Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Cities in Orange County have curfew laws that prohibit minors from being outside without an adult present after a certain time. The curfew deadline is either 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., depending on the town. The typical rationale behind curfew laws is to reduce certain risk factors for youths in an effort to prevent juvenile crime. Keeping juveniles off the streets at night, the reasoning goes, should reduce the overall juvenile crime rate. As part of its effort to combat juvenile crimes, the Orange County Sheriff's Office conducts periodic sweeps across the county to catch curfew violators. The rationale for, and benefits of, these sweeps is subject to question, however.

The Sheriff's Office states that its goal with curfew sweeps is "intervention, not prosecution." A Santa Ana police detective interviewed by KABC in Los Angeles said that they try to teach youths caught up in the sweep that they are not automatically presumed to be criminals, but that they could easily become victims by violating curfew. Police focus the sweeps on areas with high levels of criminal and gang activity.

Law enforcement across the county conducted a two-and-a-half-hour sweep on the night of Thursday, March 15 and into the early morning of March 16. They reportedly detained twenty-six juveniles found to be out in violation of the curfew. Officials said that previous sweeps had brought in far more juveniles, and attributed the low number to cold weather keeping people indoors.

The detained juveniles were taken to Sheriff's Department facilities in either Orange or Aliso Viejo. Authorities held them there until their parents arrived to get them, but they were not allowed to leave right away. According to the O.C. Register, both the parents and their children were "interrogated" and put in contact with counseling resources. Law enforcement characterized this as "an immediate, one-on-one intervention." Parents and children were required to meet with police officers and district attorneys before being released, and the parents also had to watch a fourteen-minute documentary that reportedly addresses gang violence.

Continue reading "Orange County Sheriff Conducts County-Wide Curfew Sweep" »

A boy accused of accidentally shooting his classmate at a Seattle-area school with a gun he brought to school has received deferred prosecution from the court, along with a reduction of the primary criminal charge from third-degree assault to reckless endangerment. Charges for unlawfully possessing a firearm and bringing a firearm on school grounds still stand. He will also offer testimony against his mother for her alleged role in giving the boy access to the pistol. The shooting victim, eight year-old Amina Bowman, remains in serious condition in the hospital.

The nine year-old boy, who remains unnamed, brought the gun to school, where he is a third-grade student, in his backpack on Wednesday, February 22. At about 1:30 p.m., the gun went off in his backpack, and the bullet struck Bowman in the abdomen. She was airlifted to a nearby hospital, and the boy was taken into custody by police.

Bowman's condition remains listed as "serious," but she is also reported as "recovering." According to Seattle's NWCN News, she has had five surgeries so far and may need more, as the bullet struck several of her vital organs.

Police charged the boy with assault, unlawful possession of a firearm, and bringing a weapon to school. A judge lowered his bond from $250,000 to $50,000 at a preliminary hearing the day after the shooting. The boy's father and uncle, who is reportedly his legal guardian, told the media that they believed he got the gun from his mother's boyfriend during a visit the previous weekend. At the time of the preliminary hearing, law enforcement had not indicated whether they intended to investigate the parents or other adults.

The boy and his attorney quickly reached a plea as to the assault charge. The court approved the deferred prosecution agreement on March 6. He will have to complete a one-year period of community supervision, and he must perform forty-eight hours of community service. He must also reside in a home approved by the court, write a letter of apology to Bowman, stay away from his mother, and assist in the prosecution of his mother and her boyfriend.

The court issued warrants for the arrest of the mother and her boyfriend for their role in allowing the boy access to the gun. They are reportedly attending a NASCAR event in Nevada at present.

Continue reading "Boy Accused of Shooting His Third-Grade Classmate Receives Deferred Prosecution; Arrest Warrant Issued for Boy's Mother" »

Antonio Nunez was sentenced to 5 life terms plus 100 years after he sprayed police with AK-47 fire during a kidnap attempt at age 14. Nunez would have been unable to seek parole for 175 years.

A California Appeals Court, however, ruled it was unconstitutionally harsh to sentence a juvenile to life without even the possibility of parole. Nunez has been in custody since 2001. The appellate court's decision is based upon a United States Supreme Court case which set aside a life sentence in a juvenile, non-homicide case.

