Articles Posted in Uncategorized

California already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Governor Newsom just made the laws even tougher when he signed new gun control bills into law that aim to address the rising gun violence in the state. Six new measures were enacted, and barring court challenges will become law beginning next year. (Some of the new laws will not take effect until future years.)

Senate Bill 2 amended the concealed carry law, adding restrictions and/or outright bans on where a person with a concealed carry permit may carry a gun.  The law takes effect on January 1, 2024.

Senate Bill 452 will require a microstamp on specified handguns cartridges, which is intended to enhance law enforcement efforts in tracing guns used to commit crimes. This law will not take effect until January 1, 2028 and then only after the California Justice Department has investigated the technology and determined that this is feasible.

Depending upon your point of view “livestreaming” police contacts benefits citizen civil rights, impedes police officers’ ability to do their job, and/or instigates riots. All these things are true.

Many police officers don’t like it when citizens livestream their contact with the public; they believe it interferes with their ability to properly perform their job.  On the other hand, livestreams may keep the police “in check.” Some officers abuse their power and the notion that there might be a citizen livestreaming their actions may lead such officers to follow the law.

But is citizen livestreaming police contact legal? While the courts have upheld the First Amendment right to videotape an officer functioning in public, is a livestream video – i.e., videotaping an officer performing his duties in real time and broadcasting that contact in real time to the public—subject to the same First Amendment protections? The question of livestreaming an officer and the First Amendment right to do so is an evolving area of law. A recent case heard in the federal Fourth Circuit,  Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department (4th Cir. Feb. 7, 2023) 59 F.4th 674 considered this question.

In 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill creating Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Courts, a new system of courts designed to provide treatment and support to people with untreated mental illness and substance abuse disorders who are at risk of, or are already, becoming homeless or of committing crimes. The focus of the plan is on those individuals suffering from schizophrenia spectrum and related disorders, The CARE Courts are intended to be a more effective and humane alternative to the traditional criminal justice system, which often fails to adequately address the needs of people with mental illness. The CARE Court is not a collaborative court but when an individual is referred to the CARE Court following an arrest, it essentially serves the same purpose as a collaborative court.

Candidates for CARE Court may be referred to the courts by a variety of sources, including law enforcement, mental health professionals, family members, and even roommates. An arrest of a CARE Plan candidate may also trigger enrollment in the program. A participant in the program must be diagnosed with untreated schizophrenia or other psychiatric disorders.  Once a person is referred to the CARE Courts, they will be assigned a judge and a team of professionals, including a psychiatrist, a therapist, and a case manager. The team will develop a treatment plan for the participant, which may include medication, therapy, and housing assistance. The court may order participation in a CARE Plan for up to 24 months. A participant who does not successfully complete the court-ordered CARE Plan may, under current law, be hospitalized or referred to conservatorship if no other alternatives are identified.

The CARE Courts are a promising new approach to mental health treatment and crime. By providing treatment and support in the community, the CARE Courts can help to prevent people with mental illness from committing crimes and from becoming homeless. The CARE Courts are still in their early stages, with Orange County being one of the first counties to implement the CARE Court. Orange County’s program is slated to begin on October 1, 2023.

  It took five years, but Prop 63 is now the law. In 2016, the California voters passed Prop 63, which outlawed most “large capacity magazines,” as defined by the proposition as a magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition. The nascent law was challenged in federal district court, resulting in a preliminary injunction on implementation of the law after the federal judge found the law to be an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.  The questions were complex, but at its core, the questions before the district court were: “”Does a law-abiding responsible citizen have a right to defend his home from criminals using whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation? Does that same citizen have a right to keep and bear a common magazine that is useful for service in a militia?” (Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1112 (S.D. Cal. 2017) .) This was the beginning of many years of court wrangling.

In 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling. In a nutshell, the Ninth Circuit found that the new law infringed on the right of a citizen to self-defense. Although the Ninth Circuit was not speaking broadly about all gun control measures – and, in fact, found the goal of reducing gun control laudable – the court, noted that half of all magazines owned in America are “large capacity magazines” as defined by Prop 63, and would thus make “unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law-abiding citizens for self-defense . . . burden[ing] the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment.” (Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1169 (9th Cir. 2020)

But wait there’s more. Last month (November 2021), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed itself. Once again, the reasoning of the decision is complex and may seem a bit convoluted, as quite frankly, many case decisions are. But this time around, the court did not ask whether the new law implicated Second Amendment rights, except to say that the law placed a minimal burden on core Second Amendment rights. Instead, the court focused on the rights of the state’s (California) interest in reducing gun violence. Noting that the Prop 63 restriction on large capacity magazines does not outlaw all firearms or restrict a law-abiding citizen’s right to self-defense but does reasonably support California’s effort to reduce the incidence of mass shooting and murders.

Riverside and San Bernardino County prosecutors have started charging individuals accused of selling fentanyl that resulted in death to the user with murder. In Riverside County, the DA is currently prosecuting seven such cases against alleged fentanyl dealers and in San Bernardino County, the DA has filed a at least one murder charge against a fentanyl dealer. In Orange County, the district attorney has announced that his department will begin charging those drug dealers who have previously pled guilty to fentanyl sales and who later are accused with the fentanyl sales that causes a death with murder. (Similar to the Watson advisement, discussed below.)

In all counties, the charge is second degree murder based on the theory of implied malice. Under this theory, the murder need not be intentional. Rather, implied malice means that the conduct of the accused displayed a “conscious disregard for life.” In other words, the accused acted in a way that he or she knew could likely cause death but acted anyway.

There is an analogous law in the DUI statutes. A person who causes the death of another by his or her DUI driving can be charged with second degree murder under the implied malice theory. Under the DUI law, when a person is arrested for DUI, an advisement be given to the offender that puts the offender on notice that driving under the influence can result in the death of another person and if the offender is involved in a DUI fatality in the future, he or she can be charged with second degree murder. This advisement is called a Watson Advisement and is mandated by law.