Unfortunately, some lawmakers are willing destroy our fast eroding constitutional liberties, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.   This new anti marijuana growing law will apply to all unpaved roads within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Forestry, Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Parks and Recreation.

AB 2284 applies to unpaved roads through private timberland of 50,000 acres or more. It can also apply to unpaved forest roads that travel through timber properties between 2,500 and 50,000 acres if the property owner gives the county written consent.

If the driver in possession of irrigation supplies is stopped by law enforcement and cannot convince the officer that he/she is in lawful possession of equipment, the driver’s vehicle and his supplies will be impounded! In other words, the officer does not have to show you are using the equipment for an illegal purpose—the driver has the burden of showing he is NOT using the equipment for an illegal purpose. This is completely unjust and a deep infringement by the government on our liberties.

This new law does, however, prevent cops from impounding a driver’s vehicle simply because the driver is unlicensed.

If you need a caring and aggressive criminal defense attorney to represent you in a drug possession or drug sales case, please contact the Law Office of Ann Gottesman for a free consultation. 

 Call Ann at 626-710-4021

Authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, AB-9, or Seth’s Law is designed to address the problem of school bullying by giving schools new tools to create a safe school environment for all California students. Under the provisions of Seth’s law, each school in California is required to implement anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and programs in regards to actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity expression. School districts are required to have a uniform process in place to deal with complains of gay bullying and the law mandates that school personnel intervene if they witness gay bullying.

While California laws against school bullying were already on the books before the passage of Seth’s law, gay bullying remains a pervasive problem in California’s school system. According to 2010 statistics reported by the California Safe Schools Coalition, 42 percent of students in the state who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual and 62 percent who identify as trans-gender reported harassment in school on at least one occasion based on gender non-conformity.

Stricter rules on children’s behavior in school and the implementation of “zero-policy” rules, have led to more juveniles being arrested for behavior that was once thought to be typical “horsing around”.

If you have been charged for a crime as a juvenile or adult, please call the Law Office of Ann Gottesman for a free consultation. Ann is a criminal defense attorney skilled in representing those facing all kinds of criminal charges, including DUI’s, domestic violence, drugs, theft crimes, violent offenses, three strikes, violation of probation hearings, and much more.

You do not have to fight for your freedom and reputation alone! Call criminal defense lawyer Ann Gottesman today at 626-710-4021, or toll-free at 877-352-9669, for a FREE consultation.

AB144, authored by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in October 2011, makes open-carry of an unloaded handgun a misdemeanor. This law will apply to anyone found in possession of an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in a vehicle. Violators are subject to a fine of $1000 and could face up to six months in jail. This new law makes no changes to the state’s policies on concealed carry permits.

The passage of this new gun control regulation was heavily opposed by gun rights activists, with some vowing to carry rifles or shotguns instead, and some Republican lawmakers expressed public opposition to the bill. However, the passage of this legislation was supported by prominent law enforcement groups, including the California Police Chief’s Association and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Law enforcement officials stated that they felt that open carry was dangerous, since it is difficult for officers to know whether an openly displayed handgun is loaded or not and whether the person with the gun is a threat.

If you are charged with possessing an unloaded firearm in public, or facing any other criminal charges, contacting a qualified and compassionate lawyer immediately is crucial! Of course, no matter what type of crime you or a loved one is being accused of, it is always imperative that you do not talk to the police! A misdemeanor conviction results in a criminal record, and possible jail time which can have devastating effects on a person’s job and family.

On the other hand, with a good lawyer at your side, misdemeanor charges may be dismissed altogether or reduced to an infraction, sparing you any criminal conviction. If you or someone you love is facing misdemeanor charges, Pasadena criminal defense lawyer Ann Gottesman can help. As an experienced criminal defense attorney, who knows the prosecutors and judges in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel courts, Ann Gottesman will work aggressively to ensure that you get the best possible results in your criminal case.

DUI penalties just got tougher in California, making the necessity of retaining a skilled DUI attorney like Ann Gottesman even greater. There’s a lot more at risk. A new law that became effective on January 1, 2012, modifies the potential penalties for repeat DUI offenders. The law, authored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger before he left office. Perhaps due to the roughly 15 months lag time between the signing of this law and its New Year’s Day implementation, it has received very little public attention.

Added to the California Vehicle code as section 23579, this law authorizes the courts to revoke an individual’s driver’s license for a decade if he or she is convicted of DUI three or more times within a ten year period. Drivers who receive the ten year revocation can apply for reinstatement of their license after five years if an Ignition Interlock Device is installed in their vehicle.

