Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Combat veterans from America's armed forces must deal with many challenges when they return home. Some have difficulties with depression, substance abuse, and criminal issues. A system of courts tailored to the needs of veterans has been growing around the country for several years, supported by judges and other officials who understand the unique concerns of veterans. The first such court started in Buffalo, New York in January 2008. Orange County started its own court soon afterwards. Nationwide, there are currently more than ninety courts serving veterans who meet certain criteria, namely a willingness to put in some work to get their lives on track.

Superior Court Judge Wendy Lindley started Orange County's court, the Combat Veterans Court, specifically for veterans of combat situations. According to the Los Angeles Times, she designed the court to take "war's psychic wounds" into account and provide treatments customized to each individual defendant. Most veterans courts follow the model established by drug courts around the country, which offer an opportunity for defendants to obtain rehabilitation services and addiction treatment in a supervised setting. Judge Lindley reportedly started Orange County's veterans court after a young veteran on her drug court docket who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder died from a drug overdose.

Participation in the court is voluntary for defendants. Any type of criminal offense except murder is eligible for inclusion. Only fifty defendants may participate in the court at any time, in order to ensure each one can receive individual attention. Defendants in Lindley's courts are reportedly called "participants" rather than "defendants."

Orange County's veterans court began with five participants. It is currently full. The program reportedly grew by forty-one percent between 2010 and 2011. If participants meet the judge's requirements to complete the program, their charges can be dropped. The judge's mantra is reportedly "no alcohol, no drugs, no bad friends." The program has twenty-one "graduates," none of whom have had any subsequent arrests.

One participant in the Orange County program shared his experience with reporters. He served in Iraq as a mortarman during the invasion in 2003, and he returned to the U.S. in 2005. Arrested multiple times on drug charges, he began Lindley's program with what is known as "Phase 1:" checking into an inpatient treatment facility. Phase 2 involved getting his own apartment and demonstrating financial independence and responsibility. He is now in Phase 3, "stabilization and mentoring." He should begin Phase 4, the final stage before graduation, this month.

All of the participants in Judge Lindley's court reportedly suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition that affects many veterans returning from overseas deployments. Many also face other war-related problems such as traumatic brain injuries.

Continue reading "Orange County's Combat Veterans Court Offers Treatment and Rehabilitation to Certain Defendants" »

After Orange County officially barred all registered sex offenders from entering county parks, county beaches, or other county recreation areas in April, district attorney Tony Rackauckas began to lobby the cities of Orange County to do the same. This process started a dialogue about whether toughening already tough laws is the best use of public resources, whether local governments can afford any further enforcement, and whether further enforcement is even necessary. Some registrants themselves have even stepped forward to speak out about treatment of registered sex offenders.

The Orange County Register recently offered an overview of California's different laws dealing with sex offenders, their critics, and their supporters. California has several laws that address registered sex offenders that passed in the wake of specific tragedies. These laws often bear the names of specific victims.

Megan's Law first passed in California in 1996 and requires that sex offender lists be available to the public. The law was amended in 2004 to make the information available online.

Jessica's Law, passed in California in 2006, prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. It also requires lifetime GPS supervision of people on the registry.

Chelsea's Law, which originated in California and became law in 2010, provides for enhanced sentencing for certain criminal offenses when children are involved.

Although these laws have broad popular support, they have a considerable number of critics with a wide array of valid criticisms. The state's own Sex Offender Management Board, the agency charged with "decreas[ing] sexual victimization and increas[ing] community safety," complains that the system has been created piece by piece and lacks coordination. Laws tend to get passed in the wake of public outrage, with little inclination or opportunity for debate about a law's merits.

Critics further charge that the laws often apply a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex set of problems. The Register describes several cases that are unintended consequences of overzealous legislation. The most infamous of these cases involve children forced to register for life as sex offenders because of "sexting," sending images of themselves in states of undress to each other via cell phone. These people, as well as many other people who end up on the registry, do not pose so great a threat to public safety that they require lifetime monitoring, yet they occupy the same registry as serial molesters.

