People who operate vehicles under the influence of drugs or alcohol find themselves losing driving privileges, paying exorbitant fees, and living under court supervision. With miles of sprawling coastline, Californians love boating, but would rather avoid the penalties that come with BUI charges.

Similar to DUI charges, boating under the influence violates California Harbors & Navigation Code 655. Penalties are similar to what one receive for driving a car, truck, or other land-based conveyance while intoxicated, yet there are several differences worth noting.

No Motor? No BUI

The foundational assumption behind DUI is that an intoxicated person must be operating some motor-based vehicle – not necessarily at great rates of speed, but operating nonetheless. In moving the motorized transportation down the street, the risk of hurting others, including themselves, increases significantly due to perceived impairment.

BUI adopts the same principles, but with a twist. Watercraft that have outboard motors or engines similar to vehicles, or use any means to propel the vessel across water, fall under Code 655. Jet skis, speed boats, yachts, and similar craft reliant on motor power would be some examples.

However, dinghis, kayaks, canoes, and any nautical travel device that does not use motorized propulsion is exempt from prosecution under California’s BUI laws. Because rowing will not cause dangerous speeds to be reached, it makes sense that human-propelled watercraft would be exempt from BUI charges.

Boating Privileges are Not Necessarily Lost

Drivers convicted of DUI normally lose their licenses for at least 30 days, if not longer. This not only keeps habitual offenders off California highways, but it gives offenders an opportunity to appreciate their driving privileges.

In BUI incidents, even those resulting in serious injury, driving privileges are not necessarily stripped. Jail time and other penalties imposed under DUI law are still in play, but losing licensure is not guaranteed. Since California law regarding Boater’s Cards does not include renters and will not include all adults until 2025, boat operating privileges go untouched in BUI cases.

Proving BUI is Much Trickier

Illegal search and seizure laws in California prevent the Coast Guard and other law enforcement professionals from entering your vessel without probable cause. Since traveling straight on water is rarely achieved by even the soberest boater, how does one determine if boat operators are drunk or high?

Apart from slamming into other boats, yelling obscenities, and causing problems while operating watercraft, the answer is sheer luck.

Boaters can always turn their craft off and quickly put oars in water, which would call to question whether the boat’s motor was running when maritime police pulled over the boat. Since cameras are nonexistent except in marinas, on properties bordering water and houseboats, raising reasonable doubt is much simpler for any BUI defense attorney to accomplish.

While boaters are strongly encouraged to have sober operators on hand should excessive drinking transpire, many times boaters brave the Pacific alone. Always know your limits, have life-saving rafts and other similar equipment nearby, and remember that BUI is treated as serious as DUI should prosecution secure a guilty verdict.

Accused of boating under the influence, and believe you are innocent? The Law Offices of James E. Blatt handle BUI cases with one goal – getting the charges dismissed. Contact an experienced law firm dedicated to preserving your innocence in boating-related arrests.

 

  

 

In an effort to address jail overcrowding across California, a bevy of new laws have been passed since 2011. AB 1810, although designed to address Medi-Cal coverage and healthcare licensing fees, contained an important component which may help divert mentally ill defendants into more effective care programs. Mental Health Diversion for All Criminals, as the name implies, allows criminals suffering from psychological disorders to enter pretrial diversion at the judge’s discretion. Domestic violence, theft, and other crimes may qualify with the help of a competent criminal defense attorney.

This component of AB 1810 has no author, and is drawing the ire of citizens and law personnel who believe criminals will be empowered to abuse this new legislation by claiming mental illness when none exists. Prosecutors, for one, want this law scaled back to avoid granting undeserved privileges to criminal acts that normally come with extended sentences.

With an overabundance of low-level criminals remanded to CDC, this law could provide population control and access to programs mentally ill defendants need to remove themselves from California’s growing recidivism statistic.

 

Treatment Before Due Process

Counties are already given discretion by the state to provide diversion programs to offenders with PTSD, various brain injuries and other mental disorders. Military service personnel often get approved for diversion before other criminals who need similar help.

Under Gov. Brown’s recently signed law, offenders with any degree of mental illness may qualify for pretrial diversion without respect to crimes they are accused of committing. By sending persons to treatment prior to entering the criminal process, California’s hospitals – many with extended waiting lists – will see fewer criminals deemed incompetent to stand trial. Pedophilia and antisocial personality disorders are exempt from this law.

