California Government Considering Law to Become Sanctuary State

California Senate Bill 54 has recently been introduced; it proposes to establish a new law to prohibit law enforcement agencies from cooperating with Federal Immigration Authorities. Whether state law enforcement (State Police; CHP, etc.), county (Sheriff), city (local police),  school police or security departments, organization or individual, they would be prohibited from investigating, detaining and/or arresting anyone suspected of a crime that would constitute or be characterized as aiding, assisting, helping or facilitating the enforcement of immigration laws. The Attorney General of the State of California will also be mandated to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement by the U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In addition, the bill would require the University of California, public schools and libraries, along with all other facilities that provide services related to education, wellness, physical or mental health, and courthouses to implement a similar policy.

ICE would still be permitted to conduct deportation raids in California, however, they could not rely upon or be assisted by state or local law enforcement (police, sheriffs, etc.). Basically, California would become a “sanctuary state” and countless numbers of individuals claim the state would be protecting criminal felons from being deported. In addition, ICE would be banned from entering jails to interview inmates suspected of living in the United States illegally.

You may be against the idea of sanctuary cities, but as you can see from SB 54, our California government is currently in the process of establishing it as a “state sanctuary.”

Opponents have argued against this bill because it would allow those with criminal records, such as violent felons, to remain on the streets. Proponents  claim by protecting immigrants, even those who have committed violent crimes and/or other felonies,  it is the only humane thing to do for anyone who lives in California. They cannot accept the proposition that there have been many innocent citizens who have been murdered at the hands of undocumented immigrants with prior criminal felony records.

Additionally, Senate Bill 54 does not distinguish between those non-documented immigrants who have a minor infraction, such as driving with an expired vehicle registration tag or broken taillight, and those who are extremely serious and heinous criminal offenders, such as having been convicted of murder, rape, arson and child molestation. Hence, California’s 2013 Trust Act that protects unauthorized immigrants who came to the United States before the age of 16 and other undocumented individuals living in California, who otherwise have been law-abiding, would be superseded by SB 54 and, therefore, these individuals would then be subject to deportation by ICE officers if they were arrested for an infraction.

 It has been reported that California gets about $1 BILLION A DAY from the federal government, and if that is withheld as a sanction against stopping immigration officers from picking up non-documented individuals (politically correct name for illegal immigrants) who have a criminal record, there will inevitably be budget shortfalls in California.

Even if the majority of the California  population oppose sanctuary cities, and no doubt will oppose SENATE BILL 54 that otherwise will make California a “sanctuary state,” if you want this to go to a referendum (to be put on a forthcoming ballot so everyone can have a chance to vote their conscience), you should place your name, city and email address on the web page posted by and this link from California State Senator Jeff Stone.

Hiring An Attorney Who Is Tough, Smart & Knows the Law

Samuel Eugene SpitalDo you or someone you know have a professional or occupational license and facing an investigation or charges by the State of California? Are you seeking a professional or occupational license? Have you considered your future endeavors and how the potential outcome of the present situation can adversely impact the choices you may later have and/or want to make?

Whether it appears to be only a call or letter from the government, you want to be certain as to your rights and possible liabilities, and you want a lawyer who is tough, smart and knows the law. Clearly, anyone who has had such an encounter knows what might seem an innocent and non-adversarial communication from the government or an investigator can be just the opposite. It is not about “telling the truth because you have nothing to hide.” Rather, what you say can be misinterpreted and might constitute an admission against your interest (in law – it can be construed as a confession).

Hence, whether you are applying for a license or have one, the risks as well as rewards can be substantial. If you have received an Accusation by the Board or Agency that issued your license or you are planning to apply for a state license or have received a denial letter, it is indisputably a defining moment in your career and, therefore, should be treated as a critical event that justifies obtaining truly experienced counsel.

The intent and scope of legal services should be to provide you with a full and proper evaluation of your case, as well as to afford you legal advice as to your rights, as well as your legal, and financial (and perhaps emotional) exposure, including the alternatives that are available. In addition, to protect you from an otherwise powerful state government and on your personal behalf to level the playing field, you also want an attorney who will fully assess and rightfully advance your legal rights.

