Friday Fail: What is Up with RPV Teens Lately?

This week’s Friday Favorite is about some teenagers trying to avoid bad grades by cheating, then getting caught. Fail! On Thursday, three Palos Verdes High School juniors were arrested on suspicion of breaking into classrooms, hacking into four teachers’ computers and changing their grades online. They also reportedly broke into classrooms late at night to steal hard copies of tests from teachers’ desks, which they would then sell to other students.

They were able to get into teachers’ classrooms because they picked the lock of the janitor’s office and took a master key! They then got into password protected computers by using “keyloggers” which recorded the teachers’ user names and passwords that were typed on their keyboards. Up to 12 students could be implicated in grade-tampering or for receiving stolen tests.

There are several crimes here, such as several counts of burglary, several counts of receiving stolen property, several counts of petty theft, and conspiracy.

Let’s talk about conspiracy because it is actually a very serious crime. Conspiracy takes place when one agrees with one or more people to commit a crime, and one of them commits an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Any member of the conspiracy may commit the overt act, which doesn’t have to be criminal.

An overt act is an act that is done in order to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. Here, the students face Conspiracy to Commit Burglary charges. The overt act would probably be attaching the “keyloggers” to the computers; those “keyloggers” resembled USB drives. This act helped accomplish the crime of burglary. All of the teenagers in this cheating scandal can be convicted as co-conspirators even if they didn’t all know each other.

Typical defenses include that there was no agreement, there was no overt act, a defendant withdrew from the conspiracy, the defendant operated under mistake of law, or the defendant was falsely accused. It is important to understand that these teenagers can be convicted of conspiracy without ever having to be convicted of burglary. Burglary and Conspiracy to commit burglary are two separate charges. Key defenses that may be used by these teens are that there was no agreement, or that a particular teenager withdrew, or that one was falsely accused.

