Shared with you by the Law Office of Devina Douglas 

One of the most serious — and often overlooked — consequences of a domestic violence case in California is the potential loss of firearm rights. Many defendants are shocked to learn that they can lose the legal ability to own or possess guns even before being convicted of a crime. In some cases, those restrictions can become permanent. California has some of the strictest firearm laws in the country when it comes to domestic violence allegations. Both state and federal law impose limitations on gun ownership for individuals subject to certain protective orders or convicted of qualifying offenses.

For many people, the issue begins immediately after an arrest. In domestic violence cases, courts frequently issue criminal protective orders at the defendant’s first court appearance. These orders often prohibit harassment, threats, or contact with the alleged victim, but they can also trigger firearm restrictions. Under California law, a person subject to many domestic violence protective orders is generally prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving firearms while the order remains in effect. Judges commonly order defendants to surrender any firearms they currently own to law enforcement or a licensed firearms dealer within a very short period of time.
This restriction can apply even if the defendant has not been convicted of anything. Simply being subject to a qualifying protective order may temporarily suspend firearm rights.

Violating these firearm surrender requirements can create serious additional criminal exposure. Prosecutors may file separate charges if someone retains weapons despite a court order requiring surrender. The consequences become even more severe following a domestic violence conviction. Under federal law, individuals convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses are generally prohibited from possessing firearms for life. This rule, commonly referred to as the “Lautenberg Amendment,” applies even to misdemeanor convictions that might otherwise seem relatively minor. Importantly, federal law does not require the offense to be labeled “domestic violence” specifically. If the conviction involved the use or attempted use of physical force against a spouse, dating partner, co-parent, or similar domestic relationship, the federal firearm prohibition may apply.

California law independently imposes its own firearm restrictions as well. Certain domestic violence misdemeanors carry a 10-year firearm ban under state law, while felony convictions can result in lifetime prohibitions. Many defendants mistakenly assume that pleading to a misdemeanor automatically protects their gun rights. Unfortunately, that is often not true. A misdemeanor domestic battery conviction, for example, may still trigger both California and federal firearm restrictions. These issues can have enormous practical consequences. Firearm restrictions may affect:

• Employment in law enforcement or security
• Military service
• Hunting activities
• Recreational shooting
• Professional licensing
• Personal collection ownership

For some defendants, protecting firearm rights becomes one of the most important aspects of resolving the criminal case.

Because the laws surrounding firearm prohibitions are extremely technical, plea negotiations in domestic violence cases often focus heavily on avoiding convictions that trigger gun bans. In some situations, defense attorneys may negotiate alternative charges that do not carry the same firearm consequences. However, every case is different. The specific wording of a conviction, the nature of the alleged conduct, prior criminal history, and the existence of protective orders can all affect whether firearm rights are lost temporarily or permanently.

Another common misconception is that expungement automatically restores firearm rights. In many cases, it does not. While expungement may improve employment opportunities and clear portions of a criminal record, federal firearm prohibitions often survive even after a conviction is dismissed under California expungement statutes.

​Ultimately, domestic violence allegations can impact firearm rights long before a case ever reaches trial. Anyone facing these accusations should understand that the consequences may extend far beyond fines or jail exposure. Because both California and federal firearm laws are highly complex, defendants should seek experienced legal advice immediately to evaluate how a pending charge or potential plea could affect their constitutional rights and long-term future.