According to Assemblyman Jerry Hill’s office, if every judge makes use of this new penalty in repeat offender DUI cases, this law could result in up to 10,000 California driver’s license revocations. The original version of this bill contained a provision that would have eliminated the 10 year look-back period in California’s DUI laws. This provision was removed by lawmakers after it was determined that eliminating that 10 year look-back period was impractical, as it would further tax an already burdened state corrections system.

While this new law is meant to target repeat DUI offenders, it may well have devastating affects on those who rely on the driver for financial support, those who employ the driver and those who depend upon the driver for transportation (i.e., children, spouses, and other family members.) This law is exceedingly harsh and will surely be used improperly by judges, who feel an obligation to satisfy the politically powerful MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) groups. While the law clearly states a judge has the power to revoke a multiple DUI offender’s driver’s license for a decade, the court is not obligated to do so unless the judge feels it is appropriate. In other words, the judge will have discretion to impose such a severe penalty, or to not impose it. Unfortunately, many judges will act as though the law is mandatory and will not use their discretion to withhold such a penalty, for fear of looking “soft on crime”.

Losing driving privileges for ten years can have a big impact on a person’s quality of life, as well as that of their family. In today’s world, the inability to drive can be a significant handicap, resulting in the loss of one’s job, career and social network.

Please do not let this happen to you. If you or a loved one has been accused of driving under the influence, Pasadena criminal defense and DUI attorney Ann Gottesman can help. We will aggressively fight your charges, represent you with the DMV, and do everything possible to protect your driving privileges and keep you out of jail.

Prior to the changes, a person charged with a petty theft could be facing a felony conviction if they were convicted of a second theft offense—even if that second offense was a petty theft that would normally only be chargeable as a misdemeanor. The prosecutor had the discretion to charge a “petty theft with a prior” under Penal Code 666 as a misdemeanor or a felony. Thus, in most cases, people with a theft related conviction that were subsequently charged with a second theft offense were facing felony charges, even if the offense was minor. Under the Three Strikes Law, a person with two prior convictions for a serious or violent felony (i.e., robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, etc…) could be looking at a third strike with a potential life sentence if the accused’s new offense was a “petty theft with a prior” under Penal Code 666.

Under the new law, a felony conviction for petty theft with a prior requires three or more prior theft convictions, instead of one. This change makes it no longer possible for a person with one prior theft conviction to be charged with a felony petty theft under penal code section 666 if it was their second offense. Instead, a person must have three prior convictions for theft before a petty theft offense can be charged as a felony. If you have been charged with petty theft or any other theft related crime, and are unsure of your rights, contact Pasadena Theft lawyer Ann Gottesman to help guide you through your defense.

Petty Theft Explained

California law defines theft as the unlawful taking of another’s property. The crime of petty theft is charged when the property value of the stolen goods is $950 or less. In most cases, petty theft is a misdemeanor and subject to probation, fines or incarceration. However, under the new law, a petty theft can (and most likely will) be charged as a felony if the accused has suffered at least three prior theft related convictions. The primary difference between petty theft and grand theft is the value of the stolen goods. Grand theft requires the value of the stolen property to be greater than $950.

The Significance of the Changes to Penal Code 666

In California, there are quite a few offenses that are classified as “wobblers”. Any offense that a prosecutor can choose to charge as either a misdemeanor or a felony is characterized as a wobbler. Petty theft, prior to the changes, was such an offense if the accused suffered at least one prior theft related conviction. Typically, the prosecutor uses the facts of the case and your criminal history as relevant information when deciding how to charge.

Wobblers are significant because there is a major difference between a misdemeanor and a felony conviction. For one thing, when you are convicted of a felony, certain rights and privileges are revoked. On the other hand, if your offense is classified as a misdemeanor, you likely preserve these rights. Nevertheless, in the case of a felony wobbler, you have the right to petition the court to have your felony reduced to a misdemeanor after you successfully complete probation.

As a Pasadena criminal lawyer who cares about your freedoms and your rights, Ann Gottesman will work aggressively to provide you with the best defense possible.

Assault weapons are banned in California under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. That same act also banned certain handguns and rifles, with the exceptions being ownership prior to 1989 or cases where non-resident Active Duty military members bring their assault weapons into California when permanently assigned to a military installation within the state. In either case, the parties owning weapons on the Roberti-Roos list need to register those weapons with the State of California. The law has been challenged on a number of occasions, but the ban is still in effect. It was in fact expanded by the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act in 2004 to include a number of semi-automatic weapons also. (To review important information regarding assault weapons, see the “Frequently Asked Questions” page on the Department of Justice website, at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs.php .)