A prominent attorney is able to maintain such a position by him/her having integrity, as well as being fully experienced and highly skilled in presenting thorough legal arguments that are not only comprehensive, but most importantly are both in writing and legally sound. This  takes more than an idle analysis, but rather proper research; detailed planning of the strategy in a case; it involves an exhaustive review of all of the facts; a wise and accurate evaluation of the records; correctly interviewing lay and knowledgeably conferring with expert witnesses who are highly regarded in the profession; eventually, the proper foundation and scrutiny must be accomplished to truly level the playing field for the skilled and experienced lawyer to be in a position to confer with the prosecution side, persuasively argue and present as well as to negotiate and achieve a winning solution.

If a winning result is what you want, you should not expressly or implicitly place a constraint on the number of hours and time that your lawyer deems appropriate to strengthen your defense and develop a compelling offense. Clearly, you can’t afford to not do this if you are truly motivated and honestly desire to obtain a favorable outcome.

In the end, when you consult with and retain a lawyer who is tough, smart and knows the law, you are less likely to look back and wish you had done so. And, there are readily available tools to help you evaluate the criteria, such as percentage of their practice devoted to Administrative Law, years in practice, prior specialized experience, their proven success, and most importantly what other clients and leading attorneys have consistently said in the past and continue to say in the present about the lawyer you select. And, if you ultimately choose price as an overriding factor (paying the lower of retainer fees to a lawyer), it is more likely he or she will spend less time on your case. For a free consultation, call now 619.583.0350 or send an email to Sam Spital, Managing Lawyer, with a few ranges of time for him to call back. You have nothing to lose, there is no hassle, you will come away with more insights and, therefore, believe there was and is “everything to gain.”

Are Firearms The Real Problem or People Who Abuse them?

With the escalating scourge of mass killings, we are obliged to examine both the underlying causes of and potential solutions to drastically reduce mass shootings, by those with depraved and evil minds, sociopaths, psychopaths, terrorists and barbarians who without any conscience (morals) whatsoever use military style assault weapons and/or stockpile and then utilize huge quantities of bullets and large quantities of ammunition magazines to murder innocent and unsuspecting individuals regardless of age, race, sex,  .

It is noteworthy, the subject of colossal shootings is complex and there are clearly two sides of the equation. Moreover, these concerns are not new; sadly and repeatedly have political overtones. Hence, it is hoped the reader of this blog will perform his/her own search on the internet to review state and federal firearms laws, exceptions, limitations and other issues, including actual statistics. We should be mindful that these are serious and horrific acts, yet we need to acknowledge there also are far more deaths that are due to other causes (such as deaths due to driving under the influence, but for the sake of this comment only and albeit an over simplification and generalization, but we do not outlaw or seriously limit the sale &/or consumption of alcohol).

Proponents of gun control claim we need stricter gun control laws. Opponents claim we already have strict regulations, and in those jurisdictions that have “gun-free zone” laws in which it is prohibited from having a firearm these locations have a far higher number of shootings.

First, it is noteworthy, that the Federal Gun Control Act, enacted in 1968, establishes a list of those (such as felons) who are prohibited from possessing, obtaining or receiving firearms and ammunition. In addition, there are many other restrictions as to the sale, use, possession, transfer, etc. of such weapons. Click the following link for the 247 page Federal Firearms Regulations: Federal Reference Guide

Second, California has one of the strictest gun control laws in the United States. Yet, the recent shootings in San Bernardino, a large metropolis in California, occurred even though assault weapons were used and are already against the law. Also, California has a huge number of restrictions, such as limiting large capacity magazines that hold a dozen or more bullets. Click the following Link for the California Firearms Laws summary: California Firearms Law

Is the solution to enact tougher gun laws? If so, why did the most recent shootings occur in three states (California, Colorado and Oregon) that already have very strict gun laws?

Some pundits argue the states that have the most lenient rules and regulations regarding firearms have the lowest number of mass shootings; perhaps, because terrorists look for sites where they will not face opposition by individuals that “carry” weapons. Maybe that is one of the reasons movie theaters and malls, shopping centers, schools, churches and social centers, etc. have been the place of choice and selected by such terrorists. These same pundits encourage individuals to arm them self to be able to defend and/or fight back; they note that police cannot be on every corner and the drive time to respond is too great to risk your death or anyone else in the interim. Some advocate we urge our legislators to pass emergency legislation to increase the number of police, sheriff and FBI, and give them the power they need to accomplish their job.

