Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

The Supreme Court's unanimous January ruling in U.S. vs. Jones was hailed as historic, marking an important affirmation of privacy rights amid law enforcement's increasing use of advanced technology, specifically warrantless GPS monitoring, to track suspects. Many people, criminal defense attorneys in particular, saw the Jones decision as an important step towards safeguarding individual privacy against electronic snooping by law enforcement. Since then, however, the FBI has stated that it faces difficulties and added expenses without the use of the GPS devices, and federal district judges in some areas have found ways around the Court's prohibition on warrantless tracking.

Jones involved a suspected D.C. drug dealer who was under surveillance through a GPS device secretly attached, without a warrant, to his vehicle by the FBI. Jones appealed his conviction in part on the ground that the FBI violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. broadly ruled that the FBI's practice of using GPS devices without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment by revealing far more about a person than the FBI ever could have learned simply by following him through the streets.

The Supreme Court took up the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals, but on much narrower grounds. A unanimous Court ruled, in essence, that the FBI could not attach GPS monitoring devices to Jones' vehicle without a warrant because it violated Jones' property rights by physically attaching the device. This leaves the question of how the Fourth Amendment generally governs electronic surveillance unanswered. It also does not specifically address whether law enforcement needs a warrant or only "reasonable suspicion" in order to use GPS trackers in the future.

Since the Jones ruling, the FBI has had to change the way it conducts surveillance operations. It reportedly had to deactivate around 3,000 deployed GPS tracking devices in January, meaning it had no way to retrieve the devices. The FBI complained that it had to substitute teams of six to eight agents to do the work of a single GPS tracker, a significant additional cost. Privacy advocates might not find this argument persuasive, but some federal district judges have entered orders that help the FBI.

Continue reading "Judges, Law Enforcement Skirt Supreme Court's GPS-Tracking Ruling" »

A mistrial was declared in the DUI murder trial of Gustavo Vega. Vega is being prosecuted in the death of Cara Lee. It is alleged Vega was under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol level of over .17 percent, when he ran a red light in February 2010 and struck a vehicle in which Lee was a passenger. Because of a previous drunk driving conviction, Vega is being charged with murder. It is alleged that due to his prior conviction, he knew driving under the influence was dangerous.

In addition to the murder charge, Vega is also charged with hit and run resulting in death as well as misdemeanor hit and run. Vega fled the scene after the accident but was found nearby.

The defense contends, on the morning of the alleged incident, Vega was being chased by another driver because of an earlier fender-bender. As a result of the other driver's aggressive attitude, Vega was afraid to stop. The subpoenaed witnesses who refused to show up to court, thereby causing the mistrial, were the driver and the passenger of the vehicle chasing Vega.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard King scheduled a hearing to determine whether or not a warrant should be issued for the absent witnesses.

In a sequel to this article, one of the absent witnesses appeared in front of Superior Court Judge Richard King on Friday afternoon. The witness stated his failure to appear was a misunderstanding. Judge King informed the witness the mistrial cost the people of California nearly $30,000 and, to insure the witness's further appearance, the judge ordered the witness held in lieu of $15000 bail. The witness remained in custody until bail was posted the following day. The witness was ordered to reappear in court on the following Monday.

As can be seen from this incident, failure to respond to a subpoena is not taken lightly by the Court. It is a citizen's duty to take seriously a subpoena, especially in a case such as this.

Authorities used the Louisiana Recovery Directive as a smokescreen to arrest fathers who are delinquent in their child support payments. In this sting operation, letters were sent to hundreds of men informing them a stimulus payment was waiting for them to pick up. When they arrived, however, they were arrested. The Saint Tammany Police Department sent out 900 letters to individuals with outstanding arrest warrants. Over 100 were arrested.

Sting operations are conducted by many different police agencies and can be employed to net arrests in a variety of crimes, from prostitution to child molestation to drug sales. Such operations are a very useful tool for law enforcement. It is important, however, to ensure these sting operations do not amount to entrapment.

The perfect example of a sting that went too far is the old case wherein undercover officers approached a man in order to purchase drugs. Initially, the man said he could not get any; however, this did not stop the officers from making many more efforts to purchase drugs from this man until, finally, drugs were purchased. The court ultimately threw the case out. The legal argument was the police had essentially caused a crime by getting a man to do something he would not normally have done but for the police.

In the case of delinquent dads, entrapment does not appear to be an issue. Although, caution should be used whenever law enforcement officers seek to use subterfuge in trapping citizens in illegal conduct.

Police departments throughout Orange County will be upping the number of DUI checkpoints this holiday season, and in 2010, thanks to recent state grants totaling over $400,000.

This increase in sobriety checkpoints is part of a statewide effort to target drunk drivers as well as people with outstanding warrants and suspended licenses. According to reports, in order to obtain the money, cities must agree to execute at least one checkpoint per month and otherwise increase efforts to combat drinking in driving during the Christmas-New Year holiday and Labor Day weekend. Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Irvine, Orange and Westminster are among several Orange County cities on board to participate.

While over 200,000 DUI arrests were made last year, Orange County ranked high in the number of alcohol-related accidents involving death or injury. In fact, Santa Ana ranked 5th highest in this category among California's largest cities.

The real issue regarding checkpoints is cost-effectiveness. If all of the officers tending a checkpoint were released to patrol, would this increase police presence as well as DUI arrests? Statistics on this would be revealing.