers smelled marijuana and searched her vehicle, finding 1,200 grams of marijuana -- nearly three pounds -- along with packaging materials, marijuana seeds and photographs of a grow operation. She told officers that she was a medical marijuana provider trying to sell to dispensaries, but did not have documentation showing this. During the arrest, officers said, she was combative and charged at them. She has pleaded not guilty to resisting arrest, transportation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale, and will appear in court Aug. 17.

Our Placentia medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers do not recommend that clients fight officers, because this can result in additional charges like Barreau's resisting arrest charge. In fact, this account suggests Barreau's actions could complicate her defense -- but that doesn't mean her case is hopeless. If she is indeed a legal medical marijuana provider, she should be able to prove it in court using the proper documentation. In a fair court, this should result in dropping the two felony charges -- the transportation and possession for sale charges, which carry a combined total of up to seven years in prison. It should not in itself result in dropping of the resisting arrest charge, but this is a misdemeanor with no prison time. It's also possible that Barreau truly was attempting to sell to medical marijuana dispensaries, but without the proper documentation. This is not a good idea, but failure to follow bureaucratic procedures is not the same as selling illegal street drugs, and an experienced attorney should be able to make that case to a jury.

According to neighbors and friends, Veldhuizen, a painter, had recently suffered from a string of financial and personal problems. In addition to the vehicle repossession, a neighbor said Veldhuizen had recently been served with an eviction notice. Police records also show that he had been arrested July 29 for making criminal threats and brandishing a weapon. A former roommate of two years told the newspaper that he moved out after Veldhuizen became increasingly agitated and unfriendly; a neighbor said he had gotten "unstable." On Tuesday evening, firefighters responded to a call and discovered someone burning trash in the home's back yard. This was followed by the U-Haul ramming incident on Wednesday at 2:48 a.m. It was unclear how he came to barricade himself inside the home, but crisis negotiators worked for 11 hours to get him out before he finally walked out voluntarily around 1:30 p.m.

As Corona vandalism criminal defense attorneys, we're interested in the choice to charge Veldhuizen with felony, rather than misdemeanor, vandalism. In California, the penalty for vandalism changes according to how much damage was done, but most first vandalism charges are still misdemeanors. There are exceptions -- such as vandalism of a grave or house of worship -- but they don't seem to apply to this case. Outside of those circumstances, the most common way for a vandalism charge to be a felony is for the defendant to have a previous record of vandalism or other crimes. In this case, Veldhuizen's previous charges for brandishing and criminal threats could be the cause. However, we suspect both sets of charges may actually stem from Veldhuizen's financial problems and understandable emotional upset. We hope the courts take this situation into account when they judge his behavior.

Our Pomona firearms criminal defense attorneys were interested in this story because we are not sure Asbra actually committed any crime. Carrying a firearm openly is legal in California under most circumstances. As long as you are otherwise authorized to have a handgun, you may carry it openly in places where handguns are permitted. This includes a motor vehicle. (School zone laws mean you must stow the gun in a trunk or locked container within the school zone.) Thus, Asbra probably would have had the legal right to carry the gun even if it had been real. Calling the police on everyone who exercises this right would be a waste of police resources and a potential violation of the Second Amendment. In fact, on the same day, another Orange County man was arrested for falsely reporting a crime after he called the police to report a real handgun in his boss's desk drawer.

Of course, all of this applies to real firearms, and Asbra is accused of brandishing an imitation firearm. Openly displaying an imitation firearm in California is a minor offense -- an infraction rather than a misdemeanor, with a fine of $100 on the first offense. It's also possible that he could be charged with "exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner" while inside the vehicle, a much more serious crime intended to combat drive-by shootings. Here, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to show that Asbra was "rude or threatening" and that his imitation gun should count as a real gun. This might work if the other motorist had a reasonable fear for his or her life, such as if Asbra was pointing the gun at that person, or randomly out the window of his vehicle. The realism of the replica might also matter -- that is, if Asbra's imitation handgun was made of red plastic, it would make any fear he inspired considerably less reasonable. But if he just happened to be carrying a gun and wasn't paying special attention to the motorists around him, it would be much harder to make this case.

The accident took place in October of 2009, on the San Joaquin Hills toll road (73). Caselli had allegedly spent five hours drinking cocktails at a bar in Newport Beach before driving south in his Volvo sedan. Witnesses said the Volvo was weaving in and out of traffic and reached speeds over 100 mph at times before rear-ending Boynton's SUV. The resulting crash flipped over the SUV and rolled it over, ejecting Boynton. Boynton died at the scene. Officers saw signs of intoxication from Caselli at the scene and took him into custody. He later entered a residential treatment facility and has expressed interest in working for MADD. He pleaded guilty to the DUI manslaughter charge in May, and his attorney had requested probation and one year in prison.

As Riverside County drunk driving criminal defense lawyers, we believe this is a good example of why some defendants might choose to plead guilty in a serious DUI case. Of course, we never, ever advocate entering a guilty plea if you truly did not drive drunk, and we can help clients in that situation prove their innocence. But in this case, Caselli's guilty plea seems to stem from remorse for his actions. The article does not mention blood test evidence related to the cocaine, but the presence of strong evidene may also have been a factor. The article note that Caselli sought treatment after the crash -- presumably meaning substance abuse treatment -- and wept through the statements given by Boynton's family and friends. By taking those steps and pleading guilty, Caselli may have avoided a much higher sentence than he might have faced if he tried to fight the charge against him. We note, for example, that the story mentioned no cocaine-related criminal charge.