Short barrel rifles or sawed-off shotguns are also illegal in California, but handguns are not. You can apply for a license to carry a concealed handgun with the County Sheriff or Chief of Police. This process has also been challenged on a number of occasions, because it is exclusionary and clearly favors those who are in the good graces of law enforcement officials. There are no set guidelines for the issuers to follow, so there’s plenty of room for abuse of power and privilege. Individuals refused a concealed weapons permit have very little grounds to have the issue revisited.

Carrying an unconcealed loaded handgun is a different situation altogether. It is legally allowed in most rural areas, restricted in incorporated areas (inside the city limits), unless a permit is issued by a County Sheriff or Chief of Police. No license or permit is required to openly carry a loaded firearm in unincorporated areas where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. If you’re going on vacation and wish to carry a handgun with you, check the classification of the location you’re visiting to confirm whether or not it’s on the restricted list.

There are many local ordinances, but there is no section of the California penal code that specifically prohibits open carry of an unloaded handgun. Possession may be restricted or prohibited in certain areas such as State Parks (CCR Title 14, Div.3, chap. 1, s 4313 (a)), school zones (PC626.9), or federal properties such as a Post Office or National Park (36 C.F.R. 2.4(a)).

If you have been charged with possession of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, or any other weapon related criminal offense, it is important to have a knowledgeable and caring criminal defense attorney fighting to protect your rights and your freedom. Contact the Law Office of Pasadena Criminal Defense Lawyer Ann Gottesman at (626) 710-4021 to learn more.

As a Pasadena Drug Lawyer with your best interests at heart, my goal is to help those charged with crimes such as drug possession, drug possession for sale, transportation, drug manufacturing, being under the influence of drugs and other similar drug offenses, avoid jail and prison.

About eleven years ago, the State of California began to recognize that addiction is more of a physiological and psychological disease than a criminal issue involving “immoral” behavior by weak-willed individuals. California passed Proposition 36 on November 7, 2000. The data that has been gathered on the program since that time shows a clear difference in the number of re-offenders coming out of community based treatment programs compared to those released from prison with no community based treatment. Those individuals who received drug treatment under Proposition 36 instead of jail or prison were less likely to relapse and commit new drug-related crimes than those who were simply incarcerated. That decrease in drug-related crimes in California has resulted in a significant financial impact. According to a study released by UCLA in 2006, the Prop 36 program saves the state $2.50 for every dollar invested. The total amount of that savings between 2001 and 2006 was $1.4 Billion.

If you have been charged with the illegal possession of drugs, using or being under the influence of drugs, or transporting drugs for personal use under the California Health and Safety Code (Drug Crimes), you may be eligible for a treatment option under Proposition 36. California Penal Code sections 1210-1210.1 define what Prop 36 is and who is eligible. To be eligible for Prop 36, a non-violent drug offender must not have been in possession of a firearm, and not have been incarcerated in the past five years for a serious or violent felony. “Non-violent drug possession” offenses include personal possession, using or being under the influence of drugs, and/ or transporting drugs for personal use. There are other eligibility requirements as well, which are explained in the Penal Codes addressing Proposition 36.

While Prop 36 requires an eligible defendant to be sentenced to drug rehab and not jail, a defendant can still find themselves incarcerated for a non-violent drug offense if he or she does not comply with the program’s requirements. If you are kicked out of the Proposition 36 program more than two times, you could be deemed not amenable to treatment and sent to jail. If you’ve been through Prop 36 several times before and have more than one drug conviction in your past, the likelihood of your approval for Prop 36 again is decreased.

Proposition 36, despite its obvious benefits on both a rehabilitative and financial level, has not been without its detractors over the years. In 2006-2007, funding for the program was $145 million. In 2007-2008, that funding was cut to $120 million, then $108 million the following year. Extreme budget cuts since then have the current number at $18 million. The law itself still requires that low level drug offenders be sentenced to drug treatment instead of jail, but the funding for that treatment is not fully available. As the state slowly emerges from economic crisis, the debate goes on. Will Proposition 36 be fully funded again or will it be repealed?

As your Pasadena Drug Lawyer, I’ll always look for the option that keeps you out of jail and make every attempt to avoid a conviction that will affect you later in life. In many cases, qualified offenders are put on probation and court ordered to attend twelve step meetings, and even residential drug treatment, if necessary. Of course, as in every criminal case I handle, I always analyze the legal issues before advising a client to consider any type of negotiated disposition. Potential issues could include constitutional violations such as illegal searches and seizures, police abuse or misconduct and confessions obtained in violation of Miranda.

