Devina Douglas, Attorney at Law (707) 408-3529
  • Home
  • Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • DUI
    • Assault Crimes
    • Theft Crimes
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Homicide
    • Restraining Order-related >
      • Domestic Violence Restraining Orders
      • Other Types of Protective Orders
      • If You Are Served With A Protective Order
      • Resources for Victims of Domestic Violence
  • Contact
  • Results
  • Other information
    • Devina's Blog
    • Cal. Fish and Game Updates
    • Commonly-Requested Documents >
      • Local Ordinances
    • Reference Links
  • Disclaimer
  • SoCo and COVID

Firearms prohibitions? BB and Airsoft-type Guns

12/6/2021

 
A lot of criminal defense attorneys are often asked whether a person who is legally prohibited from owning/possession a firearm is allowed to still own/possess guns such as BB or Airsoft guns. The person asking either has (1) a felony conviction, (2) a conviction for some other misdemeanor offense which nevertheless disqualifies them from gun ownership/possession, (3) a 5150 hold on their record, or (4) was adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender, the most common reasons for the government to deny firearms access. 
 
To understand why people in any of the above categories can own/possess airsoft or BB guns one need only look to the language of the law which defines what, exactly, a “firearm” is.  Penal Code 1625 defines a “firearm” as “a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.” While Airsoft and BB guns are often intentionally designed to look just like real firearms—and thus appeal to children and adults alike—they fire pellets via gas, spring, or electrical systems, and thus are not firearms.
 
(All of that said, be aware San Francisco outlaws Airsoft guns entirely.) 
 
Other relevant facts:
  • You can generally carry most types of BB guns in your car.
  • Penal Code sections 171b (a) prohibits taking any BB/Airsoft guns into government buildings or open meeting venues. 
  • Section 171.5(b)(c) prohibits carrying a BB/Airsoft guns into secure and screened areas of airports. 
  • Section 626.10(a) bans possession of BB/Airsoft guns on public or private school grounds. 
  • It is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to own a BB/Airsoft gun without parental permission.
  • Under California Penal Code 12556, it is illegal to display an “imitation firearm” in a public place (which includes streets and your front yard.0 And you guess it, these guns BBG are considered “imitation firearms.’
 
If you'd like to set up an appointment to consult with Devina regarding your case, feel free to reach out to her here. 

HATE CRIMES IN CALIFORNIA

6/1/2021

 
While it may appear from the news that the number of Hate Crime events are on the rise, the evidence is actually to the contrary.  The following information was taken from the "Hate Crime in California 2019" Report (the most current year for which data is available,) as published by the state DOJ.  

Local law enforcement agencies are required to report hate crimes to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in compliance with California Penal Code Section 13023. California Penal Code Section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) disability, (2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation, (7) association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”

Overall Crime Data Summary
  • The number of hate crime events have fluctuated over the last decade. In the last 10 years, hate crime events have decreased by 8.3 percent with 1107 reported in 2010 and 1015 reported in 2019.
    • Of note, the lowest year for reported hate crime events was 2014 with 758 events. 
  • Hate crime events decreased 4.8 percent from 1,066 in 2018 to 1,015 in 2019. 
  • The number of victims of reported hate crimes increased 0.8 percent from 1,237 in 2018 to 1,247 in 2019. 
  • The number of suspects of reported hate crimes decreased 11.5 percent from 1,093 in 2018 to 967 in 2019 (Table 15). 
 
Hate Crime in California 
  • Hate crime events involving a racial bias overall decreased 12.0 percent from 594 in 2018 to 523 in 2019. 
    • Anti-black or African American bias events fell from 276 in 2018 to 243 in 2019, a decrease of 12.0 percent. 
    • Anti-Hispanic or Latino bias events fell from 149 in 2018 to 110 in 2019, a decrease of 26.2 percent. 
  • Hate crime events involving a religion bias increased 3.5 percent from 201 in 2018 to 208 in 2019. 
    • Anti-Jewish bias events rose from 126 in 2018 to 141 in 2019, an increase of 11.9 percent.
    • Anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias events fell from 28 in 2018 to 25 in 2019. 
  • Hate crime events involving a sexual orientation bias decreased 2.1 percent from 238 in 2018 to 233 in 2019. 
    • Bias events against gay men or men perceived to be gay rose from 169 in 2018 to 172 in 2019, an increase of 1.8 percent. 
    • Events involving sexual orientation bias generally fell from 41 in 2018 to 35 in 2019. 
  • Hate crime offenses decreased 0.6 percent from 1,268 in 2018 to 1,261 in 2019 (Table 12).
    • Violent crime offenses increased 3.1 percent from 838 in 2018 to 864 in 2019 (Table 13).
    • Property crime offenses decreased 8.5 percent from 426 in 2018 to 390 in 2019 (Table 13). 

Prosecutorial Data 
Of the 392 hate crimes that were referred for prosecution, only 288 cases were filed by district attorneys and elected city attorneys for prosecution. Of the 288 cases that were filed for prosecution, 200 were filed as hate crimes and 88 were filed as non-bias motivated crimes. 
Of the 166 cases with a disposition available for this report:
  • 49.4 percent (82) were hate crime convictions;
  • 44.6 percent (74) were other convictions; and
  • 6.0 percent (10) were not convicted (Table 7B). 

​

Data on joint immigration task force arrests in 2019

5/3/2021

 
The following information was taken from the "Values Act 2019" Report (the most current year for which data is available,) as published by the state DOJ.  
​

The California Values Act (Act) [1]defines the circumstances under which California law enforcement agencies (LEAs) may assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and participate in joint law enforcement task forces, and also mandates that California LEAs report specified statistics to the California Department of Justice (DOJ).  Specifically, the Act requires California LEAs to report to the DOJ statistics about their participation in joint law enforcement task forces and their transfers of individuals to immigration authorities. Effective January 4, 2018, all LEAs were required to begin collecting data pursuant to the Act for submittal to the DOJ beginning on January 4, 2019. This report contains the data outlined in the statute for publication. 
 
As the data collection process is still in its infancy, and not all required agencies have actually reported their data yet, there is little data. What we know is this:  The total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces in 2019 was 15,672. That said, the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by task force participants in 2019 was 35. 

_________
[1] as detailed in Government Code section 7284 et seq., and enacted by Chapter 495, Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 54),



Law Enforcement's USE of force: what the actual data is saying

4/1/2021

 
The following information comes from the 2019 DOJ report on Use of Force incidents throughout the state.

​In 2015, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 71, adding GC section 12525.2. This new statute mandates law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in California to report use of force incidents that result in serious bodily injury or death or involve the discharge of a firearm.[1] Effective January 1, 2016, all LEAs were required to begin collecting data on use of force incidents--not only those where law enforcement used forced, also where civilians used force. Due to the narrow definition of use of force in the statute, the data contained in the DOJ report only represent incidents where use of force resulted in serious bodily injury or death or the discharge of a firearm. Caution should be used in making comparisons or generalizations with this data set as it does not contain the full spectrum of use of force incidents that occurred in California.

In 2019, Sonoma County reported 9 Use of Force Events. 

Incidents
  • In 2019, statewide, there were 703 incidents that involved use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death of a civilian or officer; or the discharge of a firearm. 
  • Of the 703 incidents, 283 reported a discharge of a firearm. 
  • Of the 703 incidents: 
    • 48.4 percent (340) occurred during a call for law enforcement service,
    • 18.5 percent (130) occurred while either a crime was in progress or while officers were investigating suspicious persons or circumstances, and
    • 13.5 percent (95) resulted from a vehicle/bike/ pedestrian stop. 
  • Of the 703 incidents, 75.0 percent (527) resulted in an arrest
 
Civilian Data
  • In 2019, 738 civilians were involved in incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death.
  • Of the 738 civilians: 
    • 91.6 percent (676) were male,
    • 7.5 percent (55) were female, and
    • 0.9 percent (7) fled the scene and their gender was unknown.
    • There were no reports received by DOJ in 2019 of use of force events involving transgender persons, and accordingly only male and female genders are represented in the data provided in this report. 
  • Of the 738 civilians: 
    • 44.6 percent (329) were Hispanic,
    • 28.5 percent (210) were white, and
    • 19.5 percent (144) were black. 
  • Of the 738 civilians: 
    • 31.3 percent (231) were hit by the discharge of a firearm,
    • 20.1 percent (148) and 11.5 percent (85) received force by other control hold/takedown tactics and electronic control device, respectively. 
  • Of the 738 civilians: 
    • 66.7 percent (492) were injured,
    • 12.5 percent (92) were not injured, and
    • 19.9 percent (147) died. 
  • Of the 738 civilians, officers perceived that 389 civilians were armed. Of the 738 civilians, 295 were confirmed to be armed.
 
Officer Data
  • In 2019, 1,638 officers were involved in incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death. 
  • Of the 1,638 officers, 92.6 percent (1,516) were male and 7.4 percent (122) were female. 
  • Of the 1,638 officers:
    • 53.2 percent (872) were white,
    • 33.6 percent (551) were Hispanic,
    • 4.9 percent (81) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and
    • 5.4 percent (88) were black. 
  • Of the 1,638 officers:
    • 40.5 percent (664) did not receive force from a civilian,
    • 29.9 percent (490) received force during physical contact with
      a civilian, and
    • 9.7 percent (158) received force by the discharge of a firearm from a civilian. 
  • Of the 1,638 officers:
    • 15.6 percent (255) were injured,
    • 84.2 percent (1,379) were not injured, and
    • 0.2 percent (4) died. 
  • Of the 1,638 officers, 1,566 reported use of force. Officers reported they used force:
    • to affect arrest/take into custody (829),
    • to overcome resistance (473),
    • in defense of a 3rd party (230), and
    • to prevent escape (34) 

_______
[1] Serious bodily injury is defined in GC section 12525.2. Please see the Legislation section on page 6 for further detail. 
Discharge of a firearm - Includes any discharge of a firearm during an interaction between a civilian and an officer, regardless of whether any person was injured. A firearm is defined as a weapon that fires a shot by the force of an explosion, e.g., a handgun, rifle, shotgun, and other such device commonly referred to as a firearm. Not included in this definition are electronic control devices; stun guns; BB, pellet, air, or gas-powered guns; or weapons that discharge rubber bullets or bean bags. 
Injury severity - Severity levels below “serious bodily injury” are included in the data set due to the fact that reporting is required for any discharge of a firearm. 
 

LAWFULLY USING LETHAL FORCE

3/24/2021

 
While we all hope we never need to use force to defend ourselves or our property, sometimes a persona finds themselves in a situation wherein they seemingly have no other choice. Unfortunately  the question of whether use of lethal force is justified in self-defense cannot be reduced to a simple list of factors, but here is a brief summary of the relevant law. 

Lawfully Using Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body
The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, if a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that:
  • (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime
  • (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; AND
  • (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime (which generally includes murder, mayhem, rape and robbery. (Pen . Code, § 197 .)
Self-Defense Against Assault
It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend themself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.

