A Judge ruled today that Roman Polanski must return to Los Angeles for sentencing rather than be sentenced in absentia. This ruling will likely be appealed further. And since Mr. Polanski is comfortably resting in his vacation home in the Swiss Alps, it is doubtful that he will return anytime soon pending the appeal of this ruling and his extradition in general.

Peter Berlin discusses Tiger Woods legal issues and extortion scenarios with Eonline!

Now Tiger Woods may have his share of family and PR headaches to deal with in the coming weeks, but one thing that he wont have is much of  a legal headache.

As had been reported, Tiger will not face criminal charges stemming from the accident and disturbance at his home. The reason? He kept his mouth shut, plain and simple. Woods refused to speak to police about the incident (as is his right to do) and in the process eliminated the possibility of making any incriminating statements.  No one knows what exactly happened, but the story given doesn’t quite add up. However, this is not the point. If the police want to take a statement or conduct an interview in such a situation there is usually one reason: “they don’t have enough evidence to charge a crime and/or they want to extract a confession.”  Given this, nothing that Mr. Woods  said would have helped him, only hurt.

The inclination to make any statement to police or officials is often misguided. I see this not only with clients that come to me but also in high profile cases (Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby to name a few) where individuals are already represented by counsel.

In this instance, Mr. Woods likely received some good and prompt advice… and he made the right choice.

After his arrest this week, Roman Polanski is expected to fight extradition from Switzerland to the United States where he pled guilty to unlawful sex with a 13 year old girl in 1977.

Many seem to be puzzled why, after so many years, has the LA County District Attorney’s office bothered with this now?  The answer seems to be pretty clear: Polanski, through his lawyers, red-flagged himself when he petitioned an appeals court to dismiss his case earlier this year. By doing so, even though instances of judicial misconduct were noted, he put himself back on the radar map.

But Polanksi’s dilemma is not so much of whether his conviction can be set-aside or his plea withdrawn. The judicial misconduct at the time appears present and he deserves to have this opportunity.  Rather,  it lies in the fact that he willfully fled and became a fugitive.  Courts’ do not like when their orders are disobeyed and when one fails to appear for proceedings.  So if he is extradited, Mr. Polanski’s problem is not so much whether he can get a new trial, or withdraw his previous plea…but in explaining why he shouldn’t be punished (as most defendants are) for going awol for the better part of 30 years.

State legislature’s and law enforcements zeal to stop as many suspected drivers for DUI has resulted in a gradual erosion of basic constitutional rights and protections.  Many client’s come to me surprised to hear that certain rights they always heard about do not apply in DUI cases. For example, when you are arrested on suspicion of DUI, handcuffed in the police car and on your away to the station for a breath or blood test you are not entitled to:

– have Miranda rights read to you;

– an attorney prior to submitting to the tests;

– refuse a blood or breath test without consequences (a.k.a. offering potentially incriminating evidence against yourself).

And there are others. As much as these rights are a staple of our criminal justice system they do not apply in a DUI arrest.

Pretty bad, you say? Well things get much worse. Some states are now training their police officers in the use of syringes to effectuate forced blood draws to those who refuse to submit to a breath test. Consider the following:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) Sept 13 — When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said. It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

So if the thought of a cop with a flashlight scares you, wait till your approached with a needle.  Cant get much worse you may think? Well then consider this gem of police conduct…how about  forced catheterization for a urine sample:

LAWRENCEBURG, Ind. Sept. 3– An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew blood and urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest, WLWT-TV reported.

According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.

A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard’s attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will. (Read the full article here).

Hardly an isolated case …see this

With the nasty wildfire spreading throughout the Los Angeles area, the search into its origin has now turned into homicide investigation.

California has a relatively complex set of laws relating to arson, with serious penalties that depend on many factors. Among them are:

* whether the crime was against property or a person;

* whether a structure was inhabited;

* whether great bodily harm resulted;

* whether the perpetrator willfully and maliciously set the fire;

* extent of the damage caused.

As the article above states, fire destroys evidence but also preserves it. Arson investigators can often pinpoint the origin of such a blaze and determine its cause.

Someone who intentionally sets such a forest fire will at the very least face a charge of Aggravated Arson (willfully setting a fire of any residence, structure or forest likely to cause injury or causing damage in excess of a specified amount Cal. Penal Code § 451.5(a)). In and of itself, this charge carries a prison term of 10 years to life. Now that there has been loss of life, however, even greater charges and penalties are assured.