It is hoped this blog will open a further dialogue in the reoccurring debate that includes many who claim taking away &/or more severely limiting those law abiding individuals who desire to possess and/or carry firearms will not prohibit the lawless, who it seems inevitably find ways to obtain whatever weapons they desire, whether illegally or not. Choose the narrative you feel comfortable with, but be open to seeking a realistic solution that is based upon logic, reason, and, of course, our United States Constitution, and not political rhetoric. Contact your state and federal legislators to voice your opinion.

Appeals Court Upholds California Death Penalty

On November 12, 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the constitutionality of the California Death Penalty and in so doing reversed the ruling by the US District Court that decided under the 8th Amendment it was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment because of lengthy and unpredictable delays. The California Attorney General argued the delays were a result of the number and length of time involved in the legal maneuvers and appeal process that affords inmates their constitutional right to file appeals and writs of habeas corpus.

The history of the case is that in 2003, the California Supreme Court upheld the underlying conviction of the defendant/inmate on first-degree murder and rape charges.

In California since 1978, there have been approximately 900 defendants sentenced to death, with only 13 actual executions, and none in about ten years. Executions at San Quentin State Prison have been on hold since 2006 when a Federal Judge deemed there to be legal issues with the then current and past combined multi-drug lethal procedures. Since there is now a national shortage of single lethal drugs that too poses additional problems. In California, there are now about 750 inmates on death row (about 100 died while imprisoned due to other causes).

Long-term inmates move to county jails

Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to ease state prison overcrowding has created other problems.

Now, county jails that are not built to hold long-term prisoners are being forced to take felons with long sentences. Sheriffs say that these prisoners pose security threats and are more than the jails can handle.

Though it is good to think of solutions to overcrowding, it is irresponsible to send dangerous criminals to facilities that are not equipped to hold them.

California may begin using digital license plates

California may try a pilot program that would test digital license plates.

The effort would cut down on processing and shipping costs. The initial program would have up to 160,000 California drivers participating. The bill passed through the Assembly, 71-3, and will return to the Senate for a final vote.

While the program would certainly save money and perhaps streamline the process, there is also privacy to think of. Some groups have pointed out that digital plates may allow the government to track motorists.

 

Bill would allow multiple legal parents

A measure that would allow for a child to have more than two legal parents is headed to the governor’s office.

If passed, this would make California the fifth state to pass such a law. Delaware, Maine, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania already allow for more than two legal parents. The bill would mark a change in regards to the role of parenting in our culture but would likely be used rarely.

 

 

Escondido council gets rid of red-light cameras

The Escondido City Council voted unanimously to take out the red-light cameras in the city.

Even though their contract doesn’t end until December, the police chief said that he and his officers would immediately stop issuing tickets for red-light camera violations.

Escondido is hardly the first city to stop using red-light cameras. San Diego, El Cajon, and many other California cities recently stopped using them. As they grew more effective, cities began to lose money on them. The number of citations in Escondido has dwindled to the point where it doesn’t make sense to continue funding the program.

Instead, the city will take other measure to reduce collisions, including adding left turn lanes and synchronizing stoplights.

It is good that the city recognized the problem and addressed it so they won’t continue to lose money.

 

Officials warn about lottery scam

A new lottery scam that targets the elderly is offering millions but instead gives nothing.

A San Diego couple lost about $30,000 to the scheme, which used an official San Diego County seal on a letter, and a photocopy of a check for $2.5 million made out to the couple. The letter told them that to get the money, they first had to pay taxes on the prize, which they did, also revealing their bank account information and Social Security numbers to the scammers, who then took everything.

It is unfortunate that these scammers are trying to take advantage of the elderly and of veterans. This sad story is a good reminder to be very skeptical and not to send money and personal information to people without first ensuring that your information will be safe and that things are legitimate.

 

Judge approved request to force-feed inmates

A federal judge approved a request to force-feed California inmates if needed.

It is the seventh week of a statewide prison hunger strike. Since July 8, almost 70 prisoners have refused the prison-issued meals, and officials fear for their welfare. If prisoners have signed do-not-resuscitate requests, policy is to let them starve to death. However, Judge Thelton Henderson gave blanket authority to feed inmates whose health might be failing.

Is this a violation of inmates’ constitutional rights? On one hand, the hunger strike means that the prison will have to spend more time and resources on inmates whose health is failing, and resources at prisons are already stretched thin. But on the other, the prisoners have a right to strike, and given that they are imprisoned, the ways in which they can express their displeasure and make themselves heard are few.

COMMENTARY BY SAN SPITAL, SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE & PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY