Riverside Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

The month of December has traditionally been the deadliest month of the year because of drunk driving. To combat this epidemic, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have joined forces to remind holiday travelers to drive sober or they'll be pulled over.

Both organizations have encouraged education and enforcement as a means of reducing the number of alcohol-impaired drivers on the roadways. There are indications that these measures are working. Nationally, drunk driving numbers are going down. Yet, drunk driving still remains a threat.

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court ordered the state to address the issue of overcrowding in state prisons. According to Time Magazine, some prisons, like the California Institute of Men in Chino, have been operating at 200% of their capacities. As a result of the overcrowding, prisoners and guards were subjected to exceptionally dangerous conditions.

Strained capacities have led to an increase in fighting and deaths within the prisons. Prisoners were also denied sufficient mental health and medical care. As a result, the Supreme Court determined conditions within the state prisons violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

What is Sentencing Realignment?

In response to the mandate, the California legislature developed a sentencing realignment plan. The new plan will transfer all persons convicted of non-violent felonies and other non-serious crimes from prisons to local county jails.

On Tuesday, lawmakers unanimously approved a bill securing Fourth Amendment protections for Californians arrested with cell phones. The new law would require police officers to obtain a search warrant before reviewing the contents of a cell phone seized during an arrest.

The legislation was introduced in response to the outcry from civil rights advocates following the January California Supreme Court decision of People v. Diaz, which permitted law enforcement officers to troll through the contents of an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant. The opinion was criticized by dissenting judges for failing to address the differences between a cell phone, which holds vast amounts of data, and a packet of cigarettes or article of clothing, both of which have limited volumes and visible contents.