California has just enacted a significant package of new DUI laws. On September 25, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed four bills—SB 907, AB 1546, AB 1685, and AB 1687—that increase potential consequences for repeat DUI offenders and for certain DUI-related driving offenses.
For anyone with a prior DUI conviction, or anyone currently facing a DUI charge, these changes are important to understand. Not all of the new laws take effect at the same time, however. Some changes begin in 2027, while others do not become operative until 2031 or 2033.
SB 907: “Braun’s Law” and Prior DUI ConvictionsSB 907, known as “Braun’s Law,” makes changes that are particularly important when a DUI charge is resolved through a plea to a different or lesser offense.
Under the new law, courts will provide an advisement concerning the potentially severe consequences of driving under the influence in the future—including the possibility of a murder prosecution if a subsequent DUI-related death supports the elements of a murder charge. The law is intended to ensure that a person who resolves a DUI case through a lesser or different offense is nevertheless expressly warned about the potential consequences of future impaired driving. (Sonoma County has been doing this anyway for years.)n
SB 907 also increases potential penalties for certain hit-and-run offenses when the driver has a qualifying prior conviction involving DUI, alcohol-related reckless driving, or certain vehicular manslaughter offenses within the preceding 10 years. Depending on the circumstances, a subsequent hit-and-run causing injury or death can carry substantially greater prison exposure.
These provisions are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.
AB 1546: Tougher Consequences for Repeat DUIsAB 1546 changes the way California treats certain repeat DUI offenses. Under existing law, a third DUI conviction within a 10-year period generally remains a misdemeanor, while a fourth qualifying DUI can be prosecuted as a felony. AB 1546 changes the landscape by making a third DUI within 10 years a “wobbler,” meaning it may be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or felony.
The distinction can be substantial. A felony conviction carries significantly greater potential incarceration and long-term consequences than a misdemeanor conviction, including the loss of one's ability to vote and own/possess firearms. 
The new law also makes a fifth qualifying DUI a felony, with a potential state-prison sentence of up to three years. These changes are scheduled to become operative January 1, 2027.
For anyone with prior DUI convictions, this makes the way a current case is resolved even more significant. A plea that avoids a DUI conviction may have consequences not only for the present case, but also for how a future offense is treated.
AB 1687: Six-Year License Revocation for Certain Repeat OffendersAB 1687, known as “Irene’s Law,” addresses some of the most serious repeat DUI cases. Beginning January 1, 2031, a person convicted of DUI causing bodily injury who has four or more qualifying prior convictions within 10 years will face a 72-month—six-year—revocation of driving privileges.
AB 1687 also imposes a significant ignition-interlock requirement on drivers subject to its six-year revocation provisions. A person who qualifies for a restricted driver's license after the first 12 months of the revocation period must agree to maintain a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) for a mandatory 72 months. Before obtaining the restricted license, the person must also provide the DMV with verification that the IID has been installed, maintain proof of financial responsibility, and satisfy the applicable DUI-program requirements. The law gives the DMV authority to immediately terminate the restricted license and revoke driving privileges if the driver attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the IID, removes it before the required period ends, or fails three or more times to comply with IID maintenance or calibration requirements. The license would then remain revoked for the remainder of the original revocation period, in addition to any other reinstatement requirements. 
AB 1685: More DMV Points for Certain DUI-Related Manslaughter ConvictionsAB 1685 changes California's DMV point system for certain serious DUI-related offenses. Beginning in 2031, a conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and with gross negligence will count as three DMV violation points, rather than the two points it is now.
That matters because accumulating DMV points can result in a driver's license suspension or other administrative consequences. California's existing system can trigger a suspension based on the number of points accumulated within specified periods.
What These Changes Mean for California DUI DefenseThe practical significance of these new laws will depend heavily on a person's individual circumstances, including the number and dates of prior convictions, the specific offense charged, whether anyone was injured, and how the current case is ultimately resolved.

If you are facing a California DUI charge—particularly if you have prior DUI convictions—the new laws make it especially important to examine the potential consequences before entering a plea. The difference between a misdemeanor and felony, or between one type of conviction and another, can affect not only the immediate sentence but also future DUI exposure, driving privileges, insurance, employment, and other aspects of your life.

Shared with you by the Law Office of Devina Douglas 

One of the most common misconceptions in California domestic violence cases is the belief that the alleged victim has the power to “drop the charges.” In reality, once law enforcement becomes involved and prosecutors file a criminal case, the decision whether to continue or dismiss charges belongs to the government — not the alleged victim.