Offenders and defendants who successfully complete their assigned program may qualify to have charges dismissed, provided the judge accepts that their treatment was effective enough to prevent re-offending. Gov. Brown has earmarked $115 over three years to push 850 people through community-based programs regardless of crime.

 

This is where prosecutors want the line drawn.

 

Prosecutors Want Safeguards to Prevent Abuse

According to prosecutors who oppose this addition to criminal law, limitations are needed on who this law benefits. Nonviolent misdemeanors and low-level felonies should be the cutoff for diversion, especially when repeat offenders and those who commit violent felonies are dangers to public safety.

One argument is that the 88-page bill was passed in one legislative session, which denied the opportunity for bipartisan opposition. Another is the ease of access given to defense attorneys who can simply ask judges to send their defendants to diversion. Courts have sole discretionary power to deny or object motions for admission into these programs.

Some find that Propositions 47 and 57, along with AB 1810, allow truly guilty persons to cry afoul simply to avoid facing adjudication for crimes committed.

Current negotiations are progressing, although the exact time frame for county prosecutors to see proposed changes enacted, if at all, is unknown.

If you have committed theft, murder, or other crimes and suffer mental disorders, contact James E. Blatt to discuss your legal options. With the ultimate goal of case dismissal, Mr. Blatt has worked similar cases where psychological issues played an instrumental role during the commission of various misdemeanor and felony offenses.

See other related blogs:

Proposition 64 May be Significant in Curbing Drug Crimes

Assembly Bill 109 and Overcrowded Prisons Seven Years Later

 

Although California’s landmark cannabis reform does not include sales of marijuana and similar offenses, felony arrests related to marijuana possession and use are down 74%. Proposition 64 is having a resounding effect on cannabis-related drug crimes, in fact, much like Colorado when it legalized recreational use. Between 2016 and 2017 alone, defendants facing charges and fines related to marijuana fell by 8,000.

Another aspect of Proposition 64 is what remedies are available for those with past or present low-level marijuana offenses. Persons may petition courts to expunge records, request cases get dropped, or even get sentences or felonies reduced to misdemeanor-level punishments.

There is little doubt that arrests are falling fast. Far more serious drug issues related to opioids, cocaine, heroin and spice still remain, which may subside if California’s recreational marijuana use continues pulling tax revenue.

California is Spearheading Marijuana Criminal Reform

Millions of recreational marijuana users scattered across eight states and D.C. have been able to maintain normal lives thanks to legalization, with many able to clear records and again enjoy constitutional liberties such as gun ownership. Across America, marijuana convictions mean career options are slim and social services like SNAP may be unavailable, leading to a lower quality of life. California saw the writing on the wall, and made Prop 64 both a marijuana criminal reform tool and a quid pro quo for marijuana users unfazed by taxation of cannabis.

Proposition 64 is by no means flawless. Outreach is necessary to locate persons unaware that their marijuana conviction may be expungeable, requiring more resources and research. Yet as each day passes, another round of petitions to expunge or dismiss cases is examined and approved. Other states are following this blueprint, but it is California’s ingenuity that is having such a resounding effect on criminal reform.

The initiative to decriminalize and expunge marijuana offenses was an offshoot of Proposition 47, a 2014 law that allowed non-violent drug and other felonies to be reduced or dismissed based on their own merits, along with the criminal history of the defendant seeking dismissal.

How Proposition 64 can Fight Harder Drugs Statewide

While thousands of Californians wait patiently to have records cleared, millions of Americans lack such opportunity. Will other states that permit recreational use follow suit? Politicians are finally coming around on the issue, but reform could be years away.

One area in which California stands to improve, much like other states, is how they are fighting the deadly drug crisis. Since 2000, opioid-related overdoses have killed more Americans than soldiers in WWII.

An insightful report suggests that legal marijuana alone could decimate the amount of addictive prescription drugs dished out daily. Doctors are incentivized to prescribe pain medication, leading to a growing number of patients relying solely on oxycodone, hydrocodone, and similar drugs in high doses. Once addicted, drugs like suboxone are prescribed to fight addiction, resulting in more problems than solutions.