So Chris Brown has decided to do a media tour and gave an interview to Larry King. He is now a bit frustrated about the news coverage of his answers (read: I don’t remember hitting Rihanna), which has yet to air. However, he apparently issued an apology via the song Cry No More.

Well welcome to the real world Mr. Brown. The fact is that one’s legal interests don’t always jive with ones business or public relation interests. Rarely, will someone be able to rehabilitate their public image by giving an interview after a plea deal and then squirming through the details. (Hugh Grant-a notable exception some years back).

Now, maybe it’s true that Brown answered Larry King’s question the first three times he asked them. But who ever said the media is going to focus on the 3 out of 4 times you got it right? The bottom line Chris Brown: if you think your case was difficult, then wait till you have to swim through the media shark tank. It’s too early! Take a deep breath, relax, and stop the interviews-with your attorney by your side or without. Besides, your talent is the best image rehabilitation you have. So get into the recording studio-not the Television studio.

I have posted several times on domestic violence (“DV”) and the Chris Brown/Rihanna saga. Now that Mr. Brown has been sentenced, a few thoughts are warranted.

I commented before that this matter may be resolved rather quickly or can take on a circus like atmosphere. Clearly, Mr. Brown and his legal team believed that contesting the charges was an up-hill battle or otherwise problematic. Brown was sentenced to 5 years formal probation, 180 days Cal. Trans (i.e. labor intensive community service), a one year domestic violence program, a stay away order from Rihanna (despite Rihanna’s request that such a stay away order not be in effect), as well as other conditions. While avoiding jail may sound like a great deal, such plea deal’s are common and defendants often avoid jail time when they have limited or no criminal history. The severity of the victims injuries is a key factor, to be sure. However, even though Rihanna’s injuries appear quite significant, they also are consistent with many similar (yet much less profile) DV cases.

The point is not to minimize the severity of this incident, or to portray Mr. Brown as the victim. But contrary to popular belief, celebrities often receive harsher treatment and sentences than the “average joe.” Although certain things (such as the DV program) are mandatory under California Law, it is quite conceivable that the “average joe” would have received less community service time, perhaps less probation and likely no “stay away” order where the victim herself is against it.

Mr. Brown’s sentence will not be easy. The media glare will be bright and many will look for any conduct justifying a violation of his probation. There are allegations already that Brown violated the terms of his probation by patronizing a night club in Los Angeles where alcohol is served. If Brown is charged with violating his probation, it may be revoked altogether. If that occurs, he can expect no leniency from the judge and will likely serve his sentence in prison. One must only recall the sentence and surrounding circumstances wherein Paris Hilton served in excess of 40 days in jail for a minor misdemeanor probation violation. The average person would likely have served only a few days, if any at all.

So justice in our system can be relative. But one must also remember that those with certain privilege and notoriety don’t always get a just sentence or fair treatment…despite the fact that they are often no less deserving of it.<-->

When the Government wants to prove its case so badly, apparently the Constitution will not stand in its way. For those who believe the rule of law must be respected no matter what is being investigated, the following article is noteworthy about the Governments tactics and overreaching in the recent baseball doping investigations.

To be sure, this conduct occurs in much less profile cases with judges who often turn a blind eye and disregard such actions.

Feds Seizure Violation

Sobriety checkpoints are becoming all to common and are frequently used before major holidays and sporting events. I am frequently asked about the legality of these checkpoints.

In California,  police departments use sobriety checkpoints at various times and to varying degrees. While some confusion exists over their legality, checkpoints are lawful if properly conducted and follow certain procedures and guidelines.

Whether or not a checkpoint is lawful depends on many factors, some of which are:

• whether it is in a reasonable location;
• whether the police department provided advanced notice of its location;
• the reasonableness of the time and duration of said checkpoint;
• whether it is safe to motorists.

To be sure, there are many other factors too — and no one single factor is determinative of whether a checkpoint is valid or not. The court will generally look to the totality of the circumstances  to determine its validity. Moreover, some factors are more important than others. Suffice it to say, however, that anyone arrested for DUI at a checkpoint should have an experienced attorney review all the information relating not only to the arrest, but to the circumstances and validity surrounding the sobriety checkpoint itself.

Can one legally avoid a checkpoint?  Provided that he does so in a safe and legal manner (a legal turn onto another street, or a legal u-turn – prior to entering the checkpoint, etc…)  the answer is generally “yes.” If your in the “chute,” however, and/or are already waiting at the checkpoint–then you cannot legally turn off or avoid it.