Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Homeless Outreach Court, a "collaborative court" run by Orange County Superior Court Judge Wendy S. Lindley, offers resources and services to homeless people who find themselves in criminal trouble as an alternative to jail or traditional probation. Lindley, who also runs the Combat Veterans' Court in Orange County, dismisses tickets and citations if defendants can complete a series of services and perform community service. Orange County has anywhere from five thousand to eight thousand homeless people living on the streets every night, according to the Orange County Register. The Homeless Outreach Court, with an active load of about nine hundred cases, offers a good service but still barely scratches the surface of the problem. It also relies on the continued criminalization of, essentially, the fact of being homeless, even if the intent is to get help for people.

The most common alleged offense that lands people in Homeless Outreach Court is "camping," a low-level misdemeanor offense that simply consists of sleeping in a public place. The OC Register article looks at the Santa Ana Civic Center, long a gathering place for homeless people after dark. Police have increased their patrols of the facility in recent months, and the number of tickets issued for illegal camping has increased as well. One ticket carries a maximum penalty of $500, which few people would have the resources to pay. Further offenses could lead to jail time.

Advocates for the homeless population in Orange County note the absurdity of ticketing a person for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. The Homeless Outreach Court, they argue, gives people an opportunity to access resources that can help get them on their feet. In order to be accepted into the program, a defendant must demonstrate a "willingness to change," such as to find a job and get off the streets, as well as to avoid drugs and alcohol. A public defender quoted by the OC Register calls the court "an incredibly intelligent way to deal with a very complex problem."

At least thirty percent of the defendants in Lindley's court are military veterans. A significant number of participants suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and other conditions. The court clearly offers a way for them to obtain help that they might not have otherwise had, but it seems unfortunate that criminal laws are viewed as the best way to get people into a position where help is available. No evidence seems to exist indicating that "camping" homeless people pose any great threat to the public.

Continue reading "Homeless Outreach Court in Orange County Tries to Divert Homeless Defendants Out of the Criminal Justice System" »

A feature of the popular social media site Facebook that was intended to help users find their friends online has served a different purpose for a Seattle man. After Facebook's automated feature suggested that Alan L. O'Neill's wife become friends with a woman who turned out to also be married to O'Neill, prosecutors charged O'Neill with bigamy. Bigamy is a little-discussed feature of the Penal Code, as it is rarely ever prosecuted. It is still considered a criminal act, though, and every so often someone gets charged.

O'Neill married his first wife in 2001, when his name was Alan Fulk. In 2009, they separated, but never divorced. O'Neill petitioned to change his name in December 2011. Later that month, he married again. He has worked as a corrections officer for Pierce County, Washington, for about five years.

At some point after the second wedding, O'Neill's first wife received a notification on Facebook recommending the second wife as someone she might know, reportedly based on their mutual connection to O'Neill. According to news reports, the two women had met before. The first wife was reportedly arrested in 2010 in connection with an altercation with the future second wife. When the first wife clicked on the second wife's profile, she apparently found pictures of the two of them with a wedding cake.

At this point, wife number one contacted O'Neill's mother, who reportedly told O'Neill. According to the first wife, O'Neill told her that they were in fact still married, but that he would "fix it." He asked the first wife not to tell anyone. Instead, she notified authorities, using copies of various official documents to demonstrate their marriage.

Prosecutors charged O'Neill with bigamy. The information filed against him states that, on or about December 19, 2011, he married someone while he still had a living spouse. His employer put him on administrative leave while the criminal case is pending. He could spend up to a year in jail if convicted.

Washington's bigamy statute defines the offense as intentionally marrying or purporting to marry someone when either person still has a living spouse. The statute therefore does not distinguish between a married person marrying someone else and an unmarried person marrying a married person. It does allow a defense if the defendant had a reasonable belief that they could legally enter into a new marriage, either because they believed their prior spouse to be deceased or the prior marriage to be dissolved.

Continue reading "Corrections Officer Convicted of Bigamy After One Wife Finds the Other on Facebook" »

A man robbed a TD Bank location in Titusville, Florida at about 12:30 p.m. on Sunday, January 29, 2012. Wearing a wig and sunglasses, he reportedly went up to a teller and passed a note that said "give me the money." He also gave the teller a bag, who filled it with $1,200 and a GPS tracking device. Witnesses reported that they did not see a weapon, and no one was injured. The man fled the scene, police said, in a custom-wheeled gold or silver SUV. Law enforcement enlisted the assistance of the public in identifying the robber. The subsequent course of events has been unusual.

Police arrested Johnny Lee Bell, a 43 year-old Orlando resident, on February 8 on warrants for grand theft and robbery. A search of his home reportedly turned up what police believe was his disguise worn during the robbery, as well as the getaway vehicle.

While holding Bell on $150,000 bond, Titusville police identified Bell's wife, Sharon Reynolds-Bell, as the likely accomplice who drove the SUV in which he left the bank. Reynolds-Bell works as a school bus dispatcher for the Orange County School District in Titusville. Police requested further assistance from the public on February 11, specifically identifying Reynolds-Bell as a suspect and asking anyone with information about the case to come forward. They arrested Reynolds-Bell for robbery but have not filed formal charges against her yet.

According to Orlando's WFTV news, "court records" show that Reynolds-Bell dropped Bell off at the bank, and that she waited for him while he robbed the bank and drove away with him when he came back out. WFTV also cites "court records" that say Reynolds-Bell admitted to participating in the robbery, although it is not clear when or to whom she made this admission.

Although Reynolds-Bell does not face a formal criminal charge in the robbery, she has entered a plea of not guilty. Her attorney maintains that she was not involved in any robbery and that police and prosecutors have been "overzealous" with the case.

Continue reading "School Bus Dispatcher Suspected as Bank Robbery Getaway Driver" »

A recent lawsuit has put the story of Douglas Perlitz back in the news. Perlitz operated a school in Cap-Haitien, Haiti for more than a decade before he was accused of abusing boys in his care. Twenty-one Haitian men claiming to be victims of Perlitz's abuse have filed federal lawsuits in recent months against Perlitz and others seeking damages. The government prosecuted Perlitz under a federal statute dealing with child trafficking. Although the most explicitly criminal conduct occurred in Haiti, federal law allows prosecution in the United States, demonstrating that U.S. criminal jurisdiction can have a very long reach.

Perlitz founded Project Pierre Toussant (PPT) in Cap-Haitien, Haiti's second-largest city, in 1997 as a program to help street children. PPT provided shelter, food, and basic education for children living on the streets. Perlitz raised millions of dollars through grants and donations, and PPT grew to occupy a 10-acre compund with a school, dormitories, and a soccer field.

Allegations of abuse began to appear in 2007, when several boys spoke to teachers and other adults in and around PPT. According to CNN, no one believed them for some time, citing all the good Perlitz had done for the community. One donor and a journalist interviewed by CNN tried to get PPT employees to act, but had little success. Eventually, an American volunteer at PPT conveyed accusations of abuse of younger boys by older ones, and this brought the matter to the attention of U.S. authorities.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took on the case in 2009. After an investigation, they arrested Perlitz in September of that year. A federal grand jury in Connecticut indicted him on ten counts related to the alleged abuse. Seven counts involved traveling outside of the U.S. for the purpose of having sex with minors, and three involved sexual conduct with minors abroad. Perlitz pleaded guilty to one "traveling outside the U.S." count in August 2010. In December 2010, a judge sentenced him to just under twenty years in prison.

The federal government has prohibited transporting minors across state lines for sexual purposes since 1910, when Congress passed the Mann Act. It originally applied primarily to transportation across state lines within the U.S. In an effort to fight international sex trafficking, Congress passed the PROTECT Act in 2003, which amended the existing law to include activities conducted on foreign soil.

Continue reading "American Man Convicted for Sexual Abuse Occurring in Haiti" »

The city of East Orange, New Jersey has announced a new crime-fighting initiative that sounds like something out of a science fiction movie. Modeling its system on the closed-circuit camera system used in much of Great Britain, the city announced plans last month to install surveillance cameras that it hopes will prevent crimes from occurring at all.

A network of cameras throughout the city will monitor activity on the streets. People running the system at police headquarters will look for activity deemed suspicious. The New Jersey Star-Ledger mentions behavior such as lurking near parked cars or meeting discreetly in groups. These could be indicators, respectively, of attempted car theft and a drug deal. A spotlight will shine on the suspects. If they run, operators can activate sequential lights to follow them. The surveillance cameras record all of this.

East Orange has a network of sixty-two surveillance cameras already. The city will integrate the new technology into this system, although it has not determined how many units it will need, or where to locate them. Each unit will cost the city $7,200. The cost will come from forfeiture funds, according to city officials.

A comparable system exists in London. In addition to cameras and spotlights, a system of loudspeakers there allows operators to directly tell suspects that they are under surveillance and to cease whatever they are doing. Police reportedly use it frequently to scold people in the act of littering.

East Orange's crime rate has dropped precipitously over the past decade. Since 2003, the crime rate has fallen by seventy-seven percent. An eleven percent drop occurred in a single year between 2010 and 2011. Police in East Orange believe it is the first city in the state to adopt this "cutting edge technology."

Elsewhere in the state, another city has decided not to expand a somewhat similar high-tech crime-fighting system beyond its current extent. The Trenton City Council voted in late January to reject a proposed expansion of the ShotSpotter system, which has placed "gunshot sensors" in various locations over a one-square-mile area of the city. The system is designed to detect the sound of a gunshot and immediately provide the location to law enforcement. The system reportedly failed to detect a shooting that occurred on Christmas Day 2011, resulting in a man lying dead on the sidewalk for several hours.

Continue reading "City Plans to Use Cameras and Spotlights to Deter Crime" »

A fundamental principle of our legal system is that everyone is entitled to due process of law, no matter how bizarre or unsettling their alleged offense may be. California criminal defense lawyers, after practicing long enough, see cases that range from the critically serious to the laughably strange. As we enter a new year, it is worth taking a moment to look at the more unusual side of criminal law, and the editors of the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch have helped us by publishing their review of Orange County's strangest "minor crimes of 2011." Several common themes emerge from their list, broadly summarized as public nudity, strange threats, unusual sights, and unfortunate bathroom behavior (a topic perhaps best left alone).

Laws relating to public nudity vary from place to place in California. Generally speaking, a person does not get into serious criminal trouble unless and until their conduct causes a public disruption or nuisance, but California law treats "indecent exposure" as a misdemeanor, defined as public exposure of one's "private parts" when other people who might be "offended or annoyed" are present. Punishment could be as much as a year in prison for a first offense, depending on the circumstances. Notable cases of 2011 included a report of a San Clemente couple taking nude pictures of one another in public, and a nude middle-aged man in San Juan Capistrano watching traffic in a shopping center parking lot. The winner, however, is clearly the report of a naked man driving a Toyota Corolla up and down the street in Aliso Viejo, repeatedly turning the dome light on and off.

Making a threat to harm another person, even a very strange threat, is considered a crime if it puts the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. For the woman in Laguna Niguel who found fish heads on her porch, a quick internet search convinced her that it was a death threat. Her fear of imminent harm was alleviated when she learned that the fish heads were intended to go to a different porch, and eventually into a soup. A woman in Mission Viejo found her house bombarded with oranges one night, followed by grapefruit the next, in an attack the Patch editors thought might be a message about her vitamin C intake.

Continue reading "Strange Crimes of Orange County: 2011 in Review" »

A former CIA contractor faces charges for assault in Colorado following a fight with another man over a parking space outside of a bagel shop. The man had been in the news earlier this year for a shooting incident in Pakistan. On the morning of Saturday, October 1, the alleged assailant got into an argument with another customer over who had the right to a particular parking space. The alleged assailant admits that he hit the victim first, but he also claims that the victim hit him at least five times. He was arrested and charged with third-degree assault.

The victim suffered multiple injuries, including a fractured vertebra, adhesions and contusions, and head injuries. When the alleged assailant was arraigned in court on Tuesday, October 4, the victim appeared bearing a large U-shaped wound on his forehead. Upon learning of the victim's broken back, authorities changed the charges from third-degree to second-degree assault.

Third-degree assault is a misdemeanor under Colorado law. The statute defines it, in part, as knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to someone, or negligently causing injury to someone with a deadly weapon. Second-degree assault, meanwhile, is a felony. Its definition includes intent to cause bodily injury to someone, and then causing such injury to a person with a deadly weapon. If no weapon is involved, the statute states that the bodily injury must be "serious." Note that the injury does not need to be to the person the accused intended to injure. The statute also defines second-degree assault as recklessly causing injury to someone using a deadly weapon.

The two key distinctions between the two levels of assault are the severity of the injuries and the mental state of the accused. None of the reporting on the incident indicates that anyone used a weapon, although reports note that the victim had a distinct wound on his forehead. The elevation of the charge by police hinges on further news of the victim's injuries, which went from "bodily injury" to "serious bodily injury" with news of the spinal injury. In this sense, the charge faced by the alleged assailant is based on the harm he caused, not on what he was thinking or feeling at the time. The exact same conduct could lead to different charges depending on how badly someone is injured.