Continue reading "Reconsidering California's Sex Offender Laws" »

One of Orange County's most notorious murder cases was back in the news last month, when Omaima Nelson, convicted of murdering her husband and then dismembering his body and eating parts of it, came up for parole. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the grisly murder, which led prosecutors at the time to compare her to the movie villain Hannibal Lecter. After a lengthy hearing in early October of this year, the parole board denied parole.

The Egyptian-born Nelson reportedly endured abuse as a child that she described as "unimaginable." She met William Nelson in 1991 and married him within weeks. After only three weeks of marriage, William Nelson died. The prosecutor from the original trial, Randolph J. Pawloski, recounted the crime scene, where police found plastic bags and suitcases soaked with blood, body parts in a fry cooker, and Mr. Nelson's head in the refrigerator. In addition to a charge of murder, prosecutors accused Nelson of eating parts of her husband's body.

Nelson claimed at her trial that her husband revealed a violent side after their wedding, and that she killed him in self-defense when he tried to strangle her after violently abusing and raping her. The prosecution disputed this, claiming that Nelson had a pattern of trading on her sexuality to obtain favors and support from numerous men. They further argued that her "con games" had grown more and more violent. A psychiatrist who testified at Nelson's trial said that she admitted to cooking and eating her husband after spending hours chopping up the body.

After six days of deliberations, the jury rejected Nelson's claim that she acted in self-defense after weeks of constant abuse. They convicted her of second-degree murder and sentenced her to 27 years to life in prison. An appellate court upheld her conviction in 2000. She has served her sentence at California Central Women's Prison.

Nelson had previously requested early release from prison in 2006, claiming she had become a born-again Christian and had remarried. Commissioners denied her request, saying they found her "unpredictable" and a continued threat to the public. Nelson requested early release again this year, which led to last month's hearing. She told parole officials that she was a "changed woman," and vehemently denied committing any acts of cannibalism. She expressed remorse over Mr. Nelson's death but maintained that she acted in self-defense, and said that she would return to Egypt to live with her family if released. Pawloski took the rare step of attending the hearing in person and offering testimony in opposition to her early release. Mr. Nelson's daughter also attended and testified against Nelson's parole. The two-person board again denied the request for early release.

Continue reading "Parole Denied Twenty Years after Gruesome Orange County Murder Case" »

The new Alabama immigration law potentially allows law enforcement to detain people without bond if they suspect their immigration status. A lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department and several immigrants' rights groups led to a partial block of the law by a federal appeals court today, but some troubling provisions remain in effect. While this law only applies in Alabama, it is part of a nationwide trend that could have an impact on California.

The law requires law enforcement, in the course of a "lawful" stop or arrest, to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect might be an undocumented immigrant. In effect, it allows law enforcement to require a person to prove their citizenship or lawful immigration status, and it allows them to hold the person until they can provide such proof. The law does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes reasonable suspicion of a person's immigration status.

Of great concern to criminal defense attorneys should be the ability of law enforcement to hold a person without bond based upon an officer's suspicion of something so vaguely defined. The notion that a person cannot be detained without probable cause to suspect criminal activity is a bedrock principle enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To make an arrest, a police officer must ordinarily have a warrant signed by a judge or "probable cause," which is a rather high standard of belief that a crime has been committed or that relevant evidence would be uncovered in a search or arrest. Once an arrest has been made, searches potentially become much easier since the person is in custody. This could lead to discovery of evidence in situations where police would not have otherwise had probable cause, all based on the ill-defined suspicion of immigration status.

Once a person is in custody, a bond must be set, which is the amount of money that must be put up in order to get the person out of jail. A magistrate or judge often sets this amount based on factors like the severity of the alleged crime and the likelihood that the person might try to leave the jurisdiction. A person could be released without bond if they are determined to be low risk, or held without bond if a judge finds the opposite. Key to this determination is the alleged offense. Alabama's law allows a person to be detained based on suspicion of immigration status, something that is not usually part of the criminal system, and not part of the state legal system at all.