States like Colorado and Oregon are seeing results from this theory, reducing the number of opioid prescriptions by 9% and 10%, respectively. For California to fight this deadly drug battle, a statewide ban on habit-forming medication may be necessary, or at least tighter reform on how prescriptions are passed out.

As a standalone solution, Proposition 64 could be the catalyst California needed to fight harder drugs and the crimes that come with usage. Along with reforming overcrowded prisons and introducing better rehabilitation programs, the Golden State may become the model state for drug reform.

Many still are not sure what is illegal under the recreational pot law, known as Proposition 64 or The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016. If you have been accused of marijuana sales or other drug crimes in Los Angeles and surrounding cities, contact the Law Office of James E. Blatt.

 

See other related blogs:

Legal Pot: Not So Fast – What Can & Cannot Do

Marijuana Limitations

 

Signed by then-Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. in 2011, AB 109, known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment, was enacted to make sweeping changes to California’s overcrowded correctional facilities. By reducing costs and keeping non-violent, low-level offenders from returning to state lockup, California hoped that 33 prisons would drop their designed capacities to 137.5% by 2013. At the time of signing, prisons were operating at 179.5% of capacity.

As of August, 2018, many prisons remain at over 150% of designed capacity, with the overall average holding at 131.9%. Even worse, 4,200 guilty persons sentenced to California prisons are being housed in Mississippi and Arizona facilities, creating capacity problems with other state prison systems.

Seven years removed from Gov. Brown Jr.’s signature, California seems no better off today than before recidivism and prison overpopulation were placed in the hands of fed-up voters. This despite the landmark Brown vs. Plata case in which the government confirmed that inmates had their Eighth Amendment rights violated by virtue of overcrowding.

Rising Cost of Inmate Upkeep

Criminal defense attorneys often push hard for in-home confinement, probation, or both, which helps keep first-time and returning low-level offenders out of state confinement. If prosecutors feel jail time is merited, non-violent offenders should theoretically be allowed the option to serve county time. At least that is why AB 111 was written into law.

AB 111 was rolled out concurrently with AB 109, permitting county jails to tap into funding necessary to expand their jail system. If county jails expanded, lower level offenders could still receive CDC time, but be remanded to county for the duration of their executed sentences. By design, fewer petty criminals would be circulated through state prisons, which would lower capacity to respectable figures.

The CDC spends roughly $70,810 to house an inmate for one (1) year. Around $32,000 goes toward guard pay, with the remainder allocated to rehabilitation programs, inmate healthcare, administration, food and activities. In the wake of ICE roundups, California penal facilities are strained even further, although immigrants are suing due to harsh conditions in California, which may effectuate an increase in expenditures.

Under the current governor’s plan, $11 billion will be earmarked for rehabilitation and correction efforts. It is unclear under this new proposal if recidivism, capacity, and reassignment of low-level offenders serving time in high-security facilities are addressed. Counties will have access to these funds to expand programs and start work-release initiatives, although state prisons will consume a good portion for their own upkeep.

Forecasting Prisons of Tomorrow

Politicians and other figureheads of that ilk must find ways to address California’s prison overcrowding, especially if the CDC is expected to house immigrants rounded up by ICE. Some prisons and county facilities house inmates in shack-size rooms with triple bunk beds, creating unwarranted mental strain on inmates, not to mention provoking an unhealthy environment.

The Office of Research shows a 2017 CDC prison population of 131,260 with an estimated 2020 population of 121,224. Because of the projected impact of Proposition 57 and a decrease in court commitments, CDCR expects the prison population to reduce for the duration of the projections cycle released annually.

One area in which prisons are improving is their parole system. From August of 2017 to March of this year, roughly 12,000 inmates earned credit time toward their release, and California’s Parole Board is hearing nonviolent cases more frequently. This may help lessen the overcrowding issue, yet many believe an overhaul of the California criminal code could also relegate low-level offenders to more effective substance abuse and psychological programs.

The myriad of criminal procedure differences in California offer little clarity to someone facing serious jail time. Contact criminal defense attorney James E. Blatt, an expert in all facets of criminal law with only one goal: getting cases dismissed by mounting a comprehensive defense of alleged crimes.

 

See other related blogs:

Prohibitions Against Possession and Ownership

How To Legally Carry Your Legal Firearm in a Vehicle