Concepts of Criminal Law

Concepts of Criminal Law
Syllabus	Links
Course of Study: transferable to University of California, and California State University. Course assignment Dr. Oliver M. Thompson Paper heading: Title of paper. Criminal Law. Time, days, section, your name. Instructor's name - Dr. Oliver M. Thompson Date of paper. Always include your STUDENT REGISTERED name on any mail to me, not your email address. IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE YOU WILL USE WEBCT MAIL AS THE PRIMARY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION, IMBEDDED IN YOUR COURSE SECTION HOMEPAGE. FOR EXAMPLE - SEE BELOW: Title of Paper: Biography, Concepts of Criminal Law Monday - Wednesday - Friday, 810am - 911am, Section #73284 Tuesday, 1040am - 1225pm, Section #73281 Wednesday, 6pm - 745pm, Section #73282 Dr. Oliver M. Thompson June 11, 2007 BIOGRAPHY - Write me a story about you: who are you, why taking this class, career aspirations, email address, phone number for contact. 25 points. Due: PLEASE NOTE - ALL FACT BASED, SUBJECT MATTER ESSAYS ARE ANALYZED BY TURNITIN.COM TO INSURE A LACK OF PLAGARISM. AS SUCH, INSURE THAT YOUR WORK PRODUCT IS PROPERLY CITED AND SOURCED. ESSAY U.S. Constitution as it relates to the subject matter; CRIMINAL LAW. 50 points. Due: DEFINE AND DESCRIBE: Exclusionary Rule and Due Process. 50 points. Due: Due process consensual encounter, detention, ARREST, complaint, arraignment, preliminary hearing, pretrial motions, trial, deliberations, verdict, G, NG, sanity, sentencing, incarceration, post release restrictions - probation, parole, release from custody - registration; sex offender, arsonist, narcotic addict, convicted gang member. Exclusionary rule All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp. 643-660. United States Constitution; as it relates to Criminal Law, interwoven into each outlined case or discussion format. U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT - http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html Proposition 21 - http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/21.htm Proposition 36 - http://www.prop36.org/ Proposition 184 - http://www.silicon-valley.com/star2.html Proposition 215 - http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/BP/215.htm Proposition 66 - http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htThreeStrikesProp66.htm Criminal Cases: (required) WEEKS v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 (1914) WOLF V. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLO. , 338 U.S. 25 (1949) Mapp v. Ohio 4th amendment Terry v. Ohio Florida v. J.L. Miranda v. Arizona 5th amendment Dickerson v. U.S. Escobedo v. Illinois Escobedo v. Illinois 6th amendment Gideon v. Wainwright SAMPLE FORMAT - not 100% correct, make sure you review and correct any errors. ESCOBEDO v. ILLINOIS FACTS Petitioner, a 22-year-old of Mexican extraction, was arrested with his sister and taken to police headquarters for interrogation in connection with the fatal shooting, about 11 days before, of his brother-in-law. He had been arrested shortly after the shooting, but had made no statement, and was released after his lawyer obtained a writ of habeas corpus from a state court. Petitioner made several requests to see his lawyer, who, though present in the building, and despite persistent efforts, was refused access to his client. Petitioner was not advised by the police of his right to remain silent and, after persistent questioning by the police, made a damaging statement to an Assistant State's Attorney which was admitted at the trial. Convicted of murder, he appealed to the State Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction. CONSTITUTION 6^th amendment, right to an attorney 14^th amendment, due process, states 5th amendment, self incrimination COURT RULING Held: Under the circumstances of this case, where a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect in police custody who has been refused an opportunity to consult with his counsel and who has not been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial. Crooker v. *California,* 357 U.S. 433, and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the instant case, they are not controlling. Pp. 479-492. [p479] Application - your words. The 4th, 5th and 6th amendment topics constitute ONE PAPER. This Paper is due: You are allowed to freelance - in your own words or copy and paste, appropriate sections. However, the APPLICATION portion must be in your own words. A legal discussion pertaining to Criminal Law, it is NOT an expression complete and drawn from an emotional response of your feeling and opinion of what is RIGHT, what is WRONG. I will review your paper, ONE TIME, prior to its final submission. FIRST HALF OF COURSE: BIOGRAPHY 25 points U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Officers quiz 22 points ESSAY U.S. Constitution 50 points ESSAY Due Process / Exclusionary Rule 50 points PAPER 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments 120 points MID TERM EXAM 100 points SECOND HALF OF COURSE: PAPER 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14 amendments 80 points PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v IVORY J. WEBB 100 points - extra credit FINAL EXAM 100 points TOTAL POINTS: The People of the State of California v Ivory J. Webb is a significant case in the annals of criminal cases, especially in the Inland Empire pertaining to use of force criminal cases involving California Peace Officers. Your assignment is to keep a web blog on the case from the original charging today, March 7, 2006 through the total case, or the end of this class. You can find pertinent information on this case by logging into the San Bernardino Sun www.sbsun.com , or the Los Angeles Times www.latimes.com. You are to critically analyze the case, both legally (what does the law say) as well as personally (what do I think about this case), through the various segments of the criminal justice system regarding this matter. EXTRA CREDIT - Due: The following criminal law cases constitute the SECOND PAPER. These criminal law cases pertain to SPECIFIC TOPICAL AREAS. Identify the TOPICAL area of the case; for example obscenity, mental retardation, equal protection under the law, capital punishment, jury selection. FACTS( who, what, where, when, how, why), which CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT(S) applies 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th 14th, and the COURT'S RULING; what did they rule, legal implications of the court's ruling, what does it mean in society, to the legal profession or society in general. You might identify criminal law cases which are topically inclusive, joined in topical discussion, as you discuss these cases. For example, cases which are 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendment joined. APPLICATION - outline questions, thoughts, ideas about the case and that which the court ruled. All cases are listed in alphabetical order on the court case document which I provided. A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) CASES MUST BE REVIEWED; 16 points per case, 80 points. Due: You are allowed to freelance - in your own words or copy and paste. However, the APPLICATION portion must be in your own words. A legal discussion pertaining to Criminal Law, it is NOT an expression complete and drawn from an emotional response of your feeling and opinion of what is RIGHT, what is WRONG. I will review your paper, ONE TIME, prior to its final submission. Your initial five (5) cases must be taken from the following list of cases. For any additional cases, feel free to draw from the total listing of cases. Ashcroft v. ACLU Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Atkins v. Virginia Atwater v Lago Vista Bowers v Hardwick Chavez v Martinez City of Erie et al v PAPS AM dba Kandyland Ewing v California Ferguson v Charleston Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada Illinois v Lidster Illinois v McArthur Indianapolis v Edmond In re Arturo D., People v. Hinger In re Gault Kolender v. Lawson Kyllo v. United States Lawrence et al v Texas Lockyer v Andrade Miller v. California Missouri v Siebert, Patrice New York v. Bernard Goetz Roe v. Wade Stogner v California Tennessee v. Garner United States v Banks United States v Oakland Cannabisbuyers’ Cooperative United States v. Patane Whren, et al v United States Yarborough, Warden v Alvarado, Michael ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP v. UNITED STATES Ashcroft v ACLU et al Ashcroft v ACLU et al Ashcroft v ACLU et al Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition Atkins v Virginia Atkins v Virginia Atwater v Lago Vista Banks v Dretzke Batson v Kentucky BELL, WARDEN v. THOMPSON. Blakely v Washington Bowers v Hardwick BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH v. STUART et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-502.ZS.html BROWN, WARDEN v. PAYTON Chavez v Martinez Cheney v united states district court for D.C. City of Erie et al v PAPS AM dba Kandyland Crawford v Washington CUTTER et al. v. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993). DEVENPECK et al. v. ALFORD Elk Grove Unified School District et al v Newdow, et al Ewing v California Fellers, John J. v United States Ferguson v Charleston FLORIDA v. NIXON GONZALES V. RAICH GRANHOLM, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al. v. HEALD et al. HALBERT v. MICHIGAN Hamdi v Rumsfeld Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada ILLINOIS v. CABALLES Illinois v Lidster Illinois v Mcarthur Indianapolis v Edmond Indianapolis v Edmond In re Arturo D http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:na0y8R0uhycJ:www.co.alameda.ca.us/da/pov/documents/arturo_d.pdf+in+re+arturo+d&hl=en In re Gault JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA et al. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. Kolender v Lawson Kyllo v United States Kyllo v United States Lawrence et al v Texas Leocal v Ashcroft Lockyer v Andrade Maryland v Pringle MAYLE, WARDEN v. FELIX McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al. Miller v California Missouri v Siebert, Patrice Missouri v Siebert, Patrice MUEHLER et al. v. MENA Nelson v Campbell People v Hinger http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:na0y8R0uhycJ:www.co.alameda.ca.us/da/pov/documents/arturo_d.pdf+people+v+hinger&hl=en Rasul v. Bush Ring v Arizona Roe v Wade Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion14sep14,0,1628391.story?coll=la-home-nation ROMPILLA v. BEARD, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER v. SIMMONS Rumsfeld v Padilla Schriro, Director, Arizona department of corrections v Summerlin Sell v United States SHEPARD v. UNITED STATES SMALL v. UNITED STATES Smith et al v Doe et al SMITH et al. v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, et al. Stenberg v Carhart Stogner v California Tennessee v Garner Thornton v United States TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al. United States v American Library Association United States v Banks United States v Banks UNITED STATES v. BOOKER United States v Flores-Montano United States v Oakland Cannabisbuyers’ Cooperative United States v. Patane Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation? VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al. Virginia v Black Whren, et al v United States WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. v. DOTSON et al. Yarborough, Warden v Alvarado, Michael CASE LAW EXAMPLES: 1ST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. HUNT; CHAPTER 13, PUBLIC SAFETY AND MORALS. OBSCENE MATTER DEFINED. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/00-1293.html ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html CITY OF ERIE et al v PAPS AM dba KANDYLAND. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1161 MILLER V CALIFORNIA. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZS.html 4TH AMENDMENT: SEARCH AND SEIZURE ATWATER et al. v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZS.html BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH v. STUART et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-502.ZS.html FERGUSON et al. v. CITY OF CHARLESTON et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-936.ZS.html HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html ILLINOIS v. CABALLES. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-923.ZS.html ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1060.ZS.html ILLINOIS v. McARTHUR. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1132.ZS.html CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. v. EDMOND et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZS.html KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=461&invol=352 KYLLO v. UNITED STATES. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html Cell Phones As People Trackers. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/19/earlyshow/living/main1510771.shtml TENNESSEE V GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1 UNITED STATES v. BANKS. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZS.html WHREN et al. v. UNITED STATES. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-5841.ZS.html 5TH AMENDMENT: STATEMENTS, COERCIVE INTERROGATIONS CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1444.ZS.html HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html MISSOURI v. SEIBERT. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1371.ZS.html STOGNER v. CALIFORNIA. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1757.ZS.html UNITED STATES v. PATANE. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1183.ZS.html YARBOROUGH, WARDEN v. ALVARADO. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1684.ZS.html 6TH AMENDMENT: RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY, JUVENILE RIGHTS IN RE GAULT, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=387&invol=1 8TH AMENDMENT: CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, SENTENCE PROPORTIONALITY ATKINS v. VIRGINIA. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html EWING V CALIFORNIA. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-6978 LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA v. ANDRADE. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1127.ZS.html 14TH AMENDMENT: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, PRIVACY BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=478&invol=186 CITY OF ERIE et al v PAPS AM dba KANDYLAND. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1161 LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html IN RE GAULT, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=387&invol=1 ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=410&invol=113 STOGNER v. CALIFORNIA. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1757.ZS.html TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al.. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html Domestic Relations court orders - EPO; emergency protection orders, TRO; temporary restraining orders, PRO; permanent restraining orders, for a set time period - 1 year, 3 years - Pamela Anderson stalking case, her and her family members, CPO; corporate protective orders. STAY AWAY PROVISIONS. PC§ 273.5. Corporal Injury to Spouse, Cohabitant, or Child's Parent (a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute cohabitation as the term is used in this section. (c) As used in this section, "traumatic condition" means a condition of the body, such as a wound or external or internal injury, whether of a minor or serious nature, caused by a physical force. (d) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be considered the father or mother of another person's child if the alleged male parent is presumed the natural father under Sections 7611 and 7612 of the Family Code. (e) (1) Any person convicted of violating this section for acts occurring within seven years of a previous conviction under subdivision (a), or subdivision (d) of Section 243, or Section 243.4, 244, 244.5, or 245, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or five years, or by both imprisonment and a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (2) Any person convicted of a violation of this section for acts occurring within seven years of a previous conviction under subdivision (e) of Section 243 shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. (f) If probation is granted to any person convicted under subdivision (a), the court shall impose probation consistent with the provisions of Section 1203.097. PC§ 273.6. Disobeying Domestic Relations Court Order (a) Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) In the event of a violation of subdivision (a) which results in physical injury, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 48 hours, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated on the record, reduce or eliminate the 30-day minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision. In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the order during the pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply to the following court orders: (1) Any order issued pursuant to Section 6320 or 6389 of the Family Code. (2) An order excluding one party from the family dwelling or from the dwelling of the other. (3) An order enjoining a party from specified behavior which the court determined was necessary to effectuate the order described in subdivision (a). (4) Any order issued by another state that is recognized under Part 5 (commencing with Section 6400) of Division 10 of the Family Code. d) A subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a), occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) and involving an act of violence or "a credible threat" of violence, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 139, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or in the state prison. (e) In the event of a subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) for an act occurring within one year of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) that results in physical injury to a victim, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year, by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 30 days, the court may, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated in the record, reduce or eliminate the six-month minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision. In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the order during the pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. (f) The prosecuting agency of each county shall have the primary responsibility for the enforcement of orders described in subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (e). (g) (1) Every person who owns, possesses, purchases, or receives a firearm knowing he or she is prohibited from doing so by the provisions of a protective order as defined in Section 136.2 of this code, Section 6218 of the Family Code, or Section 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, shall be punished under the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 12021. 