The Appeals Court sent the case back to the lower court for resentencing. This will be the second resentencing. Nunez was originally given 1 life without the possibility of parole sentence, 4 life sentences and 111 years. The original sentence was also overturned.

Although some may hail this decision, the actual result may not be great. There has yet to be a determination as to how many years a juvenile should serve before he/she becomes eligible for parole. Is it 20, 30 or 40 years? Regardless of the amount, Mr. Nunez will likely be a very old man before he is released from prison.

A 9-year-old Oregon girl was removed from her classroom by a Sheriff's deputy in order to investigate a sexual abuse allegation against her father. The little girl said she falsely incriminated her father because the deputy would not take no for an answer.

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case which has caused considerable interest in the legal community. In a lawsuit filed by the girl's family, a California Appeals Court held that her rights had been violated by the State. The State appealed the case and it is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue presented is whether there was an unlawful search and seizure when the girl was interrogated without her mother's consent, a warrant or exigent circumstances. The State is arguing this technique is a proven method of investigation and requiring a warrant would severely interfere with law enforcement's ability to acquire evidence in child abuse cases. Conversely, the defense's argument is that a warrant should have first been obtained.

Each side of the argument has considerable support from interested third parties. This will be the first case of this kind the U.S. Supreme Court has handled in many years and is a very sensitive issue which may have far-reaching results. On one hand is the need to protect children while, on the other hand, is the need to exercise control over aggressive police interrogation methods.

Beginning with the McMartin case, there have been untold numbers of police interrogations of children which have produced inaccurate and/or false evidence. Police interrogation tactics are often unsuited to interviews with children. That is, since most officers deal primarily with adults, sometimes with career criminals who are very sophisticated, their approach to interrogations often involve aggressive and confrontational police methods. Said methods, however, are counterproductive when applied to children.

It is thus necessary to have clear guidelines and restraints on the police so children are not traumatized and false evidence is not obtained. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court should rule for the defense in this case.

In a 1999 decision, a California appellate court ruled that a detainee's refusal to consent to a pat-down search does not constitute the reasonable suspicion needed to justify such a search.

The case involved a juvenile detained by an officer for improper lighting on his bicycle. By all accounts, the juvenile was cooperative until the officer told him he was going to conduct a pat-down search. At this point, the juvenile refused to consent to the search. Nonetheless, the officer proceeded with the pat-down, finding a revolver in the juvenile's jacket pocket.

The court reversed the subsequent conviction indicating the reasonable suspicion required to justify the search could not be created by the detainee's attempt to exercise his 4th Amendment rights. Further, the court found, under a totality of the circumstances standard, no other specific facts existed to lead the officer to believe the juvenile was armed and dangerous.

Once it is okay to violate a person's rights because of the exercise of the right, we are in trouble!

The United States Supreme Court is at odds over whether juveniles should
be subject to life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

The issue stems from two cases currently before the Court involving men
sentenced to LWOP in Florida for violent crimes committed when they
were teenagers. One man raped an elderly woman when he was 13 while
the other was convicted for armed robberies committed when he was 16
and 17.

Attorneys for both argue such a sentence is cruel and unusual
punishment as juveniles have a greater capacity to change, thus, should
be given a second chance.

The quandary dividing the Court, however, is not new one. Rather, it is
one long debated within the juvenile criminal justice system. That is, how
do we reconcile the historical goal of rehabilitation with the violent, often
gruesome, nature of the juvenile's crime?

While the Court has previously rejected the application of the death
penalty for juvenile offenders, finding them to be less responsible than
adults, it seems hard-pressed to unanimously extend this relief when it
comes to locking a juvenile away for life.

As stated by Justice Alito, "Some of the actual cases are so horrible that I
couldn't have imagined them if I hadn't actually seen them." Conversely,
Justice Bader-Ginsburg raised the question of whether teenagers, whose
mental, emotional and physical maturity is incomplete, can be "accurately
evaluated" at the time of sentence.

Regardless of the Court's decision, this is an issue not likely to
be fully resolved anytime soon.