Continue reading "New Alabama Immigration Law Could Allow Police to Hold People Without Bond" »

A core principle of the criminal justice system in America has long been the idea that, to be found guilty of a crime, a person must have awareness that they are doing something wrong. For fans of Latin, the idea is called mens rea, or "guilty mind," often phrased as "criminal intent." To convict someone of the most serious crimes, such as murder, prosecutors must prove that a person intended to commit the crime. For example, a murder conviction requires proof not only that the defendant killed someone, but that the defendant intended for the person to die. The less-severe crime of manslaughter involves a defendant who engaged in risky behavior, but did not specifically intend for the crime to happen. This is the difference between deliberately running someone over with a car and hitting someone accidentally while not watching the road. Both are crimes, but the intentional act is punished more severely under the law. The prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant's state of mind when the crime allegedly occurred, and therefore the defendant's "criminal intent."

This does not always imply that a person must know that their action is illegal. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as another legal principle goes. A person must nevertheless have awareness of their actions (or inaction, in the case of not watching the road) leading up to an alleged crime.

Trends in federal criminal law suggest that the requirement of mens rea is changing, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Increasingly, federal prosecutors are seeking convictions for offenses that may not even seem criminal at face value, with implications for people all over the country.

The federal criminal code, which is established by the U.S. Congress and applies nationwide, has grown from about twenty crimes in the 1790's to over 4,500 today, with thousands more scattered through federal regulations. Many of these crimes relate to administrative matters, financial transactions, non-violent offenses, or restrictions placed on people with criminal records. Many can carry surprisingly harsh penalties.

The Journal gives an example of an Iowa man with a criminal record who, while working a construction job, found a .22 caliber bullet on a work site. He put the bullet in a box at his house, where police found it during a search several months later. While state prosecutors did not charge him, federal prosecutors contended possession of a single bullet violated federal statutes prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons. He pleaded guilty to possessing a bullet and received a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. An appeals court affirmed the sentence but called it "extreme."

Continue reading "Growing List of Federal Crimes Leads to Lowering Standard of Proving Guilt" »

The State of Texas may begin deporting foreign citizens serving time in Texas prisons. After having received assurances from federal officials that foreign citizens will actually be sent back to their home countries and not released back onto Texas streets, parole officials took the first steps to deport some of the 11,000 foreign nationals.

Under a recent law, the Parole Board can now approve parole for foreign nationals on the condition they are sent back to their country of origin. A snag in the past has been, sometimes, federal authorities released prison inmates onto Texas streets without the State of Texas knowing. This has been solved, however, by assurances that if an inmate is not deported, he/she will be handed back over to prison authorities.

One of the reasons for this type of action is the savings in tax dollars. A paper, circulated by State Senator Eddie Lucio, indicated the State could save nearly $100 million annually if 5,000 foreign-born citizens are deported.

The country of destination for most of these criminals would be Mexico. Of the 11,000 foreigners in prison, 8,500 are from Mexico.

Many different ideas have been put forward in order to solve the rising alien population in American prisons. Ideas have ranged from private prisons in Mexico to islands in the Caribbean. One problem is some countries will not take back their citizens.

A problem which could surface in this new scheme is the parolees simply return to Texas once they are released and deported. No doubt many of the 8,500 Mexican nationals crossed the Texas U.S. Border more than once. If a person is released early to Mexico, what is to stop them from re-crossing the border? Further, once they are discovered in this country, they will just be jailed again.

Rather than focus on low-risk offenders, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on violent or dangerous long-term prisoners? We could enter into negotiations with Mexico to allow Mexican nationals to serve their time in Mexico. It would be much cheaper, plus there may be some deterrence as well. Although some funds may be saved by decreasing parole costs for low-risk offenders, more money can be saved by reducing the cost of incarcerating long-term, high-risk offenders.

In the wake of the Casey Anthony verdict, people are beginning to question the criminal justice system. Although this is nothing new, especially after heinous high-profile trials, their thought processes are. When I was a young attorney, I never heard average citizens use the vocabulary of the law and law enforcement. Many people now, however, appear to have an in-depth knowledge of DNA, the police investigation process and criminal prosecution.

I believe the answer to this is that most people have at least earned a "bachelor's degree" in television criminal law. An average 18-year-old has probably watched over 10,000 hours of television in their lifetime. By most estimates, crime-related shows account for over 25 percent of all programming. When you add in news shows, a majority of which relate to crime, the percentage may be a third.