My clients understand that as their Pasadena criminal defense attorney, I will fight for your constitutional rights and for your freedom. So, if you (or a friend or loved one) are charged with a drug offense, do not suffer alone! Call, me, Pasadena Drug Lawyer, Ann Gotteman, for a free phone consultation regarding your criminal case. I am here to help!

SB 598 and 895 (which became effective July 1, 2010) require IIDs (Interlock Ignition Device) to be installed on ALL vehicles owned or accessible to a person convicted of a DUI, including FIRST OFFENDERS. This is a Pilot Program that is only applicable to DUI convictions in Alameda, Los Angeles, Tulare, and Sacramento counties.

If this is your first DUI conviction and you are in one of the counties listed above, and your conviction is on or after July 1, 2010, the DMV and the Court will unfortunately require you to install an Interlock Device on your vehicle.  This is expensive and a serious inconvenience. Luckily this IID requirement does NOT apply to wet reckless convictions. That means if you do not get a DUI suspension from the DMV and you are able to avoid a DUI conviction in Court, then you will not be required to get an Interlock Device installed on your vehicle. While this new law is very detrimental and inconvenient to first offenders, it is actually helpful to those convicted of more than one DUI within the past 10 years. Here is how this law works….

California Vehicle Section 13352(a)(3) says that when a second time DUI offender gets the IID installed, the driver is then eligible to apply for an IID restricted license after 90 days, (instead of having to wait 12 months) unless defendant was found by the Court to be under the influence of a drug.  There is still the initial 30 days “hard” suspension the driver must endure where no driving is permitted.

California Vehicle Section 13352(a)(5) says that when a third time DUI offender gets the IID installed, the driver is then eligible to apply for an IID restricted license after 6 months, (instead of having to wait 2 years!) unless defendant was found by the Court to be under the influence of a drug.

California Vehicle Section 13353.3(2)(B) says that multiple offenders who receive an APS suspension for having an excessive BAC and who are also convicted for a DUI (VC 23152) arising from the same incident, may have the APS suspension terminated if they obtain an IID restricted license pursuant to CVS Sections 13352(a)(3) or (5).

California Vehicle Section 23700 requires the DMV to maintain this pilot program from July 1, 2010 through January 1, 2016 in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties, requiring ignition interlock devices for all vehicles owned or operated by DUI offenders. The duration period for the device is as follows:

For CVC § 23152 convictions (DUI without injury):

First offense 5 months 12 months

Second offense 12 months 24 months

Third offense 24 months 36 months

Fourth or more offense 36 months 48 months

CVC § 23153 conviction (DUI with injury)
First offense 12 months

Second offense 24 months

Third offense 36 months

Fourth or more offense 48 months

According to CVC § 23700(a)(3), these IID requirements are issued and monitored by the DMV once the abstract of conviction is received, and the DMV requires verification before a driver’s license will be issued, reissued, or returned to the licensee after a suspension or revocation of that person’s driving privilege.

There are a few exemptions that convicted drivers may seek with the DMV within 30 days of receiving the IID Order.  CVC § 23700(a)(8) has a complete list of these exemptions which are pasted below.

CVC § 23700(a)(8): IID EXEMPTIONS

“(8) A person who is notified by the department, pursuant to this subdivision, is exempt from the requirements of this subdivision if within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies to the department all of the following:

(A) The person does not own a vehicle.

(B) The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or her residence.

(C) The person no longer has access to the vehicle being driven by the person at the time he or she was arrested for a violation that subsequently resulted in a conviction for a violation listed in this subdivision.

(D) The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed to drive a vehicle that is fitted with a functioning ignition interlock device.

(E) The person acknowledges that he or she is required to have a valid driver’s license before he or she can drive.

(F) The person is subject to the requirements of this section when he or she purchases or has access to a vehicle.”

TRAFFIC STOPS:  HOW YOU CAN PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution, citizens have a right to be free from illegal search and seizure by government officials, such as police.  The laws governing a citizens Fourth Amendment rights are legally complex but there are basic principals you should understand in order to protect your rights whenever encountering the police.

Often people encounter police after being stopped for a traffic violation. When you are pulled over for a minor traffic violation, an officer does not have a search warrant, so they can only search your person or vehicle if they have probable cause. Probable cause means the officer has a “reasonable belief” that you have committed a crime or are about to commit a crime, or if you consent to the search. If there is no probable cause and the person to be searched does not consent to the search, the search is generally illegal (few exceptions).

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONSENT TO A WARRANTLESS SEARCH!

