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.

Sex offenders, criminals allowed to be counselors

The lax credentialing system in California has allowed convicted sex offenders and people with substance abuse problems to work with clients.

California is one of only two states that does not require background check on people who are registering to become substance-abuse counselors. No criminal background check is run, and in fact applicants are never asked to disclose any past trouble with the law.

An investigation run by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes revealed that, since 2005, there are 23 sex offenders who have been registered or certified to work as substance-abuse counselors.

 

CA Judge Considers Sex Offenders on Social Media (Sam Spital)

Commentary by San Diego Sex Crimes Defense & Criminal Attorney Sam Spital:

“On Monday, December 17, 2012, KNBC Channel 7 online edition contained a story regarding a hearing before the United States District Court and the validity of a recent 81% voter-approved initiative commonly referred to as Proposition 35 requiring registered sex offenders (RSO’s) to give authorities a list of their Internet providers and screen names. Currently there are about 73,000 RSO’s in the California Registry, and many of their convictions had nothing to do with using the internet.

The ACLU sued and contended the provision violates equal protection, due process and free speech of sex offenders pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Thereafter, the Federal District Court Judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of that portion of the new law. Now, the Federal Court will decide the nature and scope of free speech rights of such defendants, and whether registered sex offenders must reveal their online information such as email addresses, usernames, social media passwords and their Internet service providers to law-enforcement officials is lawful. The District Court case does not impact the increased sentences (longer prison terms) for convictions of human trafficking, nor that these convicted defendants must register as sex offenders.

The position of the Attorney General of the State of California is that law enforcement needs this information to investigate sex crimes and prevent them before they take place, also claiming this information is not a public record. However, this is a slippery slope in that the next thing the government will seek is to monitor everything we view online, including the books we purchase and read.”

 

Sex offenders remain free after violations – Nearly 500 avoid re-incarceration, prison department calls it ‘a small number’ (Sam Spital)

COMMENTARY BY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAM SPITAL:

“The article published in the UT San Diego news on November 6, 2012 described the potentially unintended result of the October, 2011 legislation that authorized a transfer of inmates from California State Prisons to local County Jails. Thereafter, many were released, later violated the law but were not placed in custody. In particular, nearly 500 sex offenders were arrested, but were not jailed because of the lack of space in local facilities.

This is an extremely serious problem since the band aid approach to incarceration has raised huge concerns for the public safety. The reporter noted an example of one registered sex offender who violated parole, yet was not send back to prison before he killed two teenagers in San Diego. The conundrum facing the judicial system is trying to evaluate inmates for parole or probation and discern which ones represent the least risk of recidivism, as it is hoped our penal system helps them rehabilitate to become productive citizens in society. The challenge is to balance the desire to provide a ‘second chance’ with those examples of inmates that cannot be trusted and become repeat offenders.”

SAM SPITAL, Criminal Defense Lawyer

 

Sex predator released from supervision (Sam Spital)

“On October 2, 2012, in a UT San Diego News article, a Defendant who pled guilty to and was convicted of child molestation in 1989 was reported to have been released from further custody after two psychological evaluations opined he was unlikely to engage in violent sexual criminal behavior. This followed a recent hearing in which the Superior Court Judge ruled that Matthew Hedge did not pose a danger to others even though classified during the intervening two decades as a sexually violent predator. He is still required to register with law enforcement as a sex offender (RSO).

Previously sentenced to Atascadero State Hospital, the defendant voluntarily participated in a lengthy sex offender treatment program. During the past seven years while in the State Department of Health program, there were several rule breaking incidents, including at least one arrest, but none were charged as any new crime. In 2005, he became the first sexually violent predator to be released in San Diego under the California’s conditional release program, where he was ordered to live in a trailer adjacent to the Donovan Correctional Facility. He was under heavy supervision and a GPS monitor on his ankle.

The above scenario clearly has caused anger and outrage by many; others have been proponents of the use of alternative means to handle sex offender cases, and some of whom cite the huge cost of this type of confinement in our penal system, which is claimed to be over $150,000 a year.”

SAM SPITAL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER

 

 

Megan’s Law – Summary of California Law On Sex Offender

“The Medical Board of California on September 20, 2012, reported its investigation of a physician who practices OB-GYN in two neighboring communities in Los Angeles, the community of Northridge and Van Nuys, who was arrested on two felony counts of Sexual Penetration with a Foreign Object-Unconscious, a violation of California Penal Code section 289 (d).This section is used by the prosecution in cases in which the victim is unaware, did not know or perceive, or was not cognizant of the criminal act. A conviction of this offense requires the defendant to register with the Police or Sheriff as a sex offender for life pursuant to PC 290, as well as to provide specimens and samples. No other information or facts were disclosed. For Online Registration under Megan’s Law, see: http://meganslaw.ca.gov/registration/law.htm

If the facts disclose sufficient evidence of other illegal acts, it is still possible the prosecution may file additional charges, such as a violation of Business & Professions Code 729, which is sexual exploitation of a patient; as well as or in the alternative, a violation of Penal Code section 243.4 (c), which is Sexual Battery for a Professional Purpose. The latter is commonly charged when a doctor touches a patient without consent for his own sexual arousal &/or gratification and the contact was under the pretense it was for a professional purpose.

One needs to be mindful that a suspect who has been arrested is innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, a perusal of the internet revealed the physician has been licensed since 1998, graduated from USC School of Medicine, is Board Certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology; is affiliated with eight hospitals; is fluent in English, Farsi, Persian and Spanish; has had no prior Medical Board or hospital disciplinary action; and there are no reportable malpractice settlements or judgments.”

SAM SPITAL, CRIMINAL LAWYER