To obtain a search warrant, the police must adhere to specific procedures outlined in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Here's a comprehensive summary of what the police need to do to obtain a search warrant:

1. Establish Probable Cause: The cornerstone of obtaining a search warrant is establishing probable cause. This means there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime can be found at the location to be searched. Probable cause can be based on witness statements, informant tips, physical evidence, or police observations.
2. Draft an Affidavit: Once probable cause is established, a police officer or detective drafts an affidavit. This document outlines the facts and evidence supporting the belief that a search warrant is justified. The affidavit must be detailed and specific, providing enough information to convince a judge that there is probable cause. The officer swearing to the affidavit must attest to the truthfulness of the information provided. This oath emphasizes the seriousness of the warrant application process and underscores the legal and ethical obligation to present accurate information to the court.
3. Present to a Judge: With the affidavit in hand, the officer presents the warrant application to a judge or magistrate. This can be done over the phone or digitially. The judge reviews the affidavit to determine if probable cause exists. The judge may ask clarifying questions or request additional information before making a decision.
4. Issuance of the Warrant: If the judge finds probable cause based on the affidavit, they will issue a search warrant. The warrant specifies the location(s) to be searched and the items or evidence to be seized. It also authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct the search within a specified timeframe, usually within a few days of issuance.
5. Execution of the Search: Once issued, the search warrant allows law enforcement officers to enter the specified location and search for the specified items. They must execute the search warrant according to the terms outlined (such as time of day, method of entry, etc.) and ensure that they do not exceed the scope of the warrant.
6. Return of the Warrant: After completing the search, officers must provide an inventory of any items seized to the judge who issued the warrant. This ensures transparency and accountability in the execution of the warrant.
7. Exceptions and Limitations: There are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances where waiting for a warrant would endanger lives or risk evidence destruction. Additionally, some searches may be conducted without a warrant if the individual consents to the search or if evidence is in plain view during a lawful observation.
8. Legal Standards and Challenges: Any evidence seized during an unlawful search or seizure may be challenged in court. The legality of the search and the validity of the warrant may be scrutinized by defense attorneys to ensure that the Fourth Amendment rights of the accused were not violated.

In conclusion, obtaining a search warrant is a rigorous process designed to protect individuals' rights while allowing law enforcement to gather evidence legally. It requires careful adherence to legal standards, thorough documentation of probable cause, and judicial oversight to ensure the validity and legality of the search and seizure process.

If you'd like to speak with Devina about your case, her contact information can be found here. 
.

As all of us who libe here know, Sonoma County is renowned for its picturesque vineyards, rolling hills, and vibrant community. However, like any region, it has also been the backdrop for some notable and notorious crimes over the years. From high-profile murders to shocking criminal enterprises, these cases have left a lasting impact on the local community and beyond. Here’s a detailed look at some of the most notorious crimes to have occurred in Sonoma County, California:
1. The Sonoma Strangler (1972-1973)
One of the most infamous serial killers in Sonoma County's history was Patrick Kearney, known as the "Sonoma Strangler." Kearney, a native of Los Angeles, committed a series of murders across California during the early 1970s, including several in Sonoma County. His victims were typically young men whom he picked up at bars or hitchhiking. Kearney's method of killing varied, but he often strangled his victims and then dismembered their bodies. He was eventually apprehended in 1977 and later confessed to a total of 21 murders, making him one of California's most prolific serial killers.
2. The Jenner Beach Murders (2004)
In August 2004, the quiet coastal community of Jenner in Sonoma County was shocked by the brutal murders of Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen, both aged 22. The couple, who were seasonal camp counselors, were shot in their sleeping bags while camping on Fish Head Beach. The case garnered national attention due to its senseless violence and the fact that the victims appeared to have no connection to their killer(s). Despite an extensive investigation and rewards offered for information, the murders remain unsolved, leaving the community and the victims' families in search of justice.
3. The Death of Evelyn Hernandez (2002)
In 2002, the disappearance and subsequent discovery of Evelyn Hernandez's body shocked Sonoma County. Hernandez, a pregnant woman from nearby Oakland, disappeared while visiting her former boyfriend, Scott Peterson, in Modesto, California. Her body and that of her unborn child were later discovered on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. The case gained national attention, leading to the arrest and eventual conviction of Scott Peterson for the murders of Evelyn and their unborn child. While the crime itself did not occur in Sonoma County, the discovery of Evelyn's body and the subsequent trial made a significant impact on the local community.
4. The Cavedale Road Murders (1984)
In November 1984, Sonoma County was shaken by the brutal murders of David and Linda Macdonald at their rural home on Cavedale Road near Glen Ellen. The couple, who were well-known in the community, were tied up, stabbed, and bludgeoned to death during a home invasion robbery. The case remained unsolved for over 20 years until DNA evidence linked Joseph Naso, a serial killer operating in California and Nevada, to the crime. Naso was eventually convicted of the murders in 2013, shedding light on a cold case that had haunted Sonoma County for decades.
5. The Santa Rosa Hitchhiker Murders (1972-1973)
During the early 1970s, Sonoma County was plagued by a series of murders targeting young female hitchhikers. The victims included Kim Allen, Yvonne Weber, and Jeannette Kamahele, all of whom were found strangled and dumped in remote areas around Santa Rosa. The killings sparked fear and outrage in the community, leading to increased precautions among residents and a heightened sense of vulnerability among young women. The case remained unsolved for decades until DNA evidence linked David Carpenter, also known as the "Trailside Killer," to the murders. Carpenter was eventually convicted of multiple murders, including those of the Santa Rosa hitchhikers, shedding light on a dark chapter in Sonoma County's history.
Conclusion
These cases highlight some of the most notorious and impactful crimes that have occurred in Sonoma County, California, over the years. From serial killers to unsolved mysteries and devastating disasters, each of these incidents has left a lasting mark on the community and serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges faced in maintaining public safety and seeking justice.

Breath testing in DUI (Driving Under the Influence) cases is a crucial component of law enforcement's efforts to measure a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) quickly and non-invasively. This summary will delve into the mechanics and legal considerations of breath testing.
Mechanics of Breath TestingBreath testing devices, commonly known as breathalyzers, operate on the principle of measuring the amount of alcohol in a person's breath to estimate their BAC. The most widely used device, the infrared spectroscopy breathalyzer, works by detecting the presence of ethanol molecules in exhaled air. When a person blows into the device, the breath sample is analyzed, and the concentration of alcohol in the breath is converted into an estimated BAC.
The process involves several steps:

1. Blowing into the Device: The suspect blows into a tube or mouthpiece connected to the breathalyzer.
   
2. Sample Collection: The device collects a sample of the person's breath.
   
3. Analysis: The breathalyzer analyzes the sample to determine the concentration of alcohol present.
   
4. BAC Estimation: Based on the concentration detected in the breath sample, the device estimates the BAC, assuming a specific ratio between alcohol in breath and alcohol in blood (typically 1:2100).
   

Legal ConsiderationsThe admissibility of breath test results in court depends on several factors, including the device's accuracy, calibration, and the manner in which the test was administered. Legal challenges often focus on:

1. Accuracy and Calibration: Breathalyzers must be regularly calibrated to ensure their accuracy. Defense attorneys may challenge test results if they can demonstrate the device was not properly maintained or calibrated.
   
2. Procedural Compliance: Law enforcement officers must follow specific procedures when administering a breath test. This includes observing the suspect for a period to ensure they do not ingest anything that could affect the results, and ensuring the device is used correctly according to manufacturer instructions.
   
3. Rising BAC Defense: A defense strategy known as the "rising BAC" defense argues that a person's BAC was below the legal limit at the time of driving but rose to an illegal level by the time the test was administered. This can occur if alcohol was still being absorbed into the bloodstream.
   

Legal Limits and ConsequencesIn the United States, the legal BAC limit for drivers in California 0.08%. If a breath test shows a BAC at or above this limit, it can result in immediate consequences such as license suspension, fines, and possible imprisonment, depending on the jurisdiction and whether it is a first offense.
Controversies and ChallengesBreath testing is not without controversies. Critics argue that breathalyzers may not always provide accurate readings due to factors such as:

• Individual Variations: People metabolize alcohol at different rates, which can affect BAC readings.
• Environmental Factors: External elements like temperature and altitude may influence the accuracy of breathalyzer results.
• Device Reliability: Some studies have questioned the reliability of certain models of breathalyzers under various conditions.

ConclusionBreath testing in DUI cases serves as a vital tool for law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting individuals who drive under the influence of alcohol. The process involves using specialized devices to measure the concentration of alcohol in a person's breath, which is then used to estimate their BAC. Legal challenges often focus on the accuracy and procedural compliance of these devices. Despite its importance, controversies surrounding breath testing highlight ongoing debates about its reliability and the potential impact on individuals' legal rights. Understanding how breath testing works is crucial for both law enforcement officials and individuals navigating DUI charges, ensuring fair and just legal outcomes.

If you or someone you know if facing DUI charages having an attorney on your side can make all the differennce in the outcome. If you'd like to speak with Devina about your case, her contact information can be found here.Contact

As most of my clients know, I love dogs, especailly my own pooch, Brambles. 

Recently, as we sat in rush hour traffic, someone asked me if I was ever tempted to hop in the carpool lane when I was aloe in the car?  "No," I replied. 

"How about when you have Brambles in the car with you?" he teased. 

"Still no." 
​
In California, driving in the carpool lane with a dog as your passenger constitutes a violation of the state's carpool lane regulations, as described in Vehicle Code 21655.5. Carpool lanes, designated by a diamond symbol and typically located on the far left side of freeways, are reserved for vehicles carrying two or more occupants, (a lot of Bay Area Counties have switched to a 3-passenger minimum,) including the driver. The primary goal of these lanes is to reduce traffic congestion by encouraging carpooling and thus decreasing the number of single-occupant vehicles on the road.

The penalties for misusing the carpool lane in California can be significant. If caught driving solo or with only a dog in the carpool lane, the offender may face a fine. As of the latest updates, the base fine for a first-time carpool lane violation in California is around $490, plus court fees, which can often double that amount. 

Furthermore, a violation of the carpool lane rules in California typically results in the addition of one point to the driver's record. Accumulating points on your driving record can lead to increased insurance premiums over time. Insurance companies often view traffic violations negatively and may adjust premiums accordingly, considering the increased risk associated with drivers who accumulate points.

Law enforcement in California actively monitors carpool lanes to enforce occupancy requirements. Officers may use visual observation, surveillance cameras, or vehicle sensors to detect violations. This enforcement helps ensure that the carpool lanes remain effective in achieving their intended purpose of reducing traffic congestion and promoting more efficient use of highways.

Drivers in California are advised to familiarize themselves with state traffic laws and regulations, including those governing carpool lanes. It's essential to understand who qualifies as a legitimate passenger for carpool lane use.

According to California law, passengers must be human beings and not animals (sorry, Brambles,) to qualify as occupants for carpool lane purposes. Therefore, driving with a dog as the only passenger does not meet the requirements for using the carpool lane.

To avoid penalties, California drivers should plan their routes accordingly and utilize carpool lanes only when they meet the occupancy requirements. If traveling alone or with a pet, it's crucial to use regular lanes designated for general traffic flow.

In the often overhwelming and confusion world of criminal justice, the practice of plea bargaining is both ubiquitous and controversial. For many defendants, however, it represents a pivotal point of decision-making that can drastically alter their legal fate. This post explores the reasons why criminal defendants should carefully consider entering into a plea bargain, examining its potential benefits amidst the complexities of the justice system.

1. Risk Management:
Central to the decision-making process for defendants is the assessment of risk. Trial outcomes are inherently uncertain, influenced by many factors including evidence strength, witness credibility, and jury composition. By entering into a plea bargain, defendants gain a degree of control over their future. They can negotiate a plea deal that mitigates potential risks associated with a trial, such as the possibility of a harsher sentence if convicted or the uncertainty of jury decision-making. This risk management aspect is particularly crucial for defendants facing serious charges where the stakes are high.

2. Reduced Charges and Sentences:
One of the primary incentives of plea bargaining is the opportunity for defendants to negotiate reduced charges or sentences. Prosecutors often offer plea deals that involve lesser charges or recommend lighter sentences in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea. This can significantly diminish the potential consequences of a conviction, potentially sparing defendants from lengthy prison terms or severe penalties that could have lifelong repercussions. For defendants unsure of their chances at trial or facing overwhelming evidence, a plea bargain offering reduced charges provides a pragmatic alternative to risking a full conviction.

3. Efficiency and Expediency:
The criminal justice system is notorious for its backlog of cases and lengthy trial processes. Trials can be time-consuming and resource-intensive affairs, stretching on for months or even years. In contrast, plea bargains streamline the legal process by avoiding protracted trials. By resolving cases through plea bargains, defendants not only save themselves the stress and uncertainty of a trial but also alleviate the burden on an already overburdened judicial system. This efficiency benefits all parties involved, from defendants seeking closure to courts striving for timely resolution of cases.

4. Certainty and Predictability:
Certainty is a rare commodity in criminal trials, where outcomes hinge on the interpretations of law and the unpredictable nature of human judgment. Plea bargains offer defendants a degree of certainty and predictability that trials often cannot guarantee. By agreeing to a negotiated plea deal, defendants know in advance the exact terms of their sentence or conviction, providing a clearer picture of their future and allowing for better planning and decision-making. This assurance can be particularly appealing to defendants who prioritize minimizing uncertainty and regaining control over their lives.

5. Legal Strategy and Collateral Consequences:
Beyond immediate legal consequences, plea bargaining allows defendants to strategically navigate potential collateral consequences of a conviction. These consequences can extend far beyond the courtroom, impacting immigration status, employment opportunities, housing options, and personal relationships. By negotiating a plea deal, defendants may be able to minimize these collateral consequences, such as avoiding mandatory minimum sentences that could trigger deportation or loss of professional licenses. This strategic aspect of plea bargaining underscores its importance as a tool for defendants aiming to protect their long-term interests and future prospects.

6. Judicial Discretion and Fairness:
While critics argue that plea bargaining can undermine the principles of justice by encouraging defendants to admit guilt in exchange for leniency, proponents highlight its role in ensuring fairness and judicial discretion. Plea bargains allow judges and prosecutors to tailor outcomes to individual circumstances, taking into account factors such as remorse, cooperation with authorities, and mitigating circumstances that may not be fully captured in a trial setting. This flexibility promotes a more nuanced approach to justice, where outcomes can reflect the complexities of each case and the unique circumstances of the defendant.
​
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the decision to enter into a plea bargain is a pivotal moment for criminal defendants, fraught with implications for their legal, personal, and professional futures. While the choice to plead guilty is a weighty one, the potential benefits of a plea bargain—such as risk management, reduced charges, efficiency, certainty, strategic advantages, and considerations of fairness—underscore its importance as a viable legal strategy. By carefully weighing these factors and consulting with legal counsel, defendants can make informed decisions that align with their best interests and navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system with greater clarity and purpose.

If you'd like to speak with Devina about your case, her contact information can be found here.

In California, felony sentencing is governed by complex laws that take into account various factors such as the nature of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and specific sentencing guidelines. Here's a brief summary of how felony sentencing works in California:

California utilizes determinate and indeterminate sentencing depending on the nature of the offense and the defendant's criminal history:

• Determinate Sentencing: For most felonies, the court imposes a fixed term of imprisonment. The length of the sentence is determined by statute and can be increased or decreased based on aggravating or mitigating factors.
• Indeterminate Sentencing: Certain serious felonies, such as murder, may result in indeterminate sentences. This means the court imposes a range of possible sentences (such as 25 years to life) and a parole board determines the actual release date based on the inmate's conduct and rehabilitation efforts.

Sentencing Factors
Several factors influence the length and type of sentence imposed:

• Aggravating Factors: These include factors that increase the severity of the offense, such as the use of a weapon, prior criminal history, or the vulnerability of the victim. For example, if:
  • The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness;
  • The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;
  • The victim was particularly vulnerable;
  • The defendant induced a minor to commit or assist in the commission of the crime;
  • The defendant threatened witnesses, unlawfully prevented or dissuaded witnesses from testifying, suborned perjury, or in any other way illegally interfered with the judicial process;
  • The defendant was convicted of other crimes for which consecutive sentences could have been imposed but for which concurrent sentences are being imposed;
  • The manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism;
  • The crime involved an attempted or actual taking or damage of great monetary value;
  • The crime involved a large quantity of contraband;
  • The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense;
  • The crime constitutes a hate crime under section 422.55
  • The defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission;
  • The defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society;
  • The defendant's prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness;
  • The defendant has served a prior term in prison or county jail under section 1170(h);
  • The defendant was on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole when the crime was committed;
  • The defendant's prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory.
• Mitigating Factors: Conversely, mitigating factors can lead to a lesser sentence. These might include a lack of prior criminal record, remorse shown by the defendant, or circumstances suggesting the crime was not premeditated. For example, if
  • ​The defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the crime;
  • The victim was an initiator of, willing participant in, or aggressor or provoker of the incident;
  • The crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, that is unlikely to recur;
  • The defendant participated in the crime under circumstances of coercion or duress, or the criminal conduct was partially excusable for some other reason not amounting to a defense;
  • The defendant, with no apparent predisposition to do so, was induced by others to participate in the crime;
  • The defendant exercised caution to avoid harm to persons or damage to property, or the amounts of money or property taken were deliberately small, or no harm was done or threatened against the victim;
  • The defendant believed that he or she had a claim or right to the property taken, or for other reasons mistakenly believed that the conduct was legal;
  • The defendant was motivated by a desire to provide necessities for his or her family or self; 
  • The defendant suffered from repeated or continuous physical, sexual, or psychological abuse inflicted by the victim of the crime, and the victim of the crime, who inflicted the abuse, was the defendant's spouse, intimate cohabitant, or parent of the defendant's child; and the abuse does not amount to a defense;
  • If a firearm was used in the commission of the offense, it was unloaded or inoperable;
  • The defendant has no prior record, or has an insignificant record of criminal conduct, considering the recency and frequency of prior crimes;
  • The defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crime;
  • The defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence and it was a factor in the commission of the crime;
  • The commission of the current offense is connected to the defendant's prior victimization or childhood trauma, or mental illness as defined by section 1385(c); 
  • The defendant is or was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking at the time of the commission of the offense, and it was a factor in the commission of the offense;
  •  The defendant is under 26 years of age, or was under 26 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
  • The defendant was a juvenile when they committed the current offense;
  • The defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing before arrest or at an early stage of the criminal process;
  • The defendant is ineligible for probation and but for that ineligibility would have been granted probation;
  • Application of an enhancement could result in a sentence over 20 years;
  • Multiple enhancements are alleged in a single case;
  • Application of an enhancement could result in a discriminatory racial impact;
  • An enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is over five years old;
  • The defendant made restitution to the victim;
  • The defendant's prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was satisfactory.

Three Strikes
LawCalifornia's "Three Strikes" law mandates harsher sentences for individuals convicted of a felony who have previous serious or violent felony convictions. A third strike can result in a sentence of 25 years to life, even for non-violent felonies.

Probation and Alternative SentencingIn some cases, instead of prison time, the court may grant probation or alternative sentencing options like community service, drug rehabilitation programs, or electronic monitoring. These alternatives aim to rehabilitate the offender while reducing prison overcrowding.

Recent Reforms and Considerations
Based on various and numerous studies and report (example here) ecent legislative changes in California have focused on reducing mass incarceration and addressing disparities in sentencing. Efforts include reevaluating mandatory minimums and expanding eligibility for parole and early release programs.

Conclusion
California's felony sentencing laws are designed to balance punishment with rehabilitation and public safety considerations. The system incorporates both determinate and indeterminate sentencing based on the severity of the crime and the defendant's criminal history. While there is a focus on punitive measures, there are also provisions for probation and alternative sentencing aimed at reducing recidivism and integrating offenders back into society. As the legal landscape evolves, ongoing reforms seek to achieve a more equitable and effective approach to felony sentencing in the state.

If you need a lawyer, contact Devina here.

In California, the bail system serves as a crucial component of the criminal justice process, allowing individuals accused of crimes to secure their release from custody while awaiting trial. Bail laws in California are governed by various state statutes and are designed to balance public safety concerns with the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Bail Basics:Definition of Bail: Bail is the monetary amount set by a court that a defendant must pay to be released from custody pending trial. It serves as a form of security to ensure the defendant's appearance at all court proceedings.
Types of Bail:

1. Cash Bail: Defendants can pay the entire bail amount in cash or through a bail bond company to secure their release.
   
2. Bail Bond: If a defendant cannot afford the full bail amount, they can use a bail bond company. The company charges a non-refundable fee (typically 10% of the bail amount) and guarantees payment of the full bail if the defendant fails to appear in court.
   
3. Own Recognizance (OR) Release: In some cases, a defendant may be released on their own recognizance without posting bail. This is typically reserved for low-risk defendants with strong community ties and a minimal flight risk.
   

Bail Process:1. Arrest and Booking:

• When a person is arrested, they are taken to a police station or county jail for booking.
• During booking, personal information is recorded, fingerprints and photographs are taken, and a background check is conducted.

2. Bail Hearing:

• After booking, the defendant is entitled to a bail hearing where a judge determines whether to set bail and, if so, the amount.
• The judge considers factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, ties to the community, and flight risk.

3. Bail Amount Determination:

• Bail amounts vary depending on the offense. For minor offenses, bail may be set at a standard amount predetermined by a county's bail schedule. For example, in Sonoma County, the bail for the run-of-the-mill 1st offense DUI is $10,000.
• For more serious offenses or cases with special circumstances, the judge has discretion to set higher bail amounts or deny bail altogether. In Sonoma County, the default bail amount in a Domestic Violence case is $30,000.
• Sonoma County's curent Bail schedule can be found here. 

4. Posting Bail:

• If bail is granted, the defendant or their representative can post bail in cash or through a bail bond company.
• Once bail is posted, the defendant is released from custody with conditions to attend all court hearings.

5. Failure to Appear:

• If the defendant fails to appear in court as scheduled, the court may forfeit the bail and issue a bench warrant for their arrest.
• The bail bond company may also hire a bounty hunter to locate and apprehend the defendant.

Recent Changes and Reforms:California has undergone significant bail reform efforts aimed at reducing reliance on cash bail and addressing disparities in the criminal justice system. In 2018, Senate Bill 10 was signed into law but was later suspended due to a voter referendum. The law aimed to replace cash bail with a risk assessment system to determine whether defendants should be released pretrial.
California continues to debate and implement reforms to the bail system, with a focus on alternatives to cash bail that consider the defendant's risk to public safety and flight risk rather than their ability to pay.
Despite efforts at reform, California's bail system has faced criticism for perpetuating inequality, as defendants unable to pay bail may spend extended periods in jail awaiting trial, impacting their employment, housing, and family stability. Critics argue that cash bail disproportionately affects low-income and minority defendants.
The bail process in California is a complex system designed to balance the rights of the accused with public safety concerns. While recent reforms aim to address issues of fairness and equality, challenges remain in ensuring a system that is both effective and equitable for all defendants. As California continues to navigate these issues, ongoing debate and reform efforts seek to improve the pretrial process and reduce disparities within the criminal justice system.

In California, obtaining a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) is a legal process designed to protect individuals from harassment, threats, violence, or other forms of abuse inflicted by another person. Here’s a detailed summary of how one can pursue a CHRO in California, as determined by California Civil Code 527.6:
Understanding Civil HarassmentCivil harassment occurs when someone harasses, threatens, stalks, or commits acts of violence against you, causing substantial emotional distress or fear for your safety. It typically involves behavior that is not connected to a close familial or intimate relationship, such as neighbors, coworkers, or strangers.
Eligibility to Seek a CHROTo seek a civil harassment restraining order in California, you must meet specific eligibility criteria:

1. Relationship: There must be no close familial or intimate relationship between you and the person you seek protection from (unlike domestic violence cases which involve family or intimate partners).
   
2. Acts of Harassment: You must demonstrate that the person has engaged in a pattern of harassment or committed specific acts that cause you emotional distress or fear.
   

Steps to Obtain a CHRO1. Filing a RequestThe process begins by filing a request for a civil harassment restraining order with the court. While having an experienced attorney help you through the process is recommended, a person can sek protection without having to hire one. If you want to do it yourself, you can obtain the necessary forms from your local courthouse or online through the California Courts website. These forms typically include a petition for the restraining order and a description of the incidents that led you to seek protection.
2. Court ReviewAfter filing your request, a judge will review your petition and decide whether to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on the information provided. A TRO can provide immediate protection until a hearing is held to determine whether a permanent restraining order is necessary.
3. Serving the RespondentOnce the TRO is issued, the next step involves serving a copy of the order and the court hearing date to the person you are seeking protection from (the respondent). This ensures they are aware of the legal proceedings and have an opportunity to respond in court.
4. Court HearingA hearing will be scheduled where both you (the petitioner) and the respondent can present evidence, witnesses, and arguments to support your respective cases. It’s crucial to gather any relevant documentation, such as police reports, witness statements, or records of communication, to substantiate your claims of harassment.
5. Judge’s DecisionBased on the evidence presented and California state law, the judge will decide whether to grant a permanent civil harassment restraining order. If granted, the order typically remains in effect for up to five years and can be renewed if necessary.
Key Considerations and Legal Standards

• Burden of Proof: You, as the petitioner, have the burden of proving by a clear and convicing evidence (a pretty high standard,) that harassment has occurred and that a restraining order is necessary for your safety.
  
• Types of Orders: The CHRO can include various provisions, such as prohibiting the respondent from contacting you, coming near your home or workplace, or from possessing firearms.
  
• Violation Consequences: Violating a civil harassment restraining order is a serious offense in California, punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both.
  

Seeking AssistanceNavigating the process of obtaining a civil harassment restraining order can be complex and emotionally challenging. It is advisable to seek assistance from legal professionals, victim advocates, or domestic violence organizations who can provide guidance, support, and resources throughout the process.
ConclusionObtaining a civil harassment restraining order in California involves a structured legal process aimed at protecting individuals from harassment, threats, or violence perpetrated by others. By following the necessary steps, gathering evidence, and presenting your case effectively in court, you can seek the legal protection necessary to ensure your safety and peace of mind. Understanding your rights and responsibilities during this process is essential for a successful outcome in obtaining a CHRO.

Rueter's Super Lawyer program recognizes top legal professionals annually based on peer nominations and evaluations. Lawyers undergo rigorous assessments by an independent research team, evaluating criteria such as professional achievement and peer recognition. Those selected demonstrate exceptional legal skill and ethical standards. Being designated a Rueter's Super Lawyer indicates significant respect from peers and confirms excellence in the legal field.

Devina Douglas is proud to announce that she was recognized as a Super Lawyer's Rising Star for the 2nd year this year. Her first award was received in 2023. 

​ 
While the authors of a recent bill note that it is difficult to find comprehensive, up-to-date statistics on the prevalence of drink-spiking/drugging, various state officials and police departments from across the country have stated that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. “Date rape drugs”
can cause disorientation, confusion, and temporary paralysis or loss of consciousness—meant to 
make a person’s potential victim vulnerable—and are substances such as flunitrazepam, ketamine, and gamma hydroxybutyric acid. According to the author's office, "the underreported epidemic of drink spiking is often used to facilitate the commission of other crimes, such as sexual assault and rape. While anyone can have their drink spiked, the targets of this act are all too often women. Although drink spiking can be perpetrated in almost any setting, a common location for this activity to take place is at bars or night clubs, where alcoholic beverages are being served.”
 
Under AB 1013, which took effect 7/1/24, establishments must provide kits that can detect these substances. The program will be administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), and non-compliance could affect a licensee’s ability to obtain/maintain their license to sell alcohol. Licensees are responsible to purchasing the kits, and are then free to either give the tests away, or charge “a price not to exceed a reasonable amount based on the wholesale cost.” 
 