2) Every person subject to a protective order described in paragraph (1) shall not be prosecuted under this section for owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm to the extent that firearm is granted an exemption pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or subdivision (h) of Section 6389 of the Family Code. (h) If probation is granted upon conviction of a violation of subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), the court shall impose probation consistent with the provisions of Section 1203.097, and the conditions of probation may include, in lieu of a fine, one or both of the following requirements: (1) That the defendant make payments to a battered women's shelter or to a shelter for abused elder persons or dependent adults, up to a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000), pursuant to Section 1203.097. (2) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are the direct result of the defendant's offense. (i) For any order to pay a fine, make payments to a battered women' s shelter, or pay restitution as a condition of probation under subdivision (e), the court shall make a determination of the defendant's ability to pay. In no event shall any order to make payments to a battered women's shelter be made if it would impair the ability of the defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim or court-ordered child support. Where the injury to a married person is caused in whole or in part by the criminal acts of his or her spouse in violation of this section, the community property may not be used to discharge the liability of the offending spouse for restitution to the injured spouse, required by Section 1203.04, as operative on or before August 2, 1995, or Section 1202.4, or to a shelter for costs with regard to the injured spouse and dependents, required by this section, until all separate property of the offending spouse is exhausted. (Amended by Stats. 2003, Ch. 498, Sec. 7. Effective January 1, 2004.) PC§ 273.65. Punishment for Violation of Protective Order (a) Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order issued pursuant to Section 213.5, 304, or 362.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (b) In the event of a violation of subdivision (a) which results in physical injury, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 48 hours, the court may, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated on the record, reduce or eliminate the 30-day minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision. In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the order during the pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply to the following court orders: (1) An order enjoining any party from molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, contacting repeatedly by mail with the intent to harass, or disturbing the peace of the other party, or other named family and household members. (2) An order excluding one party from the family dwelling or from the dwelling of the other. (3) An order enjoining a party from specified behavior which the court determined was necessary to effectuate the order under subdivision (a). (d) A subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a), occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) and involving an act of violence or "a credible threat" of violence, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 139, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or in the state prison. (e) In the event of a subsequent conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) for an act occurring within one year of a prior conviction for a violation of an order described in subdivision (a) which results in physical injury to the same victim, the person shall be punished by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year, by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. However, if the person is imprisoned in a county jail for at least 30 days, the court may, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the record, reduce or eliminate the six-month minimum imprisonment required by this subdivision. In determining whether to reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall consider the seriousness of the facts before the court, whether there are additional allegations of a violation of the order during the pendency of the case before the court, the probability of future violations, the safety of the victim, and whether the defendant has successfully completed or is making progress with counseling. (f) The prosecuting agency of each county shall have the primary responsibility for the enforcement of orders issued pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (e). (g) The court may order a person convicted under this section to undergo counseling, and, if appropriate, to complete a batterer's treatment program. (h) If probation is granted upon conviction of a violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c), the conditions of probation may include, in lieu of a fine, one or both of the following requirements: (1) That the defendant make payments to a battered women's shelter, up to a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000), pursuant to Section 1203.097. (2) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are the direct result of the defendant's offense. (i) For any order to pay a fine, make payments to a battered women's shelter, or pay restitution as a condition of probation under subdivision (e), the court shall make a determination of the defendant's ability to pay. In no event shall any order to make payments to a battered women's shelter be made if it would impair the ability of the defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim or court ordered child support. (Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 1139, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1997.) Fingerprints_history.pdf contract_sex.pdf innocence_compensation.pdf lapd_trng_reimburse.pdf GO TO WEBQUEST Gardner Chapters 1-11 Gardner Chapters 12-22 Hunt Chapters 1-7 Hunt Chapters 8-18 Samaha Chapters 1-13 Criminal Law Teaching Outline The Constitution of the United States Bill of Rights re-write Bill of Rights For a Black Man USA PATRIOT ACT 2001 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse