Some noteworthy New Laws in California for 2011

• Non–Vehicle Code infractions can now be dismissed under PC 1203.4a.  This is the remedy commonly known as expungement.
• The threshold for felony grand theft increased from $400 to $950.
• “Petty theft with a prior” is now, unless the defendant has a strike or sex offense prior, “petty theft with three priors.”  
• Marijuana possession, less than an ounce, is now an infraction.
• Limited immunity from prosecution for certain low-grade alcohol-related offenses granted to persons under the age of 21 who are reporting that they or someone else are in need of medical assistance.

Huge win for truth and justice

Yesterday, in a Supreme Court case called People v. McNeal, the California Supreme Court ruled that competent evidence of variability of alcohol vapor in breath to blood alcohol content across the population may be admitted in cases where there is minimal showing of impairment. This has huge ramifications for innocent people. For years I have been telling people the sad story that there is no justice in California for DUI arrestees who happen to produce more alcohol vapor in the breath and were blind to this reality (of course) when they choose the more convenient method of blood alcohol testing: breath (not blood). Driving with any amount of alcohol in your system is to be avoided. However, convicting people 21 and older of misdemeanors who have not actually driven with a .08% BAC or greater, who are not impaired by alcohol, cannot be tolerated. At long last the Supreme Court is on board. Kudos to the brilliant lawyers who brought about this change!

Be heard, Isla Vistans!

Don't wait until you're in jail to complain about the proposed Social Host Ordinance.

Here's an email in circulation that I will do my part to publicize because I agree with it wholeheartedly:

Help Protect Residents of IV TODAY!

Ask SB County Supervisors to Vote NO on the proposed Social Host Ordinance (i.e. Law)


WHAT: Board of Supervisors Hearing re: proposed Social Host Ordinance
WHEN: Tuesday, April 21, 2009; if you can’t attend, send them an email NOW! (talking points and email addresses below)
WHERE: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room (105 E. Anapamu Street, 4th Floor)
Background:
1. The ordinance is meant to address underage drinking. It would apply county-wide, including in Isla Vista (which already has a similar, but less intrusive, ordinance).
2. Any time at least 5 people are together, and at least 2 are under 21, the gathering can be subject to the ordinance.
3. If a minor at one of these gatherings has alcohol, regardless of whether the host of the event knows or should know the minor has alcohol, the ordinance is violated.
4. When there is a violation, law enforcement can disperse the gathering, and fine anyone who lives at the residence or is responsible for the gathering.
5. Multiple offenders can be held responsible for the cost of law enforcement response, up to $500.
6. A person is a repeat offender, and therefore subject to increased fines, if the ordinance was violated at the same property within 12 months, regardless of whether the violation was from previous tenants or property owners.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. Call and email your Supervisors

2. Pass this email on to as many residents of Santa Barbara County (which includes IV) as you can

3. Attend the 4/21 Board hearing. Call 568-2240 on or after 4/15 to confirm exact time
Urge the Supervisors to:

Vote No on the Proposed Social Host Ordinance

Talking Points:

· The ordinance is a bad idea because it gives law enforcement too much power to unfairly target students who are behaving in a responsible manner.

· Also, because the ordinance allows for holding hosts responsible for law enforcement response costs, people will be discouraged from contacting law enforcement or paramedics when serious incidents occur at parties or other gatherings where alcohol is present.

· Finally, because the County already has sufficient means to dissuade underage drinking through laws already on the books, the ordinance is unnecessary.

1st District: Salud CarbajalPhone: (805) 568-2186E-mail: SupervisorCarbajal@sbcbos1.org
2nd District: Janet Wolf, Vice Chair Phone: (805) 568-2191E-mail: jwolf@sbcbos2.org
3rd District: Doreen FarrPhone: (805) 568-2192 E-mail: dfarr@countyofsb.org
4th District: Joni Gray Lompoc: (805) 737-7700E-mail: jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
5th District: Joseph Centeno, Chair Santa Maria: (805) 346-8400 E-mail: jcenteno@co.santa-barbara.ca.us

100 College Presidents Call for Lowering the Drinking Age

Now this I can suppport. I completely agree with 100 College and University presidents who are now calling for the legal drinking age to be lowered. Don't laugh. It makes perfect sense. Among the points that should be considered are:

1. If people are considered mature enough to go to war to kill and die for their country, they are definitely mature enough to drink alcohol responsibly.
2. Restrictive rules on drinking encourage clandestine and binge drinking (which are the most dangerous kinds of drinking).
3. The widespread use of fake ID's among college students erodes respect for the law.
4. The high numbers of arrests of people for ordinary college behavior makes the system appear corrupt and often hypocritical which, again, erodes respect for the law.

Anyone who has been to college understands that the 21 and over law does not curtail drinking one iota among the 18-20 year old group. Drinking among college students is, reportedly, on the rise. Most people consider it a legal taboo to drink underage, not a social one. It is time for an intelligent debate on this failure of public policy.

Social Host Ordinance

Santa Barbara County is moving forward with an ordinance designed to "crackdown" and "get tough" on underage drinking and binge drinking. Of course the neo-prohibitionists among us see nothing wrong with giving the police more tools to attack the problem; and, indeed, there is little if any social utility produced by people under 18 getting trashed. However, I can't recall ever hearing a police officer say, "you know, I'm just powerless to stop underage drinking". Having been in the the thick of court cases surrounding this topic for many years, I can tell you that the Fourth Amendment plays a minimal role in deterring overly aggressive conduct of law enforcement agents. In Isla Vista, for example, there are many instances of police entering parties where they were not invited, and making arrests, issuing cites, seizing kegs, dumping out bottles of booze, and sending the invited guests on their way. It is plain that social ordinances are desired because they would allow police officers to enter any dwelling where a party is taking place where they reasonably suspect a minor is present without a warrant.