It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury. Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.

Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense
The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used . Furthermore, a person may only use the amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury. It is important to note the use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties.

The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who initiates the assault of another. However, if such a person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any other person being assaulted .

Protecting One’s Home
A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in
a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry . One is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder's persistence and violence, if the circumstances apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation to fear for his or her safety .

The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder's attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that:
  • (a) the intruder intends to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
  • (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
  • (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury . 
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred . Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury . (Pen . Code, § 198.5..)

Defense of Property
The lawful occupant of real property has the right to request a trespasser to leave the premises . If the trespasser does not do so within a reasonable time, the occupant may use force to eject the trespasser . The amount of force that may be used to eject a trespasser is limited to that which a reasonable person would believe to be necessary under the same or similar circumstances .

Ways in which you can be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm

3/1/2021

 
Both the California penal and Welfare & Inbstututions Code set forth ways a person can be rendered unable to own/possess a firearm  Here ia. brief summary. 

Lifetime Prohibitions
  • Any person convicted of any felony or any offense enumerated in Penal Code section 29905 .
  • Any person convicted of an offense enumerated in Penal Code section 23515 .
  • Any person with two or more convictions for violating Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2) .
  • Any person adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender . (Welf . & Inst . Code, § 8103, subd . (a)(1) .)
  • Any person found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity of any crime, unless the court has made a finding of restoration of competence or sanity . (Welf . & Inst . Code, § 8103, subds . (b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1) .)


10-Year Prohibitions
Any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the following:
  • Penal Code sections
    • 71,
    • 76,
    • 136.5,
    • 140,
    • 148(d),
    • 171b,
    • 171c,
    • 171d,
    • 186.28,
    • 240,
    • 241,
    • 242,
    • 243,
    • 244.5,
    • 245,
    • 245.5,
    • 246,
    • 246.3,
    • 247,
    • 273.5,
    • 273.6,
    • 417,
    • 417.1,
    • 417.2,
    • 417.6,
    • 422,
    • 626.9,
    • 646.9,
    • 830.95 (a),
    • 17500,
    • 17510 (a),
    • 25300,
    • 25800,
    • 27510,
    • 27590 (c),
    • 30315, or
    • 32625, 
  • Welfare and Institutions Code sections
  • 871.5,
  • 1001.5,
  • 8100,
  • 8101, or
  • 8103 .
5-Year Prohibitions
Any person taken into custody as a danger to self or others, assessed, and admitted to a mental health facility under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5150, 5151, 5152; or certified under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5250, 5260, 5270 .15 . Persons certified under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5250, 5260, or 5270 .15 may be subject to a lifetime prohibition pursuant to federal law .

Juvenile Prohibitions
Juveniles adjudged wards of the juvenile court are prohibited until they reach age 30 if they committed an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) . (Pen . Code, § 29820 .)

Miscellaneous Prohibitions
  • Any person denied firearm possession as a condition of probation pursuant to Penal Code section 29900, subdivision (c) .
  • Any person charged with a felony offense, pending resolution of the matter. (18 U .S .C . § 922(g) .)
  • Any person while he or she is either a voluntary patient in a mental health facility or under a gravely disabled conservatorship (due to a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism) and if he or she is found
    to be a danger to self or others . (Welf . & Inst . Code, § 8103, subd . (e) .)
  • Any person addicted to the use of narcotics . (Pen . Code, § 29800(a).
  • Any person who communicates a threat (against any reasonably identifiable victim) to a licensed psychotherapist which is subsequently reported to law enforcement, is prohibited for six months . (Welf . & Inst . Code, § 8100, subd . (b) .)
  • Any person who is subject to a protective order as defined in Family Code section 6218 or Penal Code section 136 .2, or a temporary restraining order issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 527 .6 or 527 .8
​Personal Firearms Eligibility Check
  • Any person may obtain from the DOJ a determination as to whether he or she is eligible to possess firearms (review of California records only) . The personal firearms eligibility check application form and instructions are on the DOJ website at http://oag .ca .gov/firearms/forms . The cost for such an eligibility check is $20 . (Pen . Code, § 30105 .)

If a conviction is rendering it impossible for you to own/possess a firearm, there may be ways to get that conviction removed from your record.  Give Devina a call, and see if she can help!

Crime Statistics in California

2/1/2021

 
The following information was taken from the "Crime in California 2019" Report (the most current year for which data is available,) as published by the state DOJ. 

Crime Rates per 100,000 Population 
  • The violent crime rate decreased 2.4 percent in 2019, while the property crime rate decreased 3.1 percent in 2019.
  • The homicide rate decreased 4.5 percent in 2019.
  • The robbery rate decreased 4.5 percent in 2019.
  • The motor vehicle theft rate decreased 9.6 percent in 2019.
  • The burglary and arson rates decreased 8.2 and 3.3 percent in 2019, respectively.

Arrest Rates per 100,000 Population at Risk 
  • The 2019 total arrest rate of 3,410.9 is 3.3 percent lower than the 2018 total arrest rate of 3,527.5.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the adult and juvenile total arrest rates decreased 3.5 and 5.0, respectively.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the total felony arrest rate decreased 3.0 percent, while the total misdemeanor arrest rate decreased 3.3 percent.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the total violent offense arrest rate decreased 3.3 percent. The homicide, robbery, and assault arrest rates decreased 4.3, 3.5, and 3.0 percent, respectively.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the burglary and motor vehicle theft arrest rate decreased 4.9 and 15.0 percent, respectively.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the felony forgery, checks, access cards offense arrest rate decreased 6.9 percent.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the total felony drug offense arrest rate decreased 3.9 percent, with narcotics and dangerous drug offense arrest rates decreasing 5.1 and 0.8, respectively.
  • From 2018 to 2019, the petty theft, assault and battery, and driving under the influence offense arrest rates decreased 4.9, 1.2, and 2.7 percent, respectively, while the misdemeanor drug offense arrest rate increased 0.7 percent. 
 

