It is often the case that, as the following article explains, Fed Ex may inspect a suspicious package shipped via Fed Ex or Google may inspect one’s email on its server and alert police about something that may be illegal. The government may then observe what the private company found and begin criminal proceedings. This type of search is not a Fourth Amendment violation because the government did not perform the search. However, if the government expands the search without a warrant, that may be a Fourth Amendment violation. To read more about this issues, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/how-does-the-private-search-doctrine-help-the-police.html
Month: September 2021
DUI Refusal Defense – Background Noise of Radio?
A valid defense to a refusal to submit defense is that the officer failed to read the admonition in full. He may have, for example, skipped a paragraph or a sentence. When the admonition is given amid a loud police station, or at a hospital with others talking over the officer, or a loud radio creating background noise, a background noise defense can arise. To read more about this defense, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/dui-refusal-defense-background-noise-of-radio.html
Does SB 1437’s Retroactivity Violate Marsy’s Law?
Among the various arguments made by prosecutors to oppose resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 is that the amendments to the felony murder rule and abolishing accomplice liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences theory violate Marsy’s Law, which also known as the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, which amended the California Constitution to give crime victims certain rights. Thus, the new legislation under SB 1437 violated the separation of powers doctrine and was unconstitutional. To read how an appellate court ruled on this argument, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/does-sb-1437s-retroactivity-violate-marsys-law.html
Little Known Facts About Expungement to Keep in Mind
The United States celebrates second chances and giving someone an opportunity who otherwise may not have had it due to some history. Expungement consequently appeals to our optimism and faith in certain American values. However, it is is not quite so easy or available as everyone may believe. The following link is to a short article about little known facts about expungement to know – https://www.greghillassociates.com/little-known-facts-about-expungement-to-keep-in-mind.html
SB 1437 – Finding Reckless Indifference to Human Life
Under the new felony murder rule passed into law in 2018, the definition of felony murder under Penal Code § 189 was changed and SB 1437 was codified at Penal Code § 1170.95 to allow someone previously convicted under the old felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequence theory unless that person was the actual killer, aided and abetted with the intent to kill or acted as a major participant with reckless indifference to human life. Reckless indifference to human life was discussed at length in People v. Clark in 2016. To see how an appellate court applies Clark to an SB 1437 petition, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/sb-1437-finding-reckless-indifference-to-human-life.html
SB 1437 Denied – Judge Finds Defendant Was a Major Participant
As the reader of this blog may already know, Senate Bill 1437 provides that a person sentenced under the former felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences theory of liability may petition for resentencing if that person was not the actual killer, did not aid in the killing with the intent to kill and did not act as a major participant with reckless indifference to human life. People v. Banks, a 2015 case, discussed what constitutes being a major participant. To see how an appellate court applied Banks to a recent petition for resentencing under SB 1437, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/sb-1437-denied-judge-finds-defendant-a-major-participant_1.html
Resentencing for Military Veterans Under Penal Code § 1170.91(b)
If you or a loved one are a military veternan sentenced on felony conviction prior to January 1, 2015, and suffered from service-related PTSD, TBI, sexual trauma, substance abuse or other mental trauma – and this service-related disability was not considered in sentencing, resentencing may be requested with consideration of this mitigating information. For more information about such a petition for resentencing, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/resentencing-for-military-veterans-under-pc-1170-91-b.html
Thirteen Year Delay for SVP Trial Unconstitutional?
As the reader of this blog may be well aware, the right to a speedy trial is a right enjoyed by all criminal defendants. However, is a trial to commit a sexually violent predator (SVP) to a civil commitment a criminal or civil proceeding? If it is not a criminal proceeding, is there are due process or equal protection right to a defendant facing such a commitment? What if there is a 13-year delay between the time the prosecution seeks to commit defendant and the actual trial? To read a case that addressed this issue, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/thirteen-year-delay-for-svp-trial-unconstitutional.html
What is Negligent Discharge of a Firearm (PC 246.3)?
Is negligent discharge of a firearm a felony or a misdemeanor? Does one lose one’s Second Amendment rights for life after such a conviction? Is there a mandatory minimum jail or prison term? What are the defenses? To read more about this crime and how it is prosecuted and defended, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-negligent-discharge-of-a-firearm-pc-246-3.html
SB 1437 – When May Judge Consider Prelim Transcript?
In the context of a judge determining whether an SB 1437 petitioner has made a prima facie claim for relief, can a judge read over the preliminary hearing transcript? Most people would think no is the answer. However, if the prosecution files an opposition to the petition and says the petitioner is not qualified under 1437 because petitioner was the actual killer, the judge can consider the preliminary transcript to verify the prosecution’s position. To read a summary of a case where this happened, please click on the following link – https://www.greghillassociates.com/sb-1437-when-may-judge-consider-prelim-transcript.html