Spital & Associates

Home » Blog » Posts by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

What are the Rights of Transgender Students in California?

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

Effective January 1, 2014, transgender students in kindergarten through the 12^th grade must be accommodated. The new law prohibits public schools from discriminating on the basis of gender, gender identity and/or gender expression. This means public school students must be allowed to play on sports teams, participate in extracurricular activities and choose which bathrooms and locker rooms they want to use based upon their gender identity and not their biological sex. California is the first state to pass such a law.

Opponents of the law claim they have collected enough signatures for an initiative that would be up to the voters to decide in November, 2014 whether to repeal the law. If that number when counted in the next week or so is reached, the law will be suspended in the interim. They contend it violates the sensitivities and rights of privacy of the vast majority of students for a tiny few. In addition, they assert the new law could easily be abused since it does not require a transgender student to have an established history, but it would allow anyone to summarily and suddenly claim they are a girl to use the girl’s facilities (and vice versa).

The proponents of the new law have argued, and the state legislature and Governor either expressly or impliedly agreed, there should be no distinction between boys and girls activities, bathrooms and/or locker rooms, as they only serve to discriminate against and, therefore, alienate transgender students.

The California School Boards Association contends existing state and federal anti-discrimination laws mandate such policies and practices even if the new law is repealed, and since 2003 school districts have decided on a case-by-case basis whether and how to accommodate transgender students.

On August 12, 2013, Assembly Bill 1266, Chapter 85 was signed into law by Governor Brown. The complete text of the law can be read by clicking the following link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1266

Former BP Engineer Convicted of Obstructing Justice

Posted on December 18, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In New Orleans today, there was a jury verdict after the U.S. Department of Justice charged Kurt Mix, a former BP engineer, of deleting hundreds of text messages from his iPhone, thereby thwarting the investigation of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Although none of the top executives of BP have been charged with crimes, this corporate entity acknowledged its responsibility earlier this year by pleading guilty to manslaughter charges for the deaths of 11 workers; and thereafter, BP agreed to pay $4 billion in penalties.

Mix was part of the team of experts involved in the efforts by BP to stop oil from gushing out of their blown-out well using a technique called “top kill.” He had access to internal data about how much oil was actually flowing from the blown-out well. It was reported that Mix received 10 individual BP notices that he was obligated to preserve all of his spill-related records. One of the texts messages was an exchange with his supervisor in which Mix estimated there were about 630,000 gallons of oil spilling per day; this amount was actually about three times greater than the estimate BP disclosed to the public at the time. By deleting text messages, the BP engineer was destroying inculpatory evidence, which would be critical proof that would tend to establish guilt of BP and its agents and employees.

The sentencing hearing is set for March 26, 2014, and Mix faces up to 20 years in prison for this conviction.

Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Charged with Corruption and Civil Rights Violations

Posted on December 10, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

Charges were filed yesterday that involve approximately 17 current and 2 former deputies who have been accused of beating inmates and visitors, falsifying reports, as well as obstructing justice, conspiracy and corruption. The criminal complaint and grand jury indictments contain, among other charges against the deputies, allegations that records were falsified, visitors to and inmates at the L.A. County Jail were unlawfully detained and excessive force was imposed. One of those charged was a Lieutenant who oversaw the safe jails program and another Lieutenant was responsible for investigating allegations of crimes committed by sheriff’s personnel. Three deputies were also accused of mortgage fraud.

The U.S. Attorney said “These incidents…. demonstrated behavior that had become institutionalized [and] shows how some members of the Sheriff’s Department considered themselves to be above the law.”

County Sheriff Lee Baca said he has made improvements to the Men’s Central Jail, such as a newly hired head of custody, reorganizing the command staff, and to create a database to track inmate complaints.

The fact remains that while there have been enhancements and changes to the L.A. County jails, and they have been under scrutiny for brutality and corruption, the ongoing investigations seem to have taken far too long to rise to the level for charges to be ultimately filed.

Did San Diego Sheriffs Use Excessive Force When They Killed a Suicidal Suspect?

Posted on December 4, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

On December 2, 2013, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of CHELSEY HAYES V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Case #09-55644 , heard this civil rights Complaint brought under the Federal statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law wherein a minor daughter alleged violations of her 14^th and 4^th Amendment rights and her deceased father’s 4^th Amendment rights when San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies acted negligently in shooting and killing her father who allegedly was suicidal and wielding a knife during a response to a domestic violence call.

In the underlying case, the Court said there was no evidence the sheriff’s fired their guns for any other purpose than self-defense and, therefore affirmed the District Court’s Decision by declaring there was no violation of plaintiff’s rights under the 14^th Amendment. On the other hand, the Court reversed the lower Court after it determined a jury could conclude the use of deadly force by the sheriffs was not objectively reasonable and that under California law supported a basis for a wrongful death claim.