No longer a lone voice in the sobering wilderness

I'm very pleased that the Daily Nexus wrote an article on something that I think should be at the top of the agenda for realistic change in Isla Vista and UCSB in the near future. Namely, a sobering (aka "sobriety") center in I.V. It works on State Street in Santa Barbara and can work even better in Isla Vista. I completely disagree with IVFP Lieutenant Brian Olmstead who said we already have a sobering facility: the County Jail. Nice. With this cunning observation, Olmstead flippantly ignores the huge financial and emotional costs incurred by criminalizing an event as mundane as a night of too much alcohol. The unspoken truth is that virtually all of the police officers, judges, correctional officers, university officials, alcohol and drug abuse counselors and d.a.'s got drunk when they were between the ages of 16 and 24; and I'm guessing that more than just a few of them got drunk last weekend and/or have plans to do so next weekend. What am I saying, exacly? I'm saying that there is more than an ounce of hypocrisy under-girding the "get tough on college drunkenness" mentality. The good intentions are over-shadowed by the hypocrisy. Yes, getting drunk and stumbling around in the street is different than doing it in the privacy of your own home, or at a friend's home. However, morally speaking, they are about the same. Someone that is drunk really can't be trusted to make good decisions about where they are going to be drunk. One thing that should make us all feel safer is that many in the Isla Vista community live without ready access to cars. Unfortunately, you can't say that about the rest of the local drinking population.

A sobering (or "sobriety") center in Isla Vista would save everyone money. It would save the taxpayer all of the many costs incident to booking someone into the county jail. The costs per arrest, to the taxpayer, can reach into the thousands. On average we're talking about hundreds of dollars per arrest. Consider the cost of two police officers spending about two hours between the initial contact and returning to IV or UCSB per arrestee. For wages, insurance, equipment costs, and the attending support staff costs (e.g., dispatch), this may range from about $200 to $400. Then there are the costs of booking and housing for up to 24 hours. This can also cost hundreds of dollars. Then, should the person end up in court (and most do), there are the wages of the many court personnel that are involved, including lawyers and judges. And these are all costs on the taxpayer (yes, some are off-set by fines and fees). However, should the person exercise their right to a jury trial and/or decide to initiate a lawsuit and complaint against the police and their employer, the sky is the limit on costs. We are talking about thousands of dollars in those cases, easily; all on the taxpayer. Notice I haven't even mentioned yet the costs on the individual in terms of legal fees, fines, reputational harm, as well as physical and emotional injury. These costs are unacceptable to most.

It is definitely time for a sobering center.

Email to an Eighth grader in North Carolina...

Yesterday, an obviously intelligent eighth grader asked me to answer some questions in furtherance of a social studies class assigment. Here's my response:

Hi Jackson:

I'll see what I can do in the few minutes I have...

1) How do you feel about the consequences about drunk driving? Do you think the consequences should be harsher, or less harsh?

I think that punishments are probably too harsh. At some point, as we approach making all DUI's into attempted homicides, at ever lower levels of blood alcohol, we should slow down and analyze what of the myriad changes to the way we penalize DUI and otherwise educate (even propagandize) the citizenry are actually making the roads safer and fit within present standards of proportional justice. For example, were we to make all DUI defendants eligible for the death penalty, regardless of whether anyone got hurt, and what the blood alcohol level was, you'd see a lot more people using taxis and quitting drinking altogether. And then there would be those hard-core alcoholics, and people who pay no attention to the criminal justice system until the cuffs are being put on them, who wouldn't change their ways. But the bottom line is, how much, in the name of deterrence, are we really willing to tolerate as a society. I think we may be at the breaking point. We're already beyond mine.

For more of my opinions on this topic [which might even surprise you] go to:

http://santabarbaralawyer.blogspot.com/2007/11/less-dui-law-is-more.html

2) How do you believe law enforcement should handle the issue of drunk driving? What I mean is what do you think law enforcement should do to prevent the issue of drunk driving?

I'd like to see them exercise more compassion in their approach, and to show a little more courage. In other words, they should be willing to give someone a ride home, or just take their keys away for the night. By being tough as nails, they do the institution of law enforcement a great disservice. In other words, when they show no compassion, people develop a hostile attitude toward police, which is unfortunate for everyone concerned.

3) Why do you think that people decide to drive drunk?

They really don't decide. They impulsively drive home after a party or a night of drinking with little awareness of their impairment. Alcohol impairs judgment and memory. One of the things a drunk person is not qualified to do is to decide whether they are safe to drive. The real mistake is to begin drinking without having already arranged a safe ride home. Otherwise, they are leaving their fate in the hands of a drunk person who will have great difficulty making a decision; much less a correct one.

4) Which group of people do you think drives drunk more often: teens/adolescence, or adults?

teens

5) When I was doing some research, I found out that alcohol-related incidents don't just mean that the driver is drunk, it means that if there is an accident which involves a drunk driver, passenger, or pedestrian, it is an alcohol-related incident. Based on that, who do you think should get punished more; a drunk driver, or a drunk pedestrian?

drunk driver. there is far more potential for a fatality, and serious injury, when you involve one plus tons of metal traveling at a speed in excesss of 3 miles per hour.

6) What percent of drunk driving car accidents have been fatal?

I don't know. NHTSA publishes statistics on this sort of thing. I'm a lawyer, not a statistician.

Good luck, Jackson.

Bill