This often comes as a surprise to both defendants and complaining witnesses. Many domestic violence cases arise from emotionally charged arguments, misunderstandings, or situations where the parties later reconcile. It is extremely common for an alleged victim to later tell prosecutors they no longer want the case pursued. But under California law, that request alone usually does not end the case.

In California, domestic violence crimes are prosecuted by the district attorney’s office or city attorney’s office. Once charges are filed, the prosecutor represents the State of California, not the alleged victim personally. Prosecutors therefore make independent decisions about whether sufficient evidence exists to continue prosecuting the case. The reason for this policy is rooted in concerns about intimidation, manipulation, and pressure within domestic relationships. Prosecutors recognize that victims in domestic violence cases may sometimes recant statements or ask for dismissal due to fear, financial dependence, family pressure, or reconciliation with the accused. As a result, California prosecutors are often hesitant to dismiss cases solely because the alleged victim changes their mind.

In fact, many California counties maintain aggressive “no-drop” domestic violence policies. While the term “no-drop” does not mean every case automatically proceeds to trial, it reflects a general prosecutorial approach favoring continued prosecution whenever independent evidence supports the allegations. That evidence may include:

• 911 recordings
• Body camera footage
• Photographs of injuries
• Medical records
• Witness statements
• Defendant admissions
• Prior domestic violence history
• Damaged property
• Text messages or social media communications

Because prosecutors can rely on evidence other than victim testimony, some domestic violence cases proceed even when the alleged victim refuses to cooperate entirely. In some situations, prosecutors may even subpoena the alleged victim to testify in court. Ignoring a subpoena can result in legal consequences, including contempt proceedings. However, compelling testimony in domestic violence cases can become legally and strategically complicated, particularly when privilege issues or credibility concerns arise.

That said, an alleged victim’s wishes are not irrelevant. Prosecutors do consider whether the complaining witness supports prosecution, particularly in weaker cases where little corroborating evidence exists. If the alleged victim recants, denies injury, or explains that police misunderstood the situation, that can create evidentiary problems for the prosecution.

Defense attorneys often work to gather additional evidence demonstrating inconsistencies, false accusations, self-defense claims, or lack of intent. In some cases, the defense may present evidence that emotions escalated during the initial police response, leading to exaggerated or inaccurate allegations.

Another major issue in California domestic violence cases involves protective orders. After an arrest, courts frequently impose criminal protective orders prohibiting contact between the defendant and alleged victim. Importantly, the alleged victim generally cannot “waive” or override that order independently. Even if both parties want contact, only the judge can modify or terminate the protective order.

Violating a criminal protective order can result in new criminal charges, additional jail exposure, and significant complications in the underlying domestic violence case. Many defendants mistakenly believe reconciliation automatically permits renewed contact, only to face further legal trouble when law enforcement becomes aware of the violation.

Domestic violence allegations also carry consequences beyond the criminal case itself. Convictions can affect firearm rights, immigration status, professional licenses, child custody disputes, and future employment opportunities. Because of these high stakes, both defendants and alleged victims should take these cases seriously from the very beginning.
​
Ultimately, while alleged victims may express their desire to “drop charges,” California law places the final charging decision in the hands of prosecutors. Whether a case continues depends on the available evidence, the seriousness of the allegations, and prosecutorial discretion — not simply the wishes of the parties involved. Anyone facing a domestic violence investigation or prosecution should seek experienced legal guidance as early as possible to understand their rights, risks, and available options.

Shared with you by the Law Office of Devina Douglas 

For many people facing criminal charges in California, probation offers an opportunity to avoid jail or prison while still satisfying the court’s sentence requirements. But probation is yet another of the most misunderstood aspects of the criminal justice system. Defendants are often unsure what probation actually requires, what happens if they violate the rules, whether they can travel, or whether probation can end early.
​
In California, probation is essentially a court-supervised alternative to incarceration. Instead of serving a jail or prison sentence — or sometimes after serving a reduced custodial sentence — a defendant is allowed to remain in the community under certain conditions imposed by the court. There are generally two types of probation in California: summary probation and formal probation.