The media plays a very important role in how the criminal justice system is viewed by the average citizen. It is important to remember, however, that the media is a product placement medium. Although there are a number of in-depth, thought provoking discussions, these are in the minority. The television crime curriculum that most people are subjected to include those shows which focus on the lurid, the perverse and the sexually provocative.

While crime takes up a lion's share of television programming, it is not a true gauge of the amount of crime that actually exists in society. Most people probably cannot recall having actually seen a crime, notwithstanding their own speeding violations, in quite some time. If an alien from another world viewed our television shows for 10 years before coming to our planet, what do you think he would expect? Would it be true? -No.

Perhaps what is the most important feature of all these "crime" shows is the realism. After "Cops" appeared on television, people were shown the so-called nuts and bolts of police work. This involved investigations, pursuits and the like. Never were the officers shown going over the line or violating suspects' rights. However, often times, when a police officer goes over the line and violates a suspect's rights - always a guilty person and never an innocent one - the officer is cheered because he/she is not allowing some technicality, such as the Constitution, stand in the way of a "good bust".

This brings me to the main point of this blog. A little knowledge can be dangerous. A perfect example of this comes from law school. Students were tested on their reasoning powers twice during the first year. The first test was in the beginning and the second was at the end of the year. Invariably, the result of the second test was lower than the first. Students actually scored lower after being exposed to some law. Although students scored much higher the third time tested, after the second year, this result clearly shows that a little knowledge can be dangerous...and with the media, this is the only knowledge you get.

As previously discussed, a Florida jury acquitted Casey Anthony in the 2008 death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. After a trial of over one month, it took the jury less than 12 hours to find her not guilty of first degree murder; not guilty of aggravated child abuse; and not guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child. Anthony was found guilty of four counts of giving authorities false information. She faces up to four years in jail but has about three years credit.

As I indicated in an earlier blog, there were bound to be extreme emotions regardless of the outcome. From the beginning, the media has made this case their own. All of the elements for a national media circus were present: Beautiful child missing, unsympathetic mother, damning circumstantial evidence and three years to show it. People began to invest themselves in this case like no other case since O.J. Simpson. Most people weren't looking for the truth; they were looking for something to bolster their first impressions.

Casey Anthony surely did not do herself any favors with her odd behavior, including numerous lies regarding the child's whereabouts and her carefree party lifestyle. Given the situation, many people saw these as the actions of a criminal, or even a lunatic. It is important to realize, however, most of us don't really know how we would act under such circumstances and, those of us who do, cannot know how others would act.

Before any of Casey Anthony's odd behavior is reviewed, though, it is necessary to first find out what happen. That is, before you can find a murderer, you must first find a murder. Perhaps this is what the jury had difficulty with. The remains of the unfortunate child did not produce the type of evidence the District Attorney would liked to have had.

An impartial jury was subjected to a very emotional and unique case. Based upon all of the evidence I have seen, they performed their duty admirably. A jury verdict is not a popularity contest. Do not be too hard on this jury because, maybe someday, you may need an impartial jury to decide the fate of a loved one. If that happens, you will pray the jury is influenced by the facts instead of emotions.

In a case which made the national headlines, the Casey Anthony murder trial has resulted in not guilty verdicts on all counts except those related to providing false statements to law enforcement. Casey Anthony was prosecuted for first degree murder in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. She was facing life in prison or even the death penalty.

The prosecution sought to prove Casey killed her daughter intentionally because the child put a crimp in her partying lifestyle. The defense countered the child accidentally drowned in the swimming pool. The defense also attributed Casey's erratic behavior and apparent lies to the grief over the loss of her child as well as sexual abuse sustained as a child.

This case was unique in the way Casey acted after the child's disappearance. She apparently partied as well as made numerous false and contradictory statements regarding the child's location. Further, two people who she claimed were with Caylee were proven to never have existed.

The problem with following a case like this is most of the evidence is reduced to a mere sound bite. The trial lasted over 30 days and involved many witnesses. The closing arguments alone were almost two days long. These jurors had to review and process a great deal of evidence before being sent out to deliberate. Since most people do not have 30 days to spend listening to testimony and taking notes, they look to television for guidance. This may not always be the best decision. Television is an entertainment medium. No parent in their right mind would place their five year old in front of it and expect him/her to get a balanced education.