Dispositions – Adult Felony Arrests 
  • In 2019, 68.4 percent of adult felony arrests resulted in conviction. 
  • Probation with jail continues to be the most frequent sentence given for adult felony arrest convictions. 
  • From 2018 to 2019, the percentage of convictions resulting in incarceration in a state institution have decreased from 20.1 to 17.2 percent. 
  • From 2018 to 2019, the percentage of violent and drug offense convictions resulting in incarceration in a state institution have decreased from 26.0 and 13.0 to 22.6 and 11.3 percent, respectively . 
 
Adult Probation 
  • In 2019, the total number of adults on active probation was 199,313 – its lowest since 1984. 
  • From 2018 to 2019, there was a 4.0 percent decrease in the total number of adults placed on probation and a 10.3 percent decrease in the total number of adults removed from probation. 
  • From 2018 to 2019, there was a 1.2 percent decrease in the rate of adults placed on probation for a felony offense, and a 13.0 percent decrease in the rate of adults placed on probation for a misdemeanor offense. 
 
Criminal Justice Full-Time Personnel 
  • From 2018 to 2019, the total number of full- time criminal justice personnel increased 0.5 percent. 
  • From 2018 to 2019, the number of law enforcement, prosecution, and public defense personnel increased 1.0, 1.3 and 2.0 percent, respectively, while the number of probation personnel decreased 3.0 percent. 
 
Civilians’ Complaints Against Peace Officers 
  • The total number of reported civilians’ complaints against peace officers decreased from 16,525 in 2018 to 15,890 in 2019. 
  • The total number of reported criminal complaints fell to 865, its lowest since 1987. 
 
Domestic Violence-Related Calls For Assistance 
  • The total number of domestic violence- related calls for assistance decreased from 166,890 in 2018 to 161,123 in 2019. 
  • The total number of domestic violence- related calls for assistance involving a firearm increased from 1,383 in 2018 to 1,388 in 2019, while the number of calls involving personal weapons (hands, fists, or feet) decreased from 60,473 to 59,525. 
 
Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted 
  • The total number of law enforcement officers assaulted in the line of duty decreased from 11,148 in 2018 to 10,512 in 2019. 
  • In 2019, five officers lost their lives in the line of duty, 4 feloniously and 1 accidentally. 
  • From 2018 to 2019, the number of law enforcement officers assaulted with a firearm increased 3.2 percent, while the number assaulted with personal weapons (hands, fists, or feet) decreased 7.2 percent. 

COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL

1/28/2021

 
Under California law, a defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial if, as a result of a mental disorder or developmental disability, he cannot: (1) understand the nature of the criminal proceedings, or (2) assist counsel in preparing a defense in a rational manner, as the person simply isn't able to defend against criminal charges.  But what dos that actually mean? It's often clearer to explain looking to whether a person is​ competent to stand trial. The courts have declared a that a person is competent to stand trial if they have “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and have "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." (Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402.) Unlike insanity, the inquiry looks to the person's current cognitive functioning, not that at the time the crime was committed. 

There is a general misunderstanding out there that a person can be found incompetent to stand trial if they display strange behavior or are being uncooperative with the process.  This is not the case.  The person needs to demonstrate a genuine inability to assist with their defense. 

As they are often those who work most closely with affected defendants it is often defense counsel who raises a doubt that her client is competent to stand trial, but this doubt can be raised the the judge or any other official involved in the system. From there, that doubt is declared on the record and the defendant is evaluated my a qualified mental health provider to make the determination as to whether the defendant can assist in their own defense. 

If the mental health provider believes the person is competent, and after a hearing, if required, the court agrees, the criminal proceedings resume. If the mental health provider agrees that the defendant is not competent, and after a hearing, if required, the court agrees, then the defendant is ordered to participate in competency training, a term we use to describe the process of trying to restore the person to company, through counseling or medication. This training is typically done via the defendants commitment to a mental health hospital or placement is a suitable outpatient program. During this time, a judge can order that the defendant be administered medication against their will. 

If the defendant can be restored to competency, the criminal proceedings will be reinstated, picking up from where the proceedings previously left off.  If they can't, then the defendant may be forced to remain in the custody of the mental health care facility for an amount of time up to the maximum term for the offense for which they were charged. 

A Snapshot of CHANGES to criminal law in 2021

1/19/2021

 
Every New Years brings about a flurry of sometimes small, sometimes substantial, changes to the way in which our criminal justice system works. Here are the notable changes taking effect in 2021: 

​The Adult System
  • Capped probation terms: Perhaps the change which will have the greatest impact on the day-to-day lives of most criminal defendants, AB 1950 enacted a maximum one year probation term for most misdemeanor offenses and two years for felony offenses. There are, of course, some exceptions. (Effective Jan. 1)
  • Misdemeanor diversion: AB 3234 authorizes judges to offer misdemeanor diversion to most offenders. It is currently under debate whether DUIs will be covered by this change in the law. This change means that if a defendant complies with the terms of diversion the criminal action will ultimately be dismissed and the record erased. Of note, defendants should be aware most domestic violence charges, stalking and registrable sex offenses are not eligible for diversion. (Effective Jan. 1)
  • Restoration of a felon voting rights: the passage of Proposition 17 gives approximately 50,000 felons on probation the right to vote.
  • Reduced sex offender registration: SB 384 reduces the length of time for which a registrant must register. It established a three-tier hierarchy of offenses (which looks to the severity of the offense,) setting the registration length for PC 290 registration at 10 years, 20 years or lifetime. (Effective Jan. 1)
  • California Racial Justice Act: AB 2524 allows defendants who were charged or convicted of a crime to now challenge any racial bias that may have occurred in their case.  Upon challenge, they can now seek a new trial or re-sentencing. (Effective Jan. 1)
  • False reports and harassment: AB 1775 creates a new law, criminalizing the making false 911 calls which are based on someone's race, gender, religion or other type of legally-recognized discrimination, and classifying the offense as a hate crime.

The Juvenile System
  • Disruptive juveniles in school: AB 901 changes form of punishment of troublesome students, moving away from probation programs to community-based programs, and away from court supervision.
  • Phasing out juvenile prisons: SB 823, the Juvenile Justice Realignment bill  will replace the remaining juvenile prisons with the programs related to the Office of Youth and Community Restoration. (Effective July 1)
  • Hiding juvenile records: AB 2425 protects the records of juvenile offenders from public inspection. (Effective Jan. 1)


Changes to Law Enforcement Procedures
  • Banning chokeholds: AB 1196 bans chokeholds and carotid holds by all law enforcement agencies, statewide.
  • Sheriff oversight: AB 1185 allows for the establishment of a sheriff oversight board and inspector general in each county with subpoena power to help oversee the actions of local sheriff departments.

Victim's Bill of Rights

1/1/2021

 
In California, a victim of a crime has certain right, granted to them under the State Constitution. These rights are often known as "Marsy's Law" rights.
​

The purpose of Marsy’s Law is to:

  1. Provide victims with rights to justice and due process.
  2. Eliminate parole hearings in which there is no likelihood a murderer will be paroled, and to provide that a convicted murderer can receive a parole hearing no more frequently than every three years, and can be denied a follow-up parole hearing for as long as 15 years.

Marsy’s Law significantly expands the rights of victims in California. Under Marsy’s Law, the California Constitution article I, § 28, section (b) now provides victims with the following enumerated rights: 

  1. To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. 
  2. To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.
  3. To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant.
  4. To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family or which disclose confidential communications made in the course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law.
  5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.
  6. To reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding, the arrest of the defendant if known by the prosecutor, the charges filed, the determination whether to extradite the defendant, and, upon request, to be notified of and informed before any pretrial disposition of the case.
  7. To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.
  8. To be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, involving a post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue.
  9. To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.
  10. To provide information to a probation department official conducting a pre-sentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family and any sentencing recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant.
  11. To receive, upon request, the pre-sentence report when available to the defendant, except for those portions made confidential by law.
  12. To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, and the release of or the escape by the defendant from custody.
  13. To restitution.
    1. It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.
    2. Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.
    3. All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim.
  14. To the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence. 
  15. To be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the offender. 
  16. To have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family, and the general public considered before any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made. 
  17. To be informed of the rights enumerated in paragraphs (1) through (16).

Professional licenses and criminal convictions

12/8/2020

 
Would you feel so differently about the person selling you a new car that you wouldn’t buy a new car from him or her if you knew the salesperson had a recent conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance? Probably not.  But what about if the transaction you’re about to engage in is not buying a car, but having surgery? Would you be just as willing to let a doctor operate on you if you found out he had a similar conviction?
 
The State of California recognizes that in order to protect the public certain professions require those performing professional duties to hold themselves to a higher standard.  Professionals such as lawyers, doctors, nurses, dentists, accountants, contractors, law enforcement officers, teachers and social workers are closely monitored by state licensing boards.  As a result, professionals working in these industries often have more to lose than a little money and a little freedom if they are charged with a crime; they could lose their livelihood! 
 
The details surrounding what happens at the hearings conducted by Administrative Law Boards is outside the scope of this article, but rest assured any one licensed by the state is entitled to a hearing at which they can present their side of the case, it is the State that bears the burden of showing the licensee did something wrong, and the hearing is overseen by an independent Administrative Law Judge.
 
One of ways in which licensing authorities find out about a licensee doing something that could give rise to a professional license suspension or revocation is through on-going criminal records checks, so don’t think that just because you don’t report a criminal conviction to the authorities doesn’t mean those authorities won’t find out. (And if you are working in a profession where you are required to report convictions, a failure to report would land you in even more hot water!)  It is imperative for any licensed professional to do everything they can to minimize the collateral consequences of a potentially criminal act.  If you are a licenses professional it is critical that your attorney knows about that fact, and that they work to resolve your case in a way that  protects your license. Or if you have an old conviction, it’s imperative that your record is made as clean as possible under the law.  
 
Options for cleaning up your record include:
  • Seeking reduction of offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, or from misdemeanors to infractions. Only some crimes are eligible for reduction. 
  • Seeking expungements of prior convictions. 
  • Seeking retroactive dismissals of certain types of convictions after changes in the law (common now in cases which involved marijuana use/possession)
  • Seeking a Certificate of Rehabilitation, or a Governor’s Pardon. (Very few Pardon requests are ever granted.) 
  • Seeking the sealing of arrest records (which is more common than you might think). 
 
Past convictions can haunt you! If you have any sort of conviction on your record in California (or pending criminal charges,) that you feel is holding you back, reach out to Devina Douglas to discuss your options.

