The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is reporting a decline in recidivism rates in the state.  Those rates have fallen to 65%.  Recidivism refers to an individual’s tendency to return to prison either after being arrested again for a crime, or as a result of a parole violation.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation data, the new recidivism rate translates into a 2.4% drop from the previous year.  However, California criminal defense attorneys would advise some caution before over optimism at these reduced recidivism rates.  The fact is that approximately 2/3^rd of all offenders still manage to get back into prison.

Overall, last year, 2, 766 fewer inmates returned to prison.  These resulted in a total savings to prison authorities of about $30 million.  The number one reason for recidivism last year was parole violations.  These violations made up about 45% of repeat visits to prison.   Only 3% of persons returning to prison were sent back after they were involved in crimes.  About 7% of these persons were involved in property crimes and drug crimes.

Most sex offenders who returned to prison did so not because of a new sex crime, but because of parole violations.  Overall, 84% of sex offenders ended up back in prison because of a parole violation.  The data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation also finds that inmates who have received substance abuse treatment are less likely to return to prison than those that do not receive such treatment.

Female convicts are about 11% less likely to return to prison over a period of about 3 years after release, compared to males.  Also, persons who suffer from developmental disabilities are much more likely to return to prison.  Overall, the data from the California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation shows that 99% of convicted murderers who were paroled since 1995, have not returned to prison.

If a new bill proposed by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York does go through and becomes law, then price gouging, or inflating the prices of pharmaceutical drugs that are already in short supply, could be categorized as a federal crime.

Senator Schumer says that he is currently proposing a bill that would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to come down heavily on pharmaceutical companies that sell potentially life-saving medications that are in short supply, to hospitals at heavily marked up prices.  Violators of the law could pay penalties of up to $500 million for each price gouging.

Drug shortages have been raging through American hospitals, and health regulators have been reporting shortages of some of the most important medications for cancer, pain control, infections and even anesthetics.  The shortage is especially severe for generic medicines.  Some drugs have been eliminated from the market, because companies have chosen to stop production of those drugs that have poor margins, while other drugs are unavailable due to limited supplies of ingredients.

Obviously, these shortages are gravely concerning because they impact patient safety.  According to one report, at least 15 patient deaths since 2010 were caused due to drug shortages.

Senator Schumer says that forcing hospitals to buy vital and potentially life-saving drugs at hugely inflated prices is unethical, and should also be illegal.  The Senator is currently working on finding cosponsors for the bill.  Last month, the Senator had also requested the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an investigation into the practice of price gouging in the industry.

There’s been a lot of attention on pharmaceutical drug shortages recently, and several lawmakers have also been in touch with President Obama, about the issue.  Arizona criminal defense lawyers therefore expect that Senator Schumer’s proposed bill will garner plenty of attention, and possibly gain a lot of support.

Alabamians, who want to enjoy their drinks this holiday season, might want to think twice before they drive after those drinks.  Your chances of being arrested for DUI in Alabama are likely to increase in the next few days as law enforcement activities across the state increase.

The Alabama Law Enforcement and Traffic Safety Division in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies as well as the Alabama Highway Patrol has increased activities this holiday season.  A state-wide anti-DUI campaign is currently underway. The campaign against DUI will also include a campaign enforcing seat belt and child restraint use.  Officers will also be looking for motorists driving above the speed limits.  However, the primary objective of the campaign will be to pull intoxicated drivers off the street.

Over the next few days, Alabama motorists can expect an increased number of saturation patrols, checkpoints, line patrols and LIDAR details.  The, Alabama Highway Patrol is expected to especially target those areas that have a higher incidence of drunk driving accidents.  If you’re driving in these areas, you’re much more likely to be pulled over for DUI, and may have a sobriety test administered.

To avoid spending your holiday talking to an Alabama DUI lawyer, avoid driving after you have had a few drinks.  It’s not always easy to judge whether you are legally intoxicated or in a condition to drive.  If in doubt, don’t drive at all.  Hire a taxi service, or designate a driver for the evening.  The consequences of a DUI conviction in Alabama can be very serious.  You could be looking at jail time, license suspension or revocation.  You could be required to install an ignition interlock device in your car or be required to take a mandatory alcohol treatment program.

