The Constitution’s Second Amendment stresses “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
That language is frequently quoted in discussions centered on that cornerstone American protection. And while it is spotlighted, it isn’t routinely tempered by advocates’ acknowledgment of tandem restrictions that state governments and federal authorities liberally impose on the right.
Kids are not adults. End of story.
That is a bottom-line observation from our immediately preceding blog post at the established Bay Area criminal defense Law Office of John W. Noonan. And it is coupled with our view -- adamantly supported by researchers, psychologists and thoughtful law enforcers spanning the country -- that “young people who are not yet adults shouldn’t typically be treated as if they are.”
There is a mixed yes/no component in the answer to the above-posed headline query in our blog post today.
On the one hand, many of the laws and processes relevant to matters like arrests, custody, interrogation, criminal charging and so forth are indeed the same or closely similar.
California law enforcers have many tools at their discretion when it comes to identifying, stopping and arresting alleged drunk drivers. Those range from roving saturation patrols to sobriety checkpoints.
Our blog post today spotlights the latter resource, which was employed last Saturday night on a South San Francisco thoroughfare. The checkpoint featured more than a modicum of drama.
We underscored in our immediately preceding blog post at the Bay Area Law Office of John W. Noonan that America’s long-tenured War on Crime is under siege. We noted in our December 12 entry the irony linked with newly emerging systemic reforms being materially driven by some prosecutors across the country.
It is those individuals in California and nationally, after all, who customarily take tough stances and promote harsh sentencing outcomes for criminal defendants. It is largely the work of government attorneys that has led to the country’s overburdened penal system and its insanely high maintenance costs.
Reform is a key byword of criminal law these days. A recent in-depth media report on charging, plea negotiations and sentencing cites strong evidence that material prosecutorial adjustments from a long-time norm are occurring across the country.
And from coast to coast. The political publication Slate cites newly emerging “reform-minded prosecutors” from New York to San Francisco. Many district attorneys in major municipalities spanning the United States are bucking long-held and dominant realities that spawn harsh charging edicts and uncompromising government demands for notably stringent post-conviction outcomes.
What voters do in a given state often has local-only implications. In other instances, though, it sends a message that has broad relevance nationally and spotlights a matter that is important everywhere.
The Florida electorate recently spoke in a collective manner that is understandably garnering national attention and resonating with legions of Americans.
Will it fly?
That is certainly the question most relevant to considerations surrounding the so-called First Step Act, which is a Senate bill focused on federal criminal sentencing reform that actively seeks President Trump’s embrace.
If you’re anything but a novice driver in the Bay Area or virtually anywhere else on California roadways, you can supply a quick answer to the above-posed blog headline query.
And that is this: They’re out in force and notably present.
Here’s a nightmare of almost unimaginable scope that we sketch for readers of our California criminal defense blog. We suspect that it will readily induce empathy from anyone who dwells on its details for even a moment or so.
To wit: A prosecutor insists that DNA evidence targets you as the wrongdoer in a horrific crime. You know that the accusation is false. Nonetheless, the state is dangling that evidence – universally perceived as taint-free and even infallible – in your face. Virtually no party will favor your version of truth over what technicians with advanced degrees have produced via lab-driven research.
John was able to get client a reduction of charge of a DUI because of being a nurse it could mean her license.
He secured a Drunk in Public , and she would attend a 3 month program. Additionally, the dmv hearing was also set aside.
Both being a win for the client.
Read MoreA client was arrested for a Felony Domestic Violence, could have devastated her potential for future employment. John was able to get the case dismissed. Client was thrilled.
Read MoreA juvenile was arrested for 2nd Degree Robbery. After 6 months the case was dismissed.
A juvenile was arrested for Sexual Battery. After 6 months and 80 hours of Community service, the case was dismissed.
Read MoreA client with a 1st DUI arrest. Fearing she would go to jail; lose her license for a year and lose her job. Got a wet reckless and minimal fines.
Read MoreA client with 4 Felony charges on a Transportation Charge, a Attempt to Sell, Possession of Marijuana, (50 pounds), Conspiracy Charge all where reduced to 1 Misdemeanor. No Jail.
Client was charged with 6 Felony drug possessions. Facing jail time. The results: Client got a deferred entry of judgment and then dismissed.
Client charged with several felony counts of possession of Marijuana with intent to sell. Client was involved in a medical marijuana grow. Case was reduced and later dismissed.
Read MoreA client with alleged 2 Felony Sex charges and he faced jail and sex registration. The case was entirely dismissed.
Client charged with prostitution; facing jail time and sex offender registration. Result: NO JAIL TIME AND NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION Deferred Entry of Judgment.
Read MoreClient charged with domestic violence, with great bodily injury. Case reduced to a misdemeanor with time served.
Read More
Dublin Office
6379 Clark Avenue
Suite 250
Dublin,
CA
94568
Phone:
925-463-3340
Fax:
925-479-0015
Dublin Law Office Map
Manteca Office
210 East Center Street
Suite 10
Manteca,
CA
95336
Phone:
925-463-3340
Fax:
925-479-0015
Manteca Law Office Map