Sonoma County Jury service

11/26/2020

 
Sonoma County is at a funny point in its handling of jury service right now in light of the COVID pandemic. Jurors are meeting—not at the courthouse, but at the fairgrounds.  Very few trials are being held. But the county is still sending out lots of jury summons.  Which begs the question (loudly these days, if you ask me): Does a person actually have to show up for jury service?
 
Yes. 
 
A person’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to a jury of one’s peers is one of the most important aspects of our criminal justice system, inspired by the idea that it shouldn’t just be the high ranking mucky-mucks, or government officials, or the “cool kids” who sit in judgement of the citizenry, it’s the citizens themselves. That’s why it is imperative that a person respond as directed to a jury summons, not just because it is a crime (potentially leading to actual jail time,) to ignore it. 
 
Once you’ve received that summons, take a close look at the date for which you’re supposed to respond.  If you’re supposed to be somewhere else that day, because of an important medical procedure, or a pre-planned vacation, don’t worry! You get one free postponement, simply by mailing a request for postponement back.  But unless you request a postponement, you’re going to need to follow the directions for reporting as indicated on the summons. (In Sonoma County, you can call or check the County’s website the night prior to your service date to see if you need to actually report in person.) 
 
If you’re called in to serve, but have a compelling reason why you should not be asked to be seated on an actual jury, you’ll have a chance to explain to the court why serving would be a hardship.  Reasons accepted by the court include: 

  • Having no reasonably available means of public or private transportation to the court.
  • Having to travel an excessive distance (usually defined as travel more than 90 minutes between the juror’s home and the court.)
  • Service would result in an extreme financial burden (which takes into consideration the sources of the prospective juror's household income, the availability and extent of income reimbursement, the expected length of service, and whether service can reasonably be expected to compromise the prospective juror's ability to support himself or herself or his or her dependents, or so disrupt the economic stability of any individual as to be against the interests of justice.)
  • Service would result in an undue risk of material injury to or destruction of the prospective juror's property or property entrusted to the prospective juror, and it is not feasible to make alternative arrangements to alleviate the risk. 
  • Having a physical or mental disability or impairment, not affecting that person's competence to act as a juror, that would expose the potential juror to undue risk of mental or physical harm.
  • Having a personal obligation to provide actual and necessary care to another, including sick, aged, or infirm dependents, or a child who requires the prospective juror's personal care and attention, and no comparable substitute care is either available or practical. 
 
Yes, having to upset your daily life for jury service can be a real pain, but put yourself in the position of the defendant: would you rather have people from your own community sitting in judgment of you, or a default, nameless, faceless government entity?

Statutes of Limitations and your case

11/10/2020

 
A common question I’m asked is “how long do the police have to arrest me after I’ve committed a crime.”  A better question to ask is “how long does the DA’s office have to charge me with the crime.” And the answer to that, like so many other questions is: “it depends.”  It depends mostly on the type of crime a person has committed, but whether the victim was a minor at the time of the offense can also affect this legal deadline, called the statute of limitations. The various statutes of limitation for crimes committed in California are defined in Penal Code sections 799-805.

We have statutes of limitation to ensure the DA’s office files charges in a timely manner, when evidence should be more easily available and the events are more fresh in the minds of any witnesses, so that the defendant gets the most fair trial possible. In general, once the statute of limitations period for a case has run, the DA’s office can no longer file charges. 

Of course, there are very serious crimes for which there is no statute of limitations: Murder, treason, and embezzlement of public funds. 

From there, a general rule of thumb is that most felonies (except those that are especially serious or sexual crimes committed against children,) have a statute of limitations of three years, and most misdemeanors have a statute of limitations of one year. (An “especially serious” felony is generally one in which the maximum punishment is eight or more years in custody.)   For most crimes the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of the offense is committed. 
​
In order to protect the most vulnerable segment of our community—the elderly, minors, and those who are dependent on others for their daily needs—the law allows for longer statutes of limitations. For example, some crimes which involve violent, sexual acts committed against minors have statutes of limitations which do not run until the victim has turned 40 years old. A lot of crimes which involve elderly or dependent adult victims have statutes of limitations of 5 years. And for some crimes which involve a higher degree of trickery or fraud the statute of limitations may not even begin running until the crime has been discovered.   

New law will be Shortening probation

11/1/2020

 
Prior to this newly-enacted law, in California the maximum term of probation to which a judge could sentence a defendant was  five years for felony offenses and three years for the vast majority of misdemeanor offenses.  (That said, more serious misdemeanor-level offenses such as child abuse and repeat-offender DUIs were eligible for lengthened probationary periods of up to five years).

Despite concerns that any reduction in the time the criminal justice system has  supervise and rehabilitate offenders might detrimentally impact an offender's rehabilitation, the legislature passed, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1950, which effectively caps misdemeanor probation at a length of one year, and felony probation at a length of two years. The reason for the change revolves around studies that have shown that probation often disproportionately affect people of color.  For example, the authors of the bill cite the fact that 
Black Americans make up 13% of the U.S. adult population, but 30% of people who are serving a probationary sentence. Further, the "probation monitoring fees" are often an increased burden on low-income families.  ​
A 2018 Justice Center of the Council of State Governments study found that a large portion of people violate probation and end up incarcerated as a result. The study revealed that 20 percent of prison admissions in California are the result of probation violations, accounting for the estimated $2 billion spent annually by the state to incarcerate people for supervision violations. Eight percent of people incarcerated in a California prison are behind bars for probation violations. Close to half of those violations are technical and minor in nature, such as missing a drug rehab appointment or socializing with a friend who has a criminal record. And yet despite the fact that these technical violations (non-crimes) do not threaten our communities, they cost taxpayers at least $235 million per year."