The bill follows a test program in Long Beach that provided residents with a free test strip that could be used identify specific “date rape” drugs in a beverage. 
 
The new law also requires bars to display a prominently placed sign stating: “Don’t get roofied! Drink spiking drug test kits available here. Ask a staff member for details.” 
 
 

​Two new laws have gone into effect today which affect the purchase of firearms in CA. The first of these is AB-28 which establishes the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program, administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections, to award competitive grants for the purpose of violence intervention and prevention. The author of the bill states that "Californians are counting on us to do everything possible to keep them safe from mass shootings and gun violence. AB 28 is a common-sense measure that will fund school safety measures and gun violence prevention programs that have proven to be some of the most effective ways of stopping gun violence. A modest tax will provide us with a permanent, sustainable funding source for these essential programs and help protect communities across our state."
 
While the author calls the tax “modest” the reality is that the new law imposes an 11% tax on the gross receipts from the retail sale of a firearm, firearm precursor part, and ammunition. 
 
The money, one collected will be distributed as follows: 
 
·      The first $75 million will be annually allocated to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to fund CalVIP Grants and administration and evaluations of CalVIP-supported programs. 
·      The next $50 million will be annually allocated to the State Department of Education to fund school mental health and behavioral services and school safety measures, and for physical security safety assessments. 
·      The next $15 million will be annually allocated to the Judicial Council to support a court-based firearm relinquishment grant program to ensure the consistent and safe removal of firearms from individuals who become prohibited from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition because of a court order such as a domestic violence restraining order, gun violence restraining order, civil harassment restraining order, or workplace violence restraining order. 
·      The next $15 million will be annually allocated to DOJ for a justice “for victims of gun violence program to support evidence-based activities to equitably improve investigations and clearance rates in firearm homicide and firearm assault investigations in communities disproportionately impacted by firearm homicides and firearm assaults.”
As expected, the bill faced opposition from gun-rights ground such as the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asserted "All of California's law-abiding citizens benefit from efforts to implement programs which remediate the impacts of illegal gun violence upon our public, and all should equally help to fund their implementation. Yet, AB 28 would unjustifiably place the entire burden of funding efforts to address illegal gun violence on the backs of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and lawfully use firearms and ammunition.” They continued "Additionally, by substantially raising the cost of purchasing a firearm and ammunition in California, AB 28 would disproportionately impact the ability of economically disadvantaged communities and individuals to legally purchase a firearm and ammunition to protect themselves and their loved ones. Further, AB 28 would impede their equitable access to hunting and shooting sports – at a time when the Administration and the Legislature are seeking to increase participation in outdoor recreation and access for all Californians.”
 
The second law which went in effect today was AB 1587 which  required credit card payment networks to create a unique identifying code for gun and ammunition retailers so that transactions can be better tracked.  All credit card processing networks use these credit codes to designate the type of goods or services a merchant sells allowing as to help with tax compliance, to establish the interchange rate, or to pay rewards to cardholders for certain types of expenditures.
 
The author wrote "This bill is simple. It would mandate that banks and credit card companies utilize this life saving tool and attach the MCC code to California businesses that have, or are expected to have the highest sales volume, of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. This is consistent with how other MCC codes are used for all other businesses in California, all over the country and all around the world. This will allow financial institutions to identify and report to law enforcement known patterns that are highly suggestive of illegal firearms trafficking — such as repetitive purchases at the same gun store or purchases at multiple gun stores with corresponding cash deposits supplying them with a critical tool to interrupt trafficking rings that flood our communities with guns and violence. This is how we can stop gun violence BEFORE it happens."
 
However those opposed claim that as a result of this bill’s passage, the "DOJ will gain no new data that it does not already possess in the status quo through firearms and ammunition purchases. Given the fact that MCCs will not provide any additional information to solve crimes, it appears that the intent is focused on placing law-abiding citizens in harm’s way. Imagine a parent supporting their child by making a purchase of shotgun ammunition for competitive shooting at the range and having a completely unwarranted visitation by DOJ agents for doing nothing illegal."
 
 

Recently, the Cal. Dept of Fish and Game has become a major player in the State’s efforts to shut down illegal marijuana grows.  Below is an excerpt from the News section of their website: 

"Building upon the momentum in Q1 2023, the Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce (UCETF) seized more than $109 million in illegal cannabis in Q2 2023. This total represents a 104 percent increase from the $52 million in unlicensed cannabis and cannabis products in Q1 2023. 

Additional highlights from the period April 1, 2023, through June 30, 2023, include a 130 percent gain in the number of plants eradicated and a 375 percent increase in the number of firearms seized. The complete details of UCETF’s Q2 2023 results are listed below.


'This well-orchestrated taskforce continues to reach new heights on shutting down a variety of illicit operations that range from dispensaries to indoor grow houses to outdoor cultivations sites among other facets in the illegal supply chain,” said David Bess, Chief of Enforcement for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). “These enforcement numbers speak volumes on the dedication, perseverance, and organization of this multiagency taskforce. I could not be prouder of what we are accomplishing as a team.'

'Our enforcement efforts are becoming increasingly diversified along the illegal cannabis supply chain as we served warrants on several unlicensed dispensaries in this quarter in addition to unlicensed cultivation operations,” stated Bill Jones, Chief of the Law Enforcement Division for DCC. “As the taskforce continues to evolve and the combined resources of our partners plays an even greater role in our operations, we will be disrupting the illegal market at several different points along their supply chain.'"

The website reports (comparing Q1 and Q2 of 2023,) a 338% increase in the number of warrants served, 108% increase in the number of pounds of marijuana seized, and a 1776% increase in the amount of money seized.