In Riverside County, only one city, Palm Springs, allows medical marijuana dispensaries. Wildomar is considering a law that would allow the dispensaries, but limit where they may be. The proposed law, modeled after one in Laguna Woods here in Orange County, would allow any number of dispensaries as long as they are in commercial zones and away from schools and parks. Only storefront dispensaries that are not for profit would be allowed. Several people on the Planning Commission suggested limiting the number of dispensaries to two, in a city of about 31,000 people. Commissioners discussed how the law might be affected if California's Proposition 19, which would legalize and regulate marijuana for all adults 21 and over, is passed this fall.

As Orange County medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we do not believe that the passing of Proposition 19 would change the minds of the most fervent opponents of dispensaries. Numerous cities throughout Southern California have used their zoning laws as a battering ram to essentially force medical marijuana delivery services out of those city. As one person quoted in the article said, this is despite the fact that a majority of California voters legalized marijuana for sick people more than a decade ago, and despite instructions from the state attorney general that nonprofit dispensaries are legal. We believe some people are simply too prejudiced against marijuana to respect this authority and are determined to oppose dispensaries, even when that means denying medicine to the sick.

According to the article, Linda Wilborn called 911 last year to report that Millicent was not breathing. She gave several incorrect addresses for her home in a military housing complex, where her husband Derrick Wilborn works. Paramedics and emergency room doctors noticed suspicious bruises on the girl, so they called police and child protective authorities. They found signs of abuse and neglect on all four children, who ranged from eight months to three years. At the home, police officers found that the three older children were kept in a back room behind a child gate for much of the day. They found tooth marks on the doorjamb and discovered that the malnourished children were eating paint chips and bits of carpet. Derrick Wilborn was frequently absent, in part because he pursued a career as a golf pro every day after he finished his work for the military. When he came home to discover that Millicent had collapsed, he left the room and began putting together golf clubs.

In the previous incident, child protective workers intervened after Linda Wilborn left Millicent and her twin brother in a hot car at the age of four months. That investigation found that Wilborn had unspecified mental illness problems and did not meet her children's basic needs. Nonetheless, the report concluded that the risk of abuse was low and the social worker set up a "safety plan" requiring her to get caregiving help from others. On the day Millicent died, a police detective thought the couple's displays of grief were odd. He left a tape recorder running when he left the couple alone and captured them discussing conversations they believed Derrick Wilborn had had with God. Derrick Wilborn said God had told him Millicent died, and Linda Wilborn seems to imply that Derrick should have used his inside information from God to stop her. All three remaining children are in county custody.

This very sad story raises a lot of questions for our Laguna Beach domestic abuse criminal defense lawyers. From the story, it looks like Linda Wilborn may well be mentally ill. For that reason, we wonder whether the criminal charges facing her are the best way to handle the situation. Californians may plead not guilty by reason of insanity -- but to do that, they must show that they did not have the mental capacity to understand what they were doing, or to tell right from wrong. A successful insanity plea is often followed by commitment in a mental institution, so it is not much like an acquittal. Meanwhile, the article mentioned no charges at all for Derrick Wilborn, despite his apparent sanity and reported lack of attention to his family. Being a bad father is not a crime, but allowing a child to be injured or ignoring a child's dangerous situation are forms of child endangerment and neglect, both of which are crimes in California.

Law enforcement in Huntington Beach has already increased its enforcement efforts in order to stop alcohol-related crashes before they take place. In March, for example, officers began investigating where DUI arrestees had their last drinks before being arrested, then notifying those establishments about the arrests. The proposal to put mug shots online, submitted in July, comes after the Independent itself stopped publishing mug shots in December, a decision that stemmed from a change in editorial policy. Critics object to the practice say it blurs the distinction between an arrest and a conviction. If someone is accused of DUI and the charges are later dropped or dismissed, they note, that person could still be publicly identified as a "drunk driver," inviting embarrassment and consequences at work. A police spokesman said the goal is not to shame the arrestees, but to raise public awareness that the city takes DUIs seriously.

As Yorba Linda DUI criminal defense attorneys, we are not sure we believe this. While we certainly support raising public awareness of the dangers of drunk driving, we don't believe posting mug shots online achieves that goal. The mug shots would be on a website that Web users don't have a lot of other reasons to visit, and that means the viewers would most likely be people who already knew the mug shots were there. This does not raise awareness so much as it allows people who enjoy looking over mug shots to continue doing so. Shaming may not be the explicit goal of such a site, but it would certainly be a side effect. And in doing so, the site would unfairly imply that people who are arrested have been convicted, leaving them no way to clear their names. We wouldn't be surprised to learn that this objection is the reason for the decision to stop running mug shots on the newspaper site.

The Register's report was drawn from a Huntington Beach police department report. According to the report, Alarcon responded to the repossession worker by getting angry, then displaying, loading and pointing a shotgun at the worker. The police were called around 6 p.m. July 25 with a report of a man with a shotgun. When they arrived, they found Alarcon without a firearm. However, the police investigated further and were able to obtain a search warrant for Alarcon's home. That search turned up the shotgun, disassembled and hidden. The Huntington Beach police arrested Alarcon and booked him into city jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. It was not clear whether he was still jailed as of the article's publication.

Some people may be surprised to find that it is illegal to order someone off your own property with a firearm. In fact, it can be legal -- under the right circumstances. In California, you can legally use force to eject a trespasser, as long as the trespasser doesn't leave within a reasonable amount of time and the amount of force was reasonably necessary. As Lake Forest assault with a deadly weapon criminal defense lawyers, we don't believe this applies under the circumstances described in the article. But to use the trespassing argument, Alarcon would first have to show that the repo worker was a trespasser -- which would be an uphill battle if the worker was on public land or the front steps. Generally, there are also exceptions for people who enter others' property to do a job, like postal workers. He would then have to show that the amount of force used was necessary, and that the worker didn't leave after being asked. The article doesn't go into enough details to judge this, but it may be another uphill battle.