A compelling argument was made on behalf of Hayes that the sheriffs could have avoided the incident by obtaining more information about the suspect or requesting a psychiatric emergency response team (“PERT”) when the first deputy responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s house and learned there had been no physical altercation, and before the second deputy arrived and they both entered the home. At that point it became a matter of whether the officers used excessive force.

The above reported Decision can be found at the following link: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/02/09-55644.pdf

Should You Sign Up for a Store Credit Card (this holiday season)?

Posted on November 27, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

Have you ever purchased an item at a store and the salesperson asks “would you like to apply for a (name of the store) credit card? If so, you can save (they will stipulate anywhere from 5%-20%) on this purchase.”

One issue to consider is whether you should first survey credit cards in the open market to see whether the store credit card is a worthwhile card to have. Some stores offer incentives such as a discount on purchases the day in question or provide a coupon for a future purchase when you open the credit. However, there are credit cards that often have lower interest and that can make a huge difference when you have a (continuing) balance due: notably some cards have interest in the range of 9%-15%, while others are 18%-22%. Additionally, far too often some individuals already have too many cards with large balances due &/or continue to incur debt and find themselves in a situation they cannot realistically extricate themselves in the near future, if at all. In other words, the escalating balances that are due on credit cards are combined with monthly interest (and perhaps late fees at times) that grow at high interest rates to offset any monthly payment; some people find they owe more at any given time after making monthly payments even if they do not purchase anything else on the particular card. Also, your credit score can be lower (evidencing a higher risk to creditors) when one reaches or is close to reaching his/her limit on the card. This is known as the utilization rate; it is better to have a large dollar amount as “available credit” than to max out on your card(s).

Today, it is not uncommon for one to earn “rewards” with credit cards. Some offer miles on airlines while several offer cash back when you reach a certain dollar amount of purchases after a given period of time, and others simply pay cash back once a year. You should evaluate whether the rewards are only good at the store in question and/or are rewards you realistically can and will use in the future.

Lastly, it is not advantageous to be applying for credit from multiple sources as each time one does so it can negatively impact a credit score. Some individuals discover when they desire to refinance their home, get a line of credit and/or purchase a big ticket item such as an automobile or home there are extra points (charges) to the loan because of this noted in their credit history. The same is true if one applies at multiple banks for a loan as the credit bureaus use this to lower a credit score as they deem you a bigger risk.

In short, when you are shopping for holiday gifts this season, keep in mind the number of cards you already have when applying for any new credit cards and how close in time of such applications. It cannot be overstated, however, that it is beneficial to pay off as many cards as you can, and to try and spend only what you have in cash.

Be Safe and Vigilant During This Holiday

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

This is the time of the year when there are many holidays and we will be celebrating, most often with family and friends.

However, the period of time between Thanksgiving and the New Year can also be the most dangerous days and nights of the year, whether on the neighborhood streets &/or highways.

Unfortunately, we all seem to have more stress from our work, family and societal pressures. Many individuals are tempted to have an alcoholic drink by invitations to lunch or dinner, to parties, and to holiday gatherings that when accepted can at times lead to impaired judgment. It can also be a stressful time due to the continuing and escalating expenses of living; our limited finances; as well as the expectations we impose on ourselves, and others impose on us (even if only because of our perception). Lastly, we are faced with the days getting darker much sooner in the fall and winter, which factor can also increase the risk of accidents.

Given all of the above, during each holiday season we want to be mindful of the safety of our family and loved ones, ourselves and countless others and, therefore, to be extra vigilant when we go and leave places and are on the road.

What Evidence is Required to Establish Aiding and Abetting a Crime?

Posted on November 14, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

On November 12, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Rosemond v. United States, #12-895, on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments.

The underlying case involved the issue of whether the jury instructions were adequate and the offense of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense can be established by the mere fact an individual knew (he had foreknowledge) the principal offender had a firearm or there must be proof that the individual acted with actual intent to encourage &/or enable the use of the weapon by the accomplice and, therefore, there was actual intent to further the crime in question. The various U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have been divided on interpreting the law, although in California the Ninth Circuit requires purposeful intent.

This is a fundamental issue that has been raised in countless situations; for example, the driver of a vehicle (wheelman) &/or a passenger in a car is aware an accomplice is carrying a weapon during a bank robbery. Criminal defense lawyers have maintained that knowledge is not intent, and this individual needs to intend the gun be used by the accomplice. The government has argued in these cases that if one participates in a crime knowing his accomplice has a gun then that constitutes intent to facilitate; they maintain it is irrelevant if the person wants his accomplice to use it or not.

Besides the disparity in standards of proof in the various circuit courts, the significance in the case at hand goes to the huge sentence enhancement imposed upon the defendant, namely 14 years instead of 5 years as a result of the disparity in the particular and minority tenth circuit.

The official transcript of the oral argument in the Rosemond case can be viewed at

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-895_8m59.pdf

Undercover Law Enforcement Operations

Posted on November 1, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

On October 23, 2013, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of UNITED STATES vs. BLACK, #11-10036, held a reverse sting operation by the government was not so outrageous and shocking to be barred by elementary principles of due process and fairness and, therefore, affirmed the U.S. District Court conviction of multiple defendants.

In the underlying case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) used a confidential informant (CI) to obtain potential suspects to engage in a pre-planned robbery at a staged and fictitious residence as part of an ongoing sting operation. Thereafter, under the pretense of a robbery several individuals were arrested after being enticed to go to the fake stash house (a phrase used to refer to a house where weapons and drugs are hidden). One of the individuals, Cordae Black, was charged with, a jury found him guilty and he was convicted of using a loaded firearm as part of a drug trafficking offense along with conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. The 9^th Circuit Court found the conduct of the government to be reasonable and affirmed the lower court ruling.

What is seriously problematic is the effort by the government to employ undercover operations to seduce and entice through deceit and persuasion potential suspects when there is enough criminal activity to stop through the use of clearly orthodox and universally accepted methodologies. Criminal defense attorneys often argue that law enforcement should not be permitted to induce others to engage in illegal conduct that is based upon a mere suspicion of prior criminal activity. Against this argument are court cases that have allowed law enforcement to use undercover investigations without suspicion to believe a person has already engaged in criminal activity at the time the police afford a suspect an opportunity to commit a related offense. Before it is prohibited, they maintain there must be an undue amount of coercion, threats and/or inducements made to another to break the law. It is still up to the defendant to prove he was not predisposed to commit the crime in question.

The role of defense counsel in this and other cases is to articulate and distinguish the precise facts in order to establish a truly compelling legal argument. As such, each case will rest on the exact facts and individual circumstances, and why the art of persuasion is a primary tool of a winning lawyer.

The above reported Decision can be found at the following link: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/10/23/11-10036.pdf

Is there a secret to longevity?

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In today’s UT news, it was reported that a Carlsbad woman will be celebrating her 110th birthday next month. In reading the article, it is heartwarming to learn about “supercentenarians.”

What seems compelling whenever one hears or reads such stories is a pattern that often exists in individuals that have long lives. There is a similar lifestyle that emerges in those that live a long and healthy life. They seem to always keep busy and active; they are energetic and nearly all the time smile and are happy; having plenty of friends and a supportive family are common characteristics as well. While these are strong indicators, scientists continue to research human genetics for anti-aging evidence.

Can Police Search Your Cell Phone?

Posted on October 14, 2013 by Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist

In the current case of DAVID LEON RILEY, Petitioner v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Respondent (13-132), the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari will review the unpublished Decision of the Fourth District California Court of Appeal and, hopefully, clarify whether the police may seize a cell phone from a person under arrest and search its contents.

In the underlying case, Riley was stopped by the police on August 22, 2009 for an expired vehicle registration tag. Soon thereafter, the officer determined Riley was driving on a suspended license (DSL) and impounded the vehicle. While documenting the contents of the vehicle, the officers discovered under the hood of the car two concealed and loaded weapons. Then, Riley was placed under arrest and the officers seized his “smart phone.” At this point, the officer searched the contents and discovered numerous contacts preceded by the initials “CK” (members of a criminal gang commonly known as “Bloods” or “Crip Killers).” Another officer viewed the photos on the cell phone at the police station and noticed one in which Riley was standing next to a vehicle that he believed was involved in a prior gang related shooting.

Riley was accused of attempted murder among other charges, and under California law the DA also included a gang enhancement that increased the length of his sentence.

His lawyer sought to exclude the evidence on the basis of a warrantless search without exigent circumstances (that otherwise could justify the search) and, therefore, violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Riley was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life whereas it would have been a maximum of 7 years without the gang enhancement.

The Supreme Court is likely to decide whether cell phones should receive special treatment as Courts have been divided and have reached inconsistent results, and because they store “virtually limitless” personal and private information, including access to the internet and even digital copies of private medical records. In the event it rules in favor of Riley, he could be retried with the evidence and contents of the cellphone being excluded.

Author Archives: Caroline Anderson - Senior Support Specialist