Really makes you wonder what Fish and Wildlife's real interests are if, based on executing over 3 times as many warrants and seizing approximately the same amount of marijuana, they end up collecting nearly 18 times the amount of money which will likely have to be forfeited from citizens. 

​The full article can be found here. 
 

In 2016, Proposition 64, and in 2018, AB 1793, told Californians that the records of low-level marijuana-related arrests and convictions would be automatically sealed in light of the fact that cannabis was now legal under state law, allowing people to move on with their lives without serving the life sentence of dealing with the collateral consequences which often result from having a criminal history. While AB 1793 required the automatic sealing of cannabis records, the records of tens of thousands throughout the state have not yet been sealed. 

In a state where more than 12,000 cannabis licenses have been issued, California has a moral and economic imperative to not leave tens of thousands of residents with cannabis criminal records behind, especially those people of color, disproportionately targeted by the War on Drugs. 
Data suggests that many who are eligible for resentencing or redesignation are unaware of the process established by the initiative, or lack the resources to navigate the process on their own. To address this, AB 1793, created an automatic process for certain marijuana-related convictions, and established the following deadlines: 

1. By  July 1, 2019, the DOJ was to review the records in the state summary criminal history information database and to identify past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant Proposition 64.
2. By  July 1, 2020, the prosecutor’s offices were to review all cases identified by the DOJ and determine whether to challenge the resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation in each particular case -AND- inform the public defender and the court when they are challenging a particular resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation.
3. By that same date, the court was to automatically reduce or dismiss the conviction pursuant to Proposition 64, if there is no challenge from the prosecution. 

Unfortunately, neither Proposition 64 nor AB 1793 set forth a deadline by which local courts needed to process the challenges, nor did they include a deadline for the DOJ to update its criminal record database. According to an investigation by the Los Angeles Times, there are at least 34,000 cannabis-related records that still have not been fully processed by the courts, despite the long-passed January 1, 2020 deadline.[1]

Following the passage of AB 1706 this past year, all convictions eligible for relief under Proposition 64 that have not been challenged by the prosecution as unchallenged are deemed recalled, dismissed and/or redesignated, as applicable. This bill would establish a deadline of March 1, 2023 for the courts, on their own accord, to automatically resentence or redesignate all eligible convictions, in cases where the prosecution did not file a challenge by the original January 1, 2020 deadline. This bill further requires that the courts update their records and report all convictions that have been recalled and redesignated to the DOJ by March 1, 2023, and requires the DOJ update its records in the state summary criminal history database by no later than July 1, 2023. 

With any luck, this will help thousands through the state move on with their lives in a more productive manner. 
​
If you need help with any pending drug-related charge in the North Bay, reach out to Devina here.
 
_______

[1] The Truth About California’s Promise To Clear Marijuana Convictions, Los Angeles Times.
 

​In California, manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice[1] and is divided into three kinds: voluntary, involuntary and vehicular. For the purposes of this article, we’re going to focus on this last type: vehicular. 
 
There are three general ways a person could commit the crime of vehicular manslaughter:

1. Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony and with gross negligence, or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.[2]
2. Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.[3]
3. Driving a vehicle in connection with faking a vehicle accident or a vehicle accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person.[4]

 
Under a change in the law, effective January 2023, meant to curb dangerous driving activity, for the purposes of determining whether an act constitutes vehicular manslaughter, “gross negligence” includes: (1) Participating in a sideshow, (2) an exhibition of speed,[5] and (3) speeding over 100 miles per hour. 
 
This change comes on the heels of the California Highway Patrol launching the Communities Against Racing and Side Shows campaign in October 2020, a campaign focusing on statewide public awareness campaigns on speed-related crashes and focused enforcement. According to the Department of the California Highway Patrol, in 2021, CHP responded to almost 6,000 street races and sideshows, issuing 2,500 citations statewide, making 87 arrests, and recovering 17 firearms. As illegal street racing becomes a more prevalent problem statewide, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) has reported that these type of dangerous driving activity are often associated with other risky behavior including driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and driving without a seatbelt, and there is a strong link between most fatal crashes and risky driving.
 
As indicated by the legislature when the bill underlying this change in the law was introduced, there is a feeling that “repeat reckless driving and excessive speeding offenders fail to see the potential consequences of their actions and do not believe their behavior possess a threat to those around them, feeling instead they have everything under control, until their reckless behavior turns their vehicle into a deadly weapon ‘accidentally’ harming other motorists and pedestrians.” 
 
So if you’re thinking of taking part in sideshows, be aware! If you have been charged with a crime related to sideshow activity and would like to speak with Devina regarding representation, feel free to reach out to her here.
 
 
 
 
 
 


[1] Malice can be express or implied. (Pen. Code § 188.) It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 

[2] This is punishable by a wobbler with up to one year in county jail or state prison for two, four, or six years.

[3] This is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail by not more than one year.

[4] This is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six or 10 years.

[5] This includes burning out tires, revving engines, circling, and other activity intended for an audience or “sideshow” that ultimately leads to a speed contest. 
 

​Anyone who knows me, knows I think that having a pet can do wonders for your mental health. What’s why I am happy to report that the legislature has specifically expanded the crime of “theft of dogs” to now include the theft of any “Companion Animal.” 
 
According to ­­the Humane Society of the United States, "the exact number of stolen or ransomed animals per year is unknown, as reporting to law enforcement is inconsistent. For the incidents that are reported, there is no national system to compile the data. However, the Animal Legal Defense fund estimates 2 million pets are stolen on average each year in the United States.”
 
Prior to this change in the law, Penal Code 491 specifically addressed the fact that dogs were “personal property” and thus the act of stealing them constituted the crime of theft.[1]  The legislature has now clarified that stealing any companion animal is theft, defining "companion animal" as an animal that a person keeps or provides care for as a household pet or for the purpose of companionship, emotional support, service, or protection." Excluded from being a “companion animal,” however, are “feral cats” which are “a cat without owner identification of any kind whose usual and consistent temperament is extreme fear and resistance to contact with people. In short, a feral cat is totally unsocialized to people.” (Food & Ag. Code §31752.5.)


[1] Pen. Code §484 states that every person who steals, takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of another, or who fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to them, or who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, is guilty of theft.

​Finally! A change in the law that we all can get behind.  Perhaps there is no one law that is ignored by more people than the “crime” of jaywalking, but effective in 2024, that “crime” almost entirely goes away. Under what is being called the “Freedom to Walk Act,” law enforcement will not be allowed to ticket for Jaywalking-type infractions, unless there is immediate danger of a collision. 
 
Of note, the law will state: “A peace officer … shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of [certain infractions listed below] unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an im-mediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or [specified] device.…”
 
The infractions alluded to above are:
• VC 21451(c) and (d), and VC 21955, which requires pedestrians to cross the street on a green light, using the crosswalk.
• VC 21452 (b), which requires pedestrians to not enter the roadway on a yellow light.
• VC 21453 (d) which prohibiuts pedestrians from entering the roadway on a red light.
• VC 21456 (a)(1) to (a)(3), which requires compliance with the signage regarding the “Walk, “Walking Person,” “Don’t Walk,” “Wait,” or “Upraised Hand” signals
• VC 21461.5, which requires pedestrians to obey signs and signals.
• VC 21462 which requires pedestrians to obey applicable traffic signals, with exceptions.
• VC 21950, which requires pedestrians to use due care, and prohibits (1) dangerous actions while in a crosswalk, and (2) unnecessarily stopping or delay traffic.
• VC 21953, which requires pedestrians to yield to hazardous vehicles where there is a pedestrian tunnel or overhead.
• VC 21954, which requires pedestrians on a roadway, other than within a crosswalk, at an intersection to yield to all vehicles that are an immediate hazard.
VC 212956, which requires pedestrians to walk only close to the left-hand roadway edge
• VC 21966, which prohibits pedestrians [from using a bicycle path where there is an adjacent pedestrian facility.
 

​Jury duty! A civic obligation most of us dread, but one that is sooo important to our system.
The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 190 et seq.) spells out the policy that California requires that people selected for jury service[1] be selected at random from the population of the area served by the court, and as relevant here, that all qualified persons have an equal opportunity to be considered for jury service. To that end, it is the responsibility of jury commissioners to manage all jury systems in an efficient, equitable, and cost-effective manner. 
To offset travel costs, the law states that jurors in the superior court, in civil and criminal cases, are to be reimbursed for mileage at the rate of $0.34 per mile for each mile actually traveled on the way to court after the first day, but effective Jan. 1, 2023, the legislature has increased the amount of travel reimbursement to which a juror is entitled by including all mileage actually traveled returning from court after the first day of service, and provides that all jurors and prospective jurors who have been summoned for jury service must be provided with public transit services at no cost utilizing either of the following options: either (a) a new or existing partnership between the court and a local public transit agency that provides no-cost service for jurors and prospective jurors, or (b) method of reimbursement established by the court to reimburse up to $12 in transit costs.
(Of note, because it often comes up, the law provides that, unless a juror is employed by a public entity that pays a regular salary when an employee is serving on a jury, the fee for jurors in the superior court, in civil and criminal cases, is $15 a day for each day’s attendance as a juror after the first day.[2])
_____

[1] People selected for jury service are to be selected at random from sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court including, but not limited to, Department of Motor Vehicle records, voting rolls, tax filer lists, customer mailing lists, telephone directories, and utility company lists. (Code Civ. Proc. § 197.) 

[2] (Code Civ. Proc. § 215 (a).)

Effective now, a substantial portion of the Government Code has been recodified make the Code more “user friendly.”
Under AB 474, about 420 changes were made to The California Public Records Act (CPRA), without changing the substance of the code. Since its enactment in 1968, the CPRA has been revised many times, in a somewhat piecemeal fashion. This has resulted in a statute that is poorly organized and cumbersome for members of the public to use and understand, impeding fulfillment of the goals underlying the CPRA.
 
The rewritten and recodified CPRA, is divided into seven parts:
Part 1, “General Provisions,” is §§ 7920.000 to 7920.545
Part 2, “Disclosure and Exemptions Generally, is §§ 7921.000 to 7922.210.
Part 3, “Procedures and Related Matters,” is §§ 7922.505 to 7922.725.
Part 4, “Enforcement,” [by “[seeking] injunctive or declarative relief, or … a writ of mandate.…”] is §§ 7923.000 to 7923.500. 
Part 5, “Specific Types of Records,” is §§ 7923.600 to 7929.610. Part 5, Ch. 1 is “Crimes, Weapons, and Law Enforcement.”
Part 6, “Other Exemptions from Disclosure,” §§ 7930.000 to 7930.125. This “Secrecy Code,” lists, in alphabetical order, scores of specific exemptions.
Part 7, GC 7931.000. 
 
This was done for several reasons, notably to:

• Reduce the length and complexity of current sections. 
• Avoid unnecessary cross-references. 
• Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the CPRA. 
• To the extent compatible with 3), above, use terms with common definitions. 
• Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another. 
• Eliminate duplicative provisions. 
• Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions. 

 
 Having trouble interpreting a statute that affects a criminal case in which you are involved? Contact Devina Douglas here. 

While not entirely relevant (yet) to California law, it's interesting to note that lawmakers in Washington State have introduced a bill which would lower the BAC limit for a DUI from 0.08 (which is the limit here in CA, too,) to 0.05. 

To read more: see here.