Summary probation, sometimes called informal probation or a conditional sentence, is most common in misdemeanor cases. Under summary probation, the defendant typically does not report regularly to a probation officer. Instead, the person must comply with court-ordered conditions such as obeying all laws, paying fines, completing classes, community service, or counseling programs.

Formal probation is more intensive and usually applies to felony and misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Defendants on formal probation are assigned a probation officer and must comply with stricter supervision requirements. This can include regular check-ins, drug testing, home visits, employment verification, and restrictions on travel or associations.

The exact terms of probation vary significantly depending on the offense, criminal history, and judge involved. Common probation conditions include terms that the defendant:

• Obey all laws
• Maintain employment or attend school
• Complete counseling or treatment programs
• Submit to warrantless searches
• Avoid drugs or alcohol
• Stay away from certain people or places
• Pay restitution, fines, or fees
• Complete community labor or service

One of the most important things to understand about probation is that courts have broad discretion in enforcing its conditions. Even seemingly minor violations can trigger serious consequences. Probation violations occur when a defendant fails to comply with any court-ordered condition. Some violations are technical, such as missing a meeting with a probation officer, failing to complete classes on time, or missing a payment deadline. Others are more serious, such as committing a new crime, testing positive for drugs, or violating a restraining order.

When a probation violation is alleged, the court may issue a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest. In some cases, probation officers allow the person to appear voluntarily in court, but in others, law enforcement may actively arrest the individual.

At a probation violation hearing, the prosecution does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt like they would at trial. Instead, the judge only needs to find by a preponderance of the evidence — essentially that it is more likely than not — that the violation occurred. This lower standard makes probation violation proceedings much easier for prosecutors to win.

If the judge finds a violation occurred, several outcomes are possible. The court may:

• Reinstate probation under the same terms
• Modify probation with stricter conditions
• Extend the probation period
• Order additional counseling, testing, or community service
• Revoke probation and impose jail or prison time

Whether the judge imposes harsh consequences often depends on the seriousness of the violation, the defendant’s prior compliance, and whether the violation appears intentional or isolated.

Another common question is whether people can travel while on probation. The answer depends largely on the type of probation and the specific terms ordered by the court. Individuals on summary probation in misdemeanor cases often have relatively few travel restrictions, particularly if they remain within California and continue complying with court requirements. However, international travel or extended trips can still create problems if they interfere with court dates or probation obligations.

Formal probation is more restrictive. Defendants are usually required to obtain permission from their probation officer before leaving the county, state, or country. Unauthorized travel may itself constitute a probation violation. Some probation officers are flexible with work-related or family-related travel requests, while others are far stricter depending on the nature of the offense and supervision level. International travel can be especially complicated because some countries deny entry to travelers with criminal convictions or active probationary status. Additionally, certain felony convictions may affect passport eligibility or trigger enhanced scrutiny at borders.

Fortunately, probation does not always have to last its full original term. Under California law, courts have discretion to terminate probation early in appropriate cases. To seek early termination, the defendant generally files a motion asking the court to end probation before the scheduled expiration date. Judges typically consider several factors, including:

• Successful completion of probation conditions
• Compliance with all laws
• Completion of classes or treatment
• Payment of fines and restitution
• Employment stability
• Overall rehabilitation and good conduct

Early termination is often granted in cases where defendants have demonstrated responsibility and no longer appear to require supervision. Judges may also consider practical reasons, such as employment opportunities, professional licensing issues, immigration concerns, or travel restrictions. However, early termination is not guaranteed. Courts are less likely to grant requests where significant conditions remain incomplete, restitution is unpaid, or the defendant has a history of violations.

For many defendants, probation offers a second chance — an opportunity to avoid lengthy incarceration and move forward with their lives. But probation also comes with strict responsibilities and ongoing court oversight. Understanding the rules, complying fully with court conditions, and addressing problems proactively can make the difference between successfully completing probation and facing serious consequences for violations.