Continue reading "Former CIA Contractor Charged with Assault for Fight, Spinal Fracture" »

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" »

A new Arizona law which takes away a defendant's right to a jury trial for first time DUI offenses is now in effect. A last minute effort by an Arizona attorney to put the question before the voters in 2012 failed because there were an insufficient number of signatures on the petition to get it on the ballot. Attorney Clifford Girard said the effort to put the issue on the ballot failed because volunteers were not able to gather enough signatures.

Senator Linda Gray, who pushed the new law through the legislature, said there is no need for the expense of a jury trial in such a minor crime. Arizona law only allows a trial by jury for crimes carrying a penalty of more than 6 months in jail.

It is hard to imagine anyone these days calling a DUI, even a first offense, a minor crime. Citizens are constantly bombarded with stories of DUI arrests, convictions and recidivism. It is the only misdemeanor crime I am aware of that allows peace officers to set up checkpoints. First offense DUIs generally carry high fines, probation, alcohol school as well as ignition interlock device installations in some jurisdictions, including Arizona. This doesn't even include the cost of increased insurance, suspended driver licenses, etc. Further, there is a group, MADD, dedicated solely to the prosecution of these types of cases.

If a defense attorney were to go on the air and proclaim first offense DUI cases are minor crimes, he would probably be hanged for being ignorant and uncaring.

As a criminal defense attorney, I am always shocked by the argument that incarcerations of less than six months should not require a trial by jury. Although a number of jurisdictions besides Arizona are considering this law, I have yet to find one person who believes 6 months in jail is a minor penalty.

The defendant in a DUI case starts off at a disadvantage because of the constant media sensationalism associated with this misdemeanor crime. It is difficult to think of a crime, short of some sexual offenses and murder, which produces such a negative opinion in the public at large. By doing away with jury trials for first time DUIs, the State is further interfering with its citizens' rights to adequately defend themselves.

Many people probably think every type of search and seizure issue has been addressed. This is not so. Search and seizure is an ever-growing and expanding realm of criminal law.

It is important for the criminal defense attorney to constantly be abreast of new developments. Here at the Law Office of Barney B. Gibbs, we continuously review the updates from court. In addition, since I appear in court every day and speak to judges, prosecutors as well as other defense counsel, I am often aware of an important case before it arrives.

The following is a collection of new cases in the area of search and seizure:

People v. Rivera (2007) 41 Cal.4th 304 is consistent with prior cases which allow the police to begin a consensual encounter with no suspicion of criminal activity. Many people have trouble accepting the fact that the police can just come up to you and start a dialog. They can, but you do not have to talk to them.

U.S. v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194 states when police agents ask passengers of a bus if they can search their luggage, the passengers do not have to be told they can refuse.

A common thread through all of these consensual encounter types of cases is that a consensual encounter is the lowest form of intrusion into personal liberty. The courts have generally held a person can simply leave. Although there is solid legal precedent for this holding, the reality is different. It is easy for a Supreme Court Justice to say there is no restraint and you can "just walk away." It is a completely different thing, however, for a young person being approached by a much older adult who is dressed in a uniform, wearing a badge and carrying a gun.

We are all taught to submit to the authority of the police. We know they possess legal powers significantly greater than our own and, although this type of submission is not wrong (and, in fact, is required in a civilized society), it does uniquely place the police in a position of extreme power. The phrase "Can I talk to you?" can be spoken in a number of ways. It can be spoken as a request as well as an order.

The next issue is when does the consensual encounter become a detention? Usually this requires some objectively reasonable belief to suspect the detainee is engaged in some type of criminal conduct. The next step up from a consensual encounter could be a temporary detention.

Our next article will address updates in the law regarding temporary detentions.

Three construction supervisors were acquitted of manslaughter and other related charges stemming from a fire at the Deutsche Bank Building. The Deutsche Bank Building had been damaged in the 9/11 attack and was vacant. A blaze in 2007 resulted in the death of two firemen, Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino.

At issue was the removal of a 40 foot section of standpipe in the basement in 2006. The prosecution alleged the missing section of standpipe hindered firemen from getting water on the blaze and this resulted in the death of the firemen. The prosecutors also alleged the defendants ignored the removal of the standpipe to help their company's bottom line.

Although Mitchell Alvo, Salvatore DePaola and Jeffrey Melofchik were acquitted in two separate trials, State Supreme Court Justice Rena Uviller found one of the subcontractors, The John Galt Corporation, guilty of a charge of reckless endangerment.

DePaola's attorney said his client was just following orders from a superior and he had no idea that a dangerous condition was created. In fact, DePaola was congratulated on a good job once the work had been completed. State Inspectors all viewed the work on the basement and had no objections. The defense argued the defendants were being unfairly used as the "fall guys."

This case falls on the heels of two other cases, one manslaughter and one negligent homicide, which appeared to be more civil in nature than criminal. Both of the other cases resulted in verdicts for the defendants.

The difference between a death which can be punished criminally and one which can be punished civilly can sometimes be vague. It is easy for people to see a 2nd DUI offender being charged in the death of an innocent pedestrian. However, the criminal liability of some construction worker, who on the orders of a supervisor unknowingly creates a dangerous condition by removing a plank, is much less clear-cut.

Sometimes these cases get prosecuted for the wrong reasons. A good prosecutor should never be pressured to file charges beyond what is substantiated by the facts of a given case.

In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court ruled it is permissible for police officers to search a person's cell phone incident to an arrest.

Previously courts have allowed police officers to inventory a person's possessions, or even packs of cigarettes wherein drugs may be stored, upon arrest. The new ruling, however, greatly extends the scope of a search incident to arrest.

Cell phones are no longer devices strictly used for making phone calls. These machines are now essentially small, handheld computers which can carry and store vast amounts of sensitive information.

At this time, Senate Bill 914, introduced by Senator Mark Leno, if passed, would provide a level of personal protection against this sort of unlimited search. The bill allows the search of a cell phone only where there is an immediate threat to the officer(s) or the public.

This new bill will provide important judicial oversight necessary to curtail rapidly expanding police powers. By requiring police officers to obtain a search warrant before getting unlimited access to a person's confidential information, the courts will be in a position to make sure citizens' rights are not infringed.

Police unions, though, are voraciously against SB 914 and these unions wield substantial power over politicians in this state.

Information in a person's cell phone, by any reasonable interpretation, must be considered to be confidential. Many people live their lives through these services. It is now rare to find someone who does not possess a cell phone or some other complicated contrivance which can hold nearly limitless personal information.

The Supreme Court's decision effectively hands over to police any possible type of private communication regardless of the crime for which the person is arrested. This is simply too much power to hand over to police in a free country.

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.

With the support of civil rights groups, State Assemblyman Michael Allen is seeking to restrict DUI roadblocks to their original purpose - getting drunk drivers off the road.

Minority rights activists allege DUI checkpoints are being used to run up impound fees on cars confiscated from immigrants without driver's licenses. Impounds increased over 50 percent between 2007 and 2009. Over 20 groups back a bill being promoted by Assemblyman Allen.

Civil rights groups allege these checkpoints target minorities and the poor who cannot obtain a driver's license. They allege that many who have their vehicle impounded, wind up losing the vehicle because they cannot pay the impound fee. Further, these people often lose their jobs afterwards as they no longer have transportation.

Law enforcement officials say DUI checkpoints are only about safety. A 2005 case holds that police officers cannot confiscate vehicles if they can be moved to a safe place or picked up by someone with a valid driver's license. The problem is that some municipalities do not follow this ruling. Allen's bill would codify this federal law as well as require police agencies to place checkpoints on roads which can demonstrably be shown to have a high number of DUIs.

No one should be surprised by the fact that DUI checkpoints are exceeding their original scope. When police officers are allowed to stop people without probable cause, anything can happen.

The original concept behind roadblocks was public safety because DUIs were responsible for significant public mayhem. However, once you circumvent the law, for whatever good reason, there will be unintended results. Were DUI checkpoints supposed to act as a deterrent because people knew they could be stopped, at random and without probable cause, during the isolated instances when a DUI checkpoint was in operation? Was this fear greater than the probability of being pulled over by a lone patrol officer working his/her beat? Have DUI checkpoints actually been more productive than peace officers on patrol using tried and true, as well as constitutional, police methods?

DUI checkpoints are not accomplishing the results intended. They were based on a faulty presumption. What other crime, be it murder or whatever, allows law enforcement to set up random checkpoints to investigate possible crime without probable cause?