Without seeing and hearing the complete testimony of all witnesses, a person loses a valuable tool in judgment regardless of the outcome. Many people are unhappy with the verdict. It is always important to remember, however, the jury is usually in a much better position to make a decision.

New Jersey teen Khaliah Fitchette was riding a public bus when police boarded with the intent to remove a drunken man. When Fichette began filming the incident with her cell phone, one of the officers told her to turn off the phone. When she refused, she was placed in handcuffs, removed from the bus and placed in a patrol car for 2 hours while police officers deleted images from her phone. The young girl's family, with the help of the ACLU, has filed a lawsuit against the Newark Police Department.

This is not an isolated incident. Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle when he was pulled over. The officer who pulled Mr. Graber over was an off-duty officer in an unmarked vehicle. Without first identifying himself as a police officer, the individual drew his firearm and ordered Graber off his motorcycle. Only after the above did he identify himself as state police. Mr. Graber recorded the incident through his helmet camera and posted it to UTube when he got home. Subsequently, Mr. Graber was charged with violating the state's wiretapping statute. Charges were eventually dismissed.

A person might ask what does a police officer have to be afraid of if he is performing his duties as he should be in public? The Fraternal Order of Police seems to think that since police officers move quickly, they don't give a lot of thought as to what the adverse consequences to them might be. Further, anything that is going to have an chilling effect on a peace officer moving, such as apprehension he/she is being taped, could cost the officer or some citizen their life or physical well-being.

The Fraternal Order has pushed for laws which would imprison people taping police officers. Cities like Chicago have made it felony to tape a police officer.

Videotape is an important way to preserve evidence. Police use it against citizens all the time. It is pretty obvious why some officers don't like being recorded. They do not want anyone to see what they are doing. Without video, most police misconduct cases would likely be thrown out. If it is just a citizen's word against a police officer's word, the police officer will almost always prevail, without some additional evidence such as video.

What would the citizens of Los Angeles have thought after the Rodney King video was published if the LAPD began to push for the criminalization of anyone videotaping a police officer? Citizens would have viewed such an effort as an abomination meant only to shield wrongdoing by police.

Police should be thankful they are being videotaped. This way there will be no false claims of police misconduct. An officer, when he begins every shift, will know he must act appropriately. By always behaving as if he/she is on video, incidents of police misconduct will be fewer.

A judge has recommended New Jersey State Trooper Sheila McKaig receive a 7 month suspension because she was stopped three times while driving after drinking.

It was reported all three stops occurred within a 3 month period. Although peace officers suspected Trooper McKaig had been driving under the influence, she was never tested, arrested or even issued a citation. Rather, after one incident, Trooper McKaig was transported to the police station and subsequently given a ride home by an officer from her department. No disciplinary action was originally instituted.

The present action only started when a letter alleging a cover-up began circulating at headquarters. Apparently, the way the situation was handled is under investigation.

This story is not really about an officer who used poor judgment and drove three times when she may have been under the influence. This story is about the fair and impartial application of the law. It is not difficult for people to see the hypocrisy of this situation. Police officers aggressively enforce DUI laws, except when it applies to them. There is no question, had a regular citizen been stopped under these circumstances, he/she would have been arrested. This is the old "Do as I say, not as I do." It must be comforting for some peace officers to know they will not be subject to the justice they dish out to others.

It is important the characters of our peace officers be beyond reproach. Their first commitment must be to justice. Favoritism has no place in our judicial system. The officers who overlooked Trooper McKaig's transgressions should have been immediately punished. Their actions placed Trooper McKaig as well as the public in danger and damaged the character of their department.

On Sunday, all of television was abuzz with the news Osama Bin Laden had been "put down" in Pakistan. His crimes against America and the World were beyond description.

It is important for us to get a good look at what pure evil really is. We live in the greatest country on Earth, where the rule of law prevails. This country is the envy of the world. We in America do not have to face, on a daily basis, the type of instability and terror that is the lot of many third world nations.