Illinois police, who arrived at the scene of a DUI accident involving an underage driver, were not expecting the teen’s explanation for the accident.  By the time police arrived, the eighteen-year-old driver had driven her car into a ditch.  Police found that she was extremely intoxicated, and also very angry.  The reason for her intoxicated driving, she told police officers, was that her boyfriend had failed to take her to see the latest installment in the Twilight movie series.  That’s what it says on the sheriff’s report about the accident.

However, law-enforcement officers were not as distressed with the boyfriend’s failures as the teen was.  She was immediately slapped with charges of driving under the influence and unlawful consumption of alcohol by a minor.

It’ll take more than such excuses to help an underage driver in California caught driving under the influence of alcohol.  California has some of the toughest laws against underage drinking in the country.  While .08% is the BAC level legally allowed for the adult motorist population, underage drinkers are prevented from driving with any amount of alcohol in their system.  The bar is set much higher for underage drinkers, and the consequences for persons below the age of 18 who are found driving under the influence of alcohol, can be severe.

That means that an underage driver in Los Angeles, driving with a BAC level of even 01%, can require the services of a Los Angeles DUI attorney.  Underage drivers who are caught driving with a BAC level of .05% or greater can be charged with not only underage DUI, but also regular DUI.  These persons can also be arrested for DUI.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t take that much alcohol to result in a .01% BAC concentration level, a fact that many teenage drinkers tend to forget.

Prisons in Alabama have nearly as twice as many prisoners as they are equipped to hold.  According to Alabama’s Attorney General the problem of prison overcrowding in the state could be resolved by releasing inmates who are deemed not likely to commit violent crimes.

In the current economic situation, the idea of releasing nonviolent prisoners to free up space in prisons and balance budgets, has taken root in several cash-strapped states.  Precedents for releasing inmates to solve prison crowding problems exist around the country.  In California, a Supreme Court-ordered program of releasing inmates who have been convicted for low-level offenses is expected to resolve some of the massive congestion in that state’s prisons.  Alabama’s prisons have similar overcrowding problems.

Speaking to a panel discussion held at the conservative think tank Federalist Society in Washington, Alabama Attorney General, Luther Strange talked about the financial pressures of having a prison population that is at least 195% of the maximum capacity of the system.  Releasing some inmates would help decongest these prisons, and lighten the burden on corrections budgets.

However, Alabama criminal defense lawyers do not believe that any such measures to reduce prison populations by releasing harmless inmates, will be popular.  This is in spite of the fact that according to some estimates, between one third and half of all inmates of major prisons around the country can be released without any major threat to public safety.  This release could save millions of dollars in corrections budget.   For instance, some criminals who have been convicted of minor offenses could easily be released without there being a major threat to public safety.  These prisoners cost thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget director has been facing calls to resign after she was arrested for driving under the influence.  Ana Matosantos says she has offered to resign, but Governor Jerry Brown has not accepted her offer.

Matosantos, who serves as finance director in the Brown administration, was pulled over after California Highway Patrol officers noticed her vehicle drifting out of its lane.  The officers began to follow her, and noted that the registration had expired.  They pulled her over, and subjected her to a field sobriety test.  She was then arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor DUI, and taken to the Sacramento County Jail, where she was subjected to a breath test.  The results of the test have not been revealed.

Matosantos has released a statement in which she has accepted responsibility for her actions, and called her behavior in driving under the influence “reckless and irresponsible.”  Matosantos served as deputy budget director under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.  In 2009, she was promoted to her current position, and was retained by Gov. Jerry Brown when he took over in January.

Whether you are a high-ranking official in the California administration, or an ordinary citizen, Los Angeles DUI defense lawyers find that the consequences for a DUI are the same.  What Matosantos has to deal with, in addition as a public official arrested for driving under the influence, is the unwanted media scrutiny and publicity that a DUI arrest can generate.

However, a DUI arrest for any citizen can result in penalties that include fines, driver’s license suspensions and jail time.  Additionally, a conviction for driving under the influence will remain on your record, possibly interfering with your employment and higher education prospects.

A bill that has just been passed by the California legislature would prohibit law enforcement officers from taking e-mails, pictures and other personal data from the cell phone of a person under arrest without a warrant.

Currently, if a person is arrested in California, law enforcement officers can access e-mails and other personal data from their cell phone.  If the bill becomes law, they will need a warrant.  If the governor signs the bill, it will also override a Supreme Court ruling that held that it was legal for police officers to go through a person’s cell phone during an arrest.  Cell phones and other electronic communication devices will be safe from the prying eyes of law enforcement.

If the bill does indeed become law, then San Diego criminal defense lawyers believe that it will be a huge victory for the privacy rights of Californians.  A person who has only been arrested and not convicted of a crime has a right to privacy, and those rights need to be respected.  Several other states have banned police officers from accessing cell phones and other communication devices of people who are arrested.  For instance, Ohio banned the practice back in 2009, when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police had no right to access a person’s cell phones without a search warrant.

Besides cell phones, this law could also cover a number of other electronic devices, including laptops, notebooks, iPads, and tablet computers.  Additionally, electronic data that a person may have in a digital camera, video cameras, audio recorders, pen drives, hard drives and gaming devices could all be off-limits to police officers.  Law enforcement officers have defended their rights to access cell phones of people who are arrested, because they can get information about criminal or illegal activity.

San Diego sex crimes lawyers can chalk up yet another violation of the rights of sex offenders, in the guise of child safety. The Placer Hills Union School District recently voted to prevent parents convicted of sex crimes from visiting campuses. The decision was made in a 3-2 vote.

Generally, parents of California school districts who find themselves on the registry of sex offenders are allowed to visit schools on a case-by-case basis. This new rule at the Placer Hills Union School District would prevent parents from visiting their children’s schools if they are included in the sex offender registry. The rule was adopted in October last year, and has already been criticized by California criminal defense lawyers, and parents who find themselves on sex offender registries. A rule like this ensures that parents cannot even visit their children’s schools for important events.

Under the provisions of Megan’s Law, persons who have been convicted of sex offenses and have been released from prison and are on parole, are required to register under a federal registry of sex offenders. These persons can have severe restrictions placed on their living arrangements. For instance, they cannot live close to a school or park or any place where children gather. The Placer Hills Union School District goes one step further by ensuring that sex offenders on parole who happen to have children in school, cannot visit the school even a case-by-case basis. This amounts to gross violation of these people’s rights.

It’s hard to imagine how much more danger children in Placer Hills Union School District can be compared to children in other districts in California where parents on the registry can visit their children’s schools on certain occasions. Unfortunately, California criminal defense attorneys often see that in situations like this, there is little opposition by the public to gross violations of a person’s civil rights.

Anybody who has watched any police show on TV is familiar with the Miranda rights-You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to speak to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.  Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? However, suspects in the future will likely hear a markedly different version of the Miranda rights.  This is the result of a slow chipping away at these rights, to the extent that some current versions leave much room for ambiguity.

This year, the Supreme Court made several revisions to the Miranda warnings.  It is a development that Alabama criminal defense attorneys have watched with growing concern.  During the recently ended Supreme Court session, the court placed several limits on the rights.  The decisions do not change the wording of the Miranda Rights as most Americans know them.  However, the Supreme Court did approve of one version of the Miranda Rights in the state of Florida.

The problem that Alabama criminal defense lawyers have with this version is that the wording does not inform suspects that they have a right to have a lawyer present when they’re being questioned by police.  The Miranda warning that is currently being used in some parts of Florida goes like this – You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions.  If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning.  You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.

Criminal defense lawyers have argued that this version of the warning leaves room for much ambiguity, and does not make it clear to the suspect that he can have a lawyer present during his questioning.  However, the court ruled that this version contains all the information a suspect needs.

There are other changes too.  A suspect’s request for an attorney is now only valid for 14 days after he’s released from police custody.  Two weeks after he is released from custody, police can question a suspect without having to repeat his Miranda rights.

The last change is the strangest of all.   For the first time now, a suspect must inform the police that he or she intends to remain silent.  In other words, your right to remain silent is only valid if you actually inform the police that you intend to remain silent.

Karen Goldstein has published some very helpful Questions and Answers pertaining to criminal defense.  These questions range from General Law to DUI, Federal Crimes, Domestic Violence and Sex Crimes.  The information is informative and simple.  It is interesting ready whether you have been arrested for a crime or are just interested in the legal process.