- 
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, 2020 report

EXpAnded Diversionary options coming in 2021

10/16/2020

 
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 3234 earlier this month, creating additional statutory mechanisms for Court-initiated Misdemeanor Diversion. Now, via PC 1001.95 et seq, the courts throughout the state can grant client pre-trial diversion, even over the DA's objection, for a very wide array of offenses. (Currently excluded offenses are violations of Penal Code 290 et seq., 273.5, 243(e), and 646.9.  

Previous law authorized a county to establish pretrial diversion programs for defendants who have been charged with a misdemeanor offense and authorizes other diversion programs, including for defendants with cognitive developmental disabilities, defendants in nonviolent drug cases, and traffic violations. Proactive Diversion  programs have been shown to yield lower recidivism rates than seems when the judicial system used tactics more focused on prosecuting and jailing offenders.

Under the law, the defendant can be given up to 24 months to complete whatever conditions are imposed as a part of the diversion offer, and the terms of that diversion plan can be narrowly tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of the defendant's alleged crime. 

Should a candidate not successfully complete the diversion program, the criminal proceedings will be reinstated. Should a candidate successfully complete the diversion program, the net result will be that the criminal case against them is officially dismissed, and the record of arrest will be sealed, allowing a person to avoid potentially lifelong collateral con sequences of a conviction generally associated with having a criminal record. 
​
Because a candidate is not required to enter a plea to participate in diversion under this section, it will not count as a "conviction" for immigration purposes. 

2020 changes to Fish and Wildlife regulations

8/26/2020

 
The following changes were made to Cal Fish and Game regulations, effective July 2020, relevant to our area:
  • With regards to Deer, under Code section 360
    • The season for additional hunt in the Fort Hunter Liggett Antlerless Deer Hunt shall open on October 3 and extend for 2 consecutive days and reopen on October 10 and extend for 3 consecutive days.
    • ​The season for additional hunt in the Fort Hunter Liggett Apprentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt shall open on October 3 and extend for 2 consecutive days and reopen on October 10 and extend for 3 consecutive days, except if rescheduled by the Commanding Officer with Department concurrence between the season opener and December 31.
  • With regards to Archery Deer, under Code section 361
    • ​The season for hunt in the Fort Hunter Liggett Late Season Archery Either-Sex Deer Hunt shall be open beginning the first Saturday in October and continuing through November 11, except if rescheduled by the Commanding Officer with Department concurrence between the season opener and December 31.
    • The number of Tags available is set at 50, with no differentiation made between military or general public tags.
  • With regards to Waterfowl
    • ​In Northeastern CA
      • Duck season opens the first Saturday in October and extends for 103 days. 
      • the bag limit for scaups has been reduced to 2
    • In the San Joaquin Valley 
      • Duck season opens the fourth  Saturday in October and extends for 100 days. 
      • the bag limit for scaups has been reduced to 2

For a full summary of the changes in the regulations see here. 

KEEPING AN EYE ON CHANGING LAWS IN RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT BLM PROTESTS: QUALIFIED immunity for police

6/12/2020

 
We certainly cannot expect our police officers to make perfect decisions all of the time.  Because of this, the legal doctrine of qualified immunity generally applies to the decision they make.   "Qualified Immunity protects officers from being held personally legally responsible for a variety of constitutional violations (notably now:  the right to be free from the police using excessive force against them) for money damages under federal law if the police did not violate "clearly established law."

But right now, the Supreme Court is debating whether or not this protection for officers should continue to exist. 

OCTOBER 2020 Update:
This legislative session changes in the law have been adopted to help address instances of potential police misconduct:
  • AB-1196 (Peace Officers Use of Force) was passed. The law, effective on the first of the year, prohibits the use of chokeholds (pressure to a person’s windpipe) and carotid holds (pressure to slow the flow of blood to the brain) by law enforcement.
  • AB-1506 (Police Use of Force) was passed. The law This law will now shift the responsibility for investigating fatal police shootings of unarmed civilians to the Attorney General, and creates a new division (set to begin operating by mid-2023,) within the Department of Justice which will be tasked with reviewing use-of-force policies and make recommendations. 

​For more, see here. 

KEEPING AN EYE ON CHANGING LAWS In resPonse to the current BLM PROTESTS: Police misconduct records.

6/10/2020

 
Public access to records regarding police misconduct has been a hot-button issue for the last several years.  Thankfully, New York is taking steps in the right direction to bring transparency to the misconduct of its officers.

For the full story see here. 

In the News: Changes to Solitary confinement coming

2/26/2020

 
The following information was originally reported by the associated press[1]:
 
“More than a quarter of U.S. states and numerous smaller jurisdictions are looking for ways to reduce the use of solitary confinement, according to the Vera Institute of Justice, which encourages alternatives to a practice behavioral experts say is dehumanizing and can worsen mental illness.

The new policies in California came after Specter’s firm sued seven of California’s 58 counties, alleging that conditions had grown inhumane as jails absorbed inmates who previously would have served their sentences in state prisons. The state in 2011 began sending less serious offenders to local jails for years at a time to ease crowding in state penitentiaries.

Some jurisdictions nationwide are banning isolation for young offenders, pregnant women or those with mental health diagnoses. The California counties’ approach of generally limiting it to those who engage in continued violent behavior has dramatically reduced the number of inmates in isolation and the length of time they stay there….