Because we are shielded from lunatics like Bin Laden, I think we sometimes lose our perspective. As a criminal defense attorney in Orange County, California, I represent people on everything from DUI to domestic violence. When I read the paper or speak to regular citizens, I am surprised by the venom directed against the criminal defendant. It is important to understand the vast majority of people caught up in the criminal justice system, I would say 95%, are average Americans like you and me who have made mistakes. These are not evil people out to destroy our way of life. They are our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and friends.

We should show those citizens caught up in the criminal justice system forgiveness and understanding. It is easy to point fingers at the monsters that make the headlines everyday and say we are engaged in a war on crime. However, it is important to remember the vast majority of our fellow citizens are deserving of our Christian charity. Who among us could not say: There but for the grace of God go I?

One area of the law least understood by people is Search and Seizure. Although most people are familiar with the term, very few really understand what it means.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The California Constitution has nearly the same language [California Constitution, Article I, Section 13] but it is the Federal Constitution which shapes the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule basically excludes evidence which was seized by illegal searches. This is essentially the "teeth" of Search and Seizure. If evidence is seized illegally, it is excluded from evidence. Many people believe this is too harsh of a rule. They do not understand, however, the only way to ensure police follow the law, and do not violate a person's right against Search and Seizure, is to throw out that evidence which was acquired via illegal conduct.

The issues first presented under the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule are 1) Was there a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment? 2) Was it unlawful? and 3) Does the exclusionary rule apply?

A search and seizure could be a government intrusion where a seizure is an interference with a person's possessory interest in property.

With regard to the exclusionary rule, the courts have come up with a number of exceptions. One of them is the Good Faith exception. This exception is present because the courts felt the service of an invalid search warrant by an officer with a good faith, although mistaken, belief in its legality should not be subject to the exclusionary rule as there is no real need for a deterrent to illegal conduct.

This brief discussion is only the beginning of understanding Search and Seizure. Further chapters will follow.

An incident which occurred in Boston raises an issue about an important aspect of criminal law, namely bail. A man, while allegedly driving under the influence, was involved in at least three accidents before finally striking a pole and demolishing his car. At least two individuals were transported to the hospital with injuries. After the defendant was arraigned, he was held without bail. The defendant is scheduled to return on his next court date for a dangerousness hearing.

Although Massachusetts undoubtedly has different rules for bail, a brief overview of California bail is helpful. Before a person is convicted, bail is a matter of right unless the offense can be punished by death or there is a public safety exception established. Found in California Constitution Article I, Section 12, the public safety exception allows preventative detentions. However, this only applies to certain types of felonies listed in Penal Code Section 292.

In the Orange County Superior Court, judges are responsible for setting up a countywide schedule of bail for felony offenses, misdemeanors and infractions which are not Vehicle Code infractions. When the parties appear in court, the prosecutor or defense attorney may then argue for a departure from the schedule. Mitigation or aggravation may move the bail amount up or down. Once a bail is posted, it stays until it is forfeited. California Constitution Article I, Section 12c prohibits excessive bail, however, courts have wide discretion.

There are many people who believe once a person is arrested, he or she should not be entitled to bail. In all but a few crimes, however, bail is a right. Once a person posts bail, it assumes a person will return to court. If people were not allowed to post bail, criminal cases would be forced through the system at a much more rapid pace and this would overload the system to a breaking point. Bails serves a valid purpose for the courts as well as defendants.

California Vehicle Code [C.V.C.] Section 2800:

Deletes: 1. A uniformed peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with §830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when a peace officer or authorized employee is performing duties pursuant to any provision of this code and the out-of-service order complies with §395.13 or 396.9 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 2. it is unlawful to fail or refuse to comply with a lawful out-of-service order issued by a peace officer or commercial vehicle inspector, of any state, any province of Canada or the federal government of the United States, Canada or Mexico, when that peace officer or commercial vehicle inspector is in uniform and is performing duties under any provisions of state, provincial, federal or Mexican law and the out-of-service order complies with;

Adds: 1. an authorized enforcement officer described in subdivision (d), (d) 2. out-of service "order" means a declaration by an authorized enforcement officer of a federal, state, Canadian, Mexican or local jurisdiction that a driver, a commercial motor vehicle or a motor carrier operation is out-of-service pursuant to §386.72, §392.5 or §392.9a of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, state law or the North American standard out-of-service criteria.

Purpose: To clarify out-of-service orders.