Marijuana Charges

Marijuana, or cannabis, is a legitimate drug that has proven medical benefits. It has assisted patients with chronic pain and has helped patients eat when they do not have the appetite to do so. Despite these benefits, it has been a punchline for comedians and a dividing topic among political officials.

California law regarding marijuana can be severe. The law prohibits a wide variety of behavior, including possession of even small amounts of the substance. To make matters worse, “the war on drugs” encourages police and law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional behavior. Drug enforcement agents have, in the past, entrapped defendants, performed unlawful searches, and exaggerated police reports.

The prisons in California are over-capacity. Prisoners face crowded conditions, which may be unconstitutional by itself. Defendants detained on drug crimes need to have adequate representation to ensure that their rights are preserved.

Marijuana Possession

California Health and Safety Code § 11357 (a). Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment, or shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

Marijuana Sale

California Health and Safety Code § 11357.5 (a). Every person who sells, dispenses, distributes, furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to sell, dispense, distribute, furnish, administer, or give, or possesses for sale any synthetic cannabinoid compound, or any synthetic cannabinoid derivative, to any person, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Marijuana Cultivation

California Health and Safety Code § 11358. Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

Marijuana Transportation

California Health and Safety Code § 11360 (a). Except as otherwise provided by this section or as authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any marijuana shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for a period of two, three or four years.

Marijuana Paraphernalia

California Health and Safety Code § 11364 (a). It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcotic drug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.

Criminal Appeals

Have you or a loved one already been convicted of a crime? We can still help!

We have experience in all aspects of post-conviction criminal law including Expungements, Certificates of Rehabilitation, Habeas Corpus Petitions, Parole Hearings, and Prisoner's Rights defense.

Filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

The California Constitution gives citizens the right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in extraordinary and unusual circumstances. The habeas petition allows a detainee to challenge his or her confinement. The most common ways to effectively challenge your conviction is through new evidence.

Appealing a Felony or Misdemeanor

When a person is convicted, it does not necessarily mean the case ends there. If the defendant feels as if there has been a legal error, the defendant may file an appeal. An appeal is a challenge of the record and it is limited in scope.

California Board of Parole Hearing (Lifers Hearing)

An inmate serving a life sentence, or “lifer,” in California may have an opportunity to be released on parole. Before the inmate is released, however, he or she must first appear before the Parole Board at a hearing. Attorney Chris Blaylock has helped prepare inmates for parole and has been three for three (3/3) on getting a parole date.

Expungement in California

A person who has committed a felony or misdemeanor in the past may have the possibility of removing from his or her record. In California, this process is called an expungement. While it does not completely eliminate your criminal record, it does give you certain protections against discrimination on the basis of the conviction.

Certification of Rehabilitation

Like an expungement, a California Certificate of Rehabilitation is a way to put a person’s conviction behind them. Although it will not erase a person’s conviction, it will be a declaration from California that the person is a law abiding citizen. It is difficult to pursue this without an attorney.

Prisoner’s Rights

An inmate has certain constitutional rights like all other citizens who live in a civilized society. This means that there must be some standard of decency at the prison where the inmates are detained. Criminal defense lawyer Attorney Chris Blaylock believes that inmates should be treated with dignity.

Collateral Source Rule Today

Hospital bills after an accident

For most people who are injured in an accident, fretting over the medical bills is the furthest thing from their minds. But eventually, it becomes something that the injured must confront. It is common knowledge that medical bills are expensive and that there are often ways to reduce the amounts actually paid on those bills. For example, private insurance companies and government entities such as Medi-Cal routinely pay less than a hospital originally billed; either as a result of a previously negotiated discount contract or because of legislation that dictates maximum payments for certain procedures. Furthermore, many medical providers, particularly larger charitable hospitals, often offer need based discounts to individuals in certain income brackets. As a result, the amounts a provider bills out often bear little relationship either to the amount they will ultimately collect or to the actual hard cost of providing the included services.