Sacramento County also is following the policy pioneered by Santa Clara County, while Fresno County is considering it. Among other things, it encourages the use of low-cost incentives to reward good behavior, like the opportunity to listen to the radio, watch a movie or get an extra snack.

Sacramento County has cut its isolated population roughly in half, to about 60 inmates, said Lt. Alex McCamy: “It’s a limited time frame and a limited group, but the initial impression is positive.”

Rick Raemisch, who restricted the use of solitary confinement when he headed Colorado’s prison system, said the violent, tense, dirty conditions in Santa Clara County’s jail improved markedly with the new policy. “Think of yourself being in a cell the size of a parking space for 23 hours a day,” said Raemisch, who consulted with county officials. “At a minimum you’re going to get angry, and when you get angry you’re going to fight back.” 

Inmates nationwide are most often segregated for nonviolent “nuisance infractions” like smoking, cursing, disobeying orders or having unauthorized items from the commissary, said the Vera Institute’s Sara Sullivan. 

Santa Clara County once locked a woman in solitary confinement for 2 1/2 years for talking back to correctional officers or yelling and banging on her cell door with other detainees, according to Specter’s lawsuit.

The California counties’ new policy of restricting its use to continued violent behavior could be seen as a national pilot program, Sullivan said.

...There’s been a decades-long effort to reform solitary, especially in prisons. But what we haven’t seen is a paired reform effort for jails,” said Amy Fettig, director of the American Civil Liberty Union’s Stop Solitary campaign….

Long-term isolation can be so debilitating, Fettig said, that she’s had clients cut themselves “just to feel something because they’ve become numb.”
 ________________________

[1] https://apnews.com/2c40e61703f2a493c4dfa152150e7a29

ROADKILL IN CALIFORNIA In 2020

2/11/2020

 
 
 
Despite the passage of the “Wildlife Traffic Safety Act,” the result of SB 395, it is still illegal to collect or possess roadkill. However, the new law is paving the way for citizens to use the “salvageable wild game [roadkill] meat” meat of deer, elk, pronghorn antelope or wild pig. 
 
According to data from the CHP, approximately 8,000 large game animal vs. vehicle collisions have occurred statewide over the last six years. These collisions have resulted in over 1,500 injuries and at least 24 fatalities to motorists and their passengers.  UC Davis researchers estimate that the costs associated with animal vs. vehicle collisions exceed $200 million annually.  But perhaps more tragically, for the large animals involved in these collisions, approximately 40% of them are killed, and many are injured, however the fate of roughly one-third is unknown. 
According to the author of SB 395, Bob Archuleta, “By allowing the take of large game animals after a highway collision, and by logging the site of the incident, we not only clean up our highways, we gather the necessary data to prevent the occurrence in the future.” 
 
So if the new law doesn’t allow the taking of roadkill, what does it do? The new change in the law gives the California Fish and Game Commission permission to work with the California Department of Transportation, California Highway Patrol and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment with the goal of ultimately adopting regulations to establish a “salvageable wild game meat utilization program.” Such a program would almost certainly include a permitting and a reporting process.
 
Currently, California’s best public reporting system on roadkill statistics is that run by the University of California, Davis. (Their California Roadkill Observation System (CROS) allows anyone to contribute roadkill data and photos to the system.) However, the new law allows the Fish and Game Department to create their own roadkill reporting database, with the goal of helping wildlife managers identify the places where wildlife/vehicle collisions are most common. With that information, legislators claim the state can make more pinpointed wildlife conservation efforts. 
 
The permitting process—which per the law’s text, will generate free permits—is expected to be run via a user-friendly and cell-phone-friendly web- based portal. Permitting will take into consideration roadways, locations, species subject to salvage, and any other aspect necessary to ensure the salvage pilot program’s success.  With a permit, any person who unintentionally strikes and kills a specified animal on a roadway or who encounters an unintentionally killed animal of eligible species may recover, possess, use or transport the whole animal and salvage the edible portions. That said, only an officer of the Fish and Game department or a law enforcement may kill a severely injured animal that has been struck by a passing vehicle. However, once an injured animal has been euthanized by one of these designated officers, a permitee can lawfully collect the meat.
With this change in the law, California will be one of among half of the states allow roadkill to be collected, processed and eaten. 
 
If you have been arrested or cited for a Fish and Game violation in Sonoma, or any of Sonoma’s surrounding counties, contact Devina Douglas.
 

<<Previous
Forward>>

    Author

    Devina strives to make information relevant to the lives of her clients easily accessible. 

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017

    Categories

    All
    DMV Related
    Domestic Violence
    Drugs
    DUI
    General Criminal Defense
    Gun Rights
    Marijuana Related
    Marijuana-Related
    SCOTUS News
    Weird News

    RSS Feed

Proudly serving Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Mendocino and Lake Counties (and occasionally venturing as far as Yolo, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties).
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly

​This website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. Using this site or communicating with the Law Office of Devina Douglas through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising. Please review the full disclaimer for more information. (LINK TO FULL DISCLAIMER PAGE)
  • Home
  • Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • DUI
    • Assault Crimes
    • Theft Crimes
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Homicide
    • Restraining Order-related >
      • Domestic Violence Restraining Orders
      • Other Types of Protective Orders
      • If You Are Served With A Protective Order
      • Resources for Victims of Domestic Violence
  • Contact
  • Results
  • Other information
    • Devina's Blog
    • Cal. Fish and Game Updates
    • Commonly-Requested Documents >
      • Local Ordinances
    • Reference Links
  • Disclaimer
  • SoCo and COVID