Many times, an officer has no reason to believe any crime is being committed aside from the traffic infraction for which the person is being pulled over.  (See my BLOG that discusses the great 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Gant, which limits an officer’s ability to search your vehicle after a traffic stop.) Officers know that people are nervous and anxious when encountering police and they use this to their advantage. Officers know that if they get your consent, they can search you and your vehicle even if there was no probable cause to do the search. So don’t consent to the search! When you consent, you are waiving your constitutional right to be free from a search and seizure made without probable cause.  If you consent and the officer finds any contraband, all that evidence will be used against you in court.  If however, an officer conducts a search without probable cause and you do not waive your rights, then anything found can not be used against you.  It is in such cases that a Motion to Suppress the illegally obtained evidence is filed and argued in court.

For example, if an over zealous officer decides to pull you over for speeding, insists on searching your car without probable cause and without your consent, and then finds drugs or some other illegal contraband, that evidence will not be allowed in front of the jury.  When a Judge throws out such evidence (after the defense attorney files a motion to suppress under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code), the case is often dismissed because the prosecutor no longer has enough evidence to prove their case in court.

Illegal search and seizure is a classic defense in criminal law and one that I look for in every case I have. If you have been arrested or accused of a crime, you need an experienced and dedicated criminal defense attorney to represent you in court.

Call me, attorney Ann Gottesman, for a FREE consultation so we can discuss your case and concerns. I am here to help you!

In late 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill x3 18, authored by Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), which changes the current parole system in several positive ways:  This new bill allows parole agents to focus their time on supervising the more serious offenders, reduces parole agent caseloads and implements a new outcome-based case planning process that provides incentives for parolee success. 

PAROLEES WHO COMMIT NEW CRIMINAL OFFENSES WILL NOT AUTOMATICLLY BE SUBJECT TO A PAROLE VIOLATION, PAROLE HOLDS  OR PAROLE REVOCATION:

The new laws and reforms create a system of “summary” or “non-revocable” parole for certain low-risk parolees. In other words, in many cases where a Defendant is on parole and gets arrested for a minor offense, the parole officer will not even be allowed to revoke parole or place a parole hold on the parolee!  In fact, in these minor misdemeanor and felony offenses (usually non violent offenses), a parolee is never even flagged for a parole hearing as long as they meet the requirements listed in SBx18, sec. 48 (see below)!  This new policy is an attempt to free up parole officers’ time so they are not investigating and wasting resources conducting parole violation hearings or placing holds on parolees who are generally complying with parole requirements but end up committing some minor offense (such as a misdemeanor or non violent felony). No longer will every tiny mistake or encounter with police result in a parole hold or a possible parole violation

To see if a new arrest or conviction while on parole constitutes a parole violation that could result in revocation or a hold, see the text of SBx18, sec. 48, provided below:

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest of this portion of Bill SBx318 says the following:

“Under existing law, the department is authorized to return a parolee to prison if the Board of Parole Hearings determines that the parolee violated the terms of his or her parole, as specified…This bill would prohibit the department from returning certain parolees to prison, placing a parole hold on the parolee, or reporting the parolee to the Board of Parole Hearings for a violation of parole, as specified.”  [Emphasis Added.]

SBx18, sec. 48 [note the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” that begins new § 3000.03]:

3000.03. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not return to prison, place a parole hold on pursuant to [Pen. C. §] 3056, or report any parole violation to the Board of Parole Hearings regarding any person to whom

all of the following criteria apply:

(a) The person is not required to register as a sex offender [under Pen. C. §§ 290 et seq.].

(b) The person was not committed to prison for a serious felony as defined in Sections 1192.7 and 1192.8, or a violent felony, as defined in Section 667.5, and does not have a prior conviction for a serious felony… or a violent felony, as defined in [those Sections].

 (c) The person was not committed to prison for a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code [Sexually Violent Predators] and does not have a prior conviction for [such an offense].

(d) The person was not found guilty of a serious disciplinary offense, as defined in regulation by the department [see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3315], during his or her current term of imprisonment.

(e) The person is not a validated prison gang member or associate, as defined in regulation by the department. [See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3000.] 

(f) The person did not refuse to sign any written notification of parole requirements or conditions, including, but not limited to, the written notification of requirements pursuant to [Pen. C. §] 3067 [consent to warrantless search and seizure].

 (g) The person was evaluated by the department using a validated risk assessment tool and was not determined to pose a high risk to reoffend.

Operative January 25, 2010.

[Check back for more of my updates on the new 2010 laws that affect the criminally accused.]