Because of this widely known discrepancy, there exists an extremely complex medical services market in which different categories of patients pay different rate levels under different circumstances with insurance providers, lien holders, medical financiers, and government entities muddying the waters even further. Thus it is that when many accident victims are faced with choices about how to receive medical services, sometimes under the added stress of an emergency setting, the first thought on most patient’s minds is how to avoid as much of the potential expense as possible. It is important to understand that some kinds of payment can impact the amount and sources of any later legal recovery to which you may be entitled as a result of your injury.

Unfortunately, the world of hospital economics has become so convoluted in the United States that the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney is now recommended right from the beginning, if possible even before medical services are rendered, though not to the exclusion of emergency treatment. While the legal landscape surrounding medical payment recoveries is rough and currently in flux, a basic understanding of some of the key concepts at work can help.

What is tort liability?

Whenever a person does something carelessly which leads to another person’s injury, the first person – known in legalize as the tortfeaser – may be legally responsible for the injury. Usually by way of paying for medical costs associated with the injury. This basic concept underpins all of personal injury law, but it is limited or modified by several corollary rules which can apply in different combinations in different settings and by obscure rules of court which dictate the procedural aspects of a personal injury trial or settlement.

The collateral source rule

With the rise in private insurance many years ago came a concordant rise in the number of injured people who did not have to pay their full medical bills out of pocket because those bills were paid by a health insurance provider. To avoid allowing the party responsible for the injury to benefit from the injured party’s prudent choice to obtain health insurance, courts developed the collateral source rule to ensure that the defendant – the person responsible for an injury or accident – paid the full amount of the injury, not just that part the injured person had to pay out of pocket. Without the collateral source rule a defendant would reap the ultimate benefit of an insurance policy paid for by someone else. Moreover, the health insurance provider had to bear the costs of the defendant’s negligence.

For example, let’s say that two people are involved in a car accident. Driver A ran a red light hitting Driver B and broke his leg. Driver B goes to the hospital and is treated for the break. The hospital bills Driver B incurs is $1000 for treatment. However, Driver B is covered by an insurance plan that pays 80% of the bill meaning that Driver B only has to pay $200 out of pocket. In court, Driver A might argue that he should only have to pay for the $200 that Driver B actually paid out of pocket, contending that this amount is the real value of the injury. The collateral source rule steps in to prevent this injustice by requiring Driver A to pay for the entire hospital bill, unless other circumstances exist, even though part of the bill was paid off by Driver B’s insurance provider.

In a similar way, gifts made to Driver B from other third parties like generous hospitals or kind hearted doctors will similarly not be deducted from the amount demanded of Driver A under the law.

Previously negotiated rate discounts

While the collateral source rule is still very much in effect today, its application has been somewhat limited by recent court decisions; particularly with respect to the discounted rates many insurance carriers negotiate with medical providers as part of their in-network coverage agreements. Under these agreements, an insurance company and a hospital, for example, might agree that any patient covered under a policy written by the insurance company, who seeks treatment at the hospital, will only be liable for 50% of the billed rates. In other words, if Driver B were to visit this in-network hospital he would be charged only $500, instead of the usual $1,000, for the same broken leg, with the insurance company paying $400 and Driver B left with an only $100 out of pocket expense.

In several recent cases, the parties have argued that this type of discount should be treated the same as the earlier collateral source example we gave and therefore that Driver A should still be liable for the full $1000 the hospital would “normally” charge. However, California courts have not seen things this way. Several courts have decided that because the negotiated discount was arranged prior to the injury in question, and is not specifically related to the provision of care to Driver B, neither Driver B nor anyone else would, ever have to pay the full $1000 and therefore that the real value of treatment was at most the $500 negotiated rate. In short, because Driver B’s insurance company had the foresight to negotiate a lower rate for patients it insured, Driver A now gets to pay less for causing the same injury.

What does all this mean?

While the details are complex and filled with legalize and healthcare economics math, the outcome has real consequences for everyday patients. The bottom line is that if you are injured in an accident, your best bet is to seek immediate legal help; we understand the law in regards to evaluating the real damages that you have incurred.

An experienced personal injury attorney can help you to understand specifically how the various laws are likely to impact your particular case which might impact your later legal strategy. Ultimately, a good attorney can help to make sure that you are fully compensated for your injury whatever the circumstance under which your medical bills are paid.

Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR)

You are being tracked

In a report released last week, the ACLU describes in chilling detail the rapidly expanding law enforcement use of automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) systems nationwide. Originally designed to automatically scan surrounding vehicle plates for comparison against a “hot list” of wanted vehicles – such as those reported stolen or owned by a person for whom an arrest warrant was outstanding – ALPR devices have now become a seemingly indispensable investigative tool. While law enforcement use of emerging technologies is not in itself a problematic practice, how those tools are used can be of great concern.

How it works

While the underlying algorithms that make ALPR possible can be highly complex, the basic technological principles are fairly straight forward. Essentially the technology involves a camera, a computer, and a piece of software designed to “read” any vehicle license plates picked up by the camera. Mounted on police cruisers or road fixtures such as overpasses or street lights, sets of connected cameras can effectively scan the license plates of every vehicle within range.

While one or two such systems pose relatively little threat to everyday privacy, hundreds of such cameras are now active all over LA County and are being used by the LAPD, the LA County Sheriff, and the California Highway patrol. Together, the accumulated data from all these sources (all of which is shared between departments and even the Federal government through a backend server system known as BOSS) can be mined by law enforcement and the results used to paint a picture of the movements of any citizen who drives on public roads – going back months or even years into the past.

ALPR grows up

Originally developed in England as an offshoot of the massive public surveillance camera system long in use there, ALPR was first put to practical use in the late 1970s. However, despite its early potential, the prohibitive cost of computing and camera equipment made widespread use of the technology impractical until the last decade. Broad public knowledge of the practice is still underdeveloped. News reports were covering ALPR back in 2006, including an article published in Wired; but even at that relatively late date, the more nefarious aspects of the technology were still all but unknown. Even the ACLU is quoted in that article as being unconcerned about the practice at the time stating that there had been no legal challenge because the activity was not illegal – what a difference a few years can make.

Lost cost digital storage and the rise of privacy concerns

Much has changed since 2006 to make ALPR technology a much bigger concern today than it was just a few years ago. Of primary concern is the rapidly decreasing cost of huge computer storage capacity. Once a barrier to privacy invasion, digital storage technologies now allow law enforcement to maintain the records of their scans indefinitely; a possibility many agencies are all too happy to embrace. In the early days, hits were only scanned against a short list of “hot” vehicles. Today, everything has changed. Now, every single scan is logged into a database with some jurisdictions storing more plate data points per year then there are residents under their protection. What was once a benign police tool has now become every bit as controversial as the NSA phone surveillance program revealed earlier this year.

Indefinite storage

While police agencies tout the many legitimate uses of the ALPR technology, privacy concerns about the system stem not from its legitimate uses but largely from the length of time for which collected data is retained. Because every scanned plate is logged and stored in the database, Los Angeles streets are effectively under nearly permanent video surveillance. In the absence of any statewide regulation, agency privacy protections vary dramatically between institutions. The LAPD, for example, apparently holds the data for approximately two years, even on entirely innocent individuals. While the department has been hesitant to respond to ACLU records requests, written procedures appear to allow for data retention even of information not linked to any crime.

Dragnet

ALPR Camera Dragnet

Perhaps worse, no warrant is typically needed to mine the data, most of which is statistically worthless to law enforcement. Even in large jurisdictions such as LA County, the ACLU report reveals that less than one percent of the plate data recorded ever leads to any meaningful police action. The problem, however, is that location data, especially location data over long periods of time, can tell a great deal about personal behaviors. Which doctor you visit, what church you attend, which political rallies you have marched with, what friends you keep, which streets you take to work each day; all of this and much more can be gleaned from the plate databases of the LAPD alone. Even more troublesome is the fact that much of the data is stored by private companies with clear profit motives and that there are few, if any, access guidelines attached to the data. In short, it may be that anyone can access your location data at any time, even for commercial purposes.

How to protect yourself

In effect, your entire vehicle related paperwork is being continually monitored without your knowledge by most local law enforcement agencies in the LA area. To protect yourself it is critical that you make absolutely sure that your DMV paper work is complete and up to date. Maintain car insurance, make sure your registration is current, and keep up on your car payments. Any slip could give officers potential probable cause to pull you over and from there even a complete search of you and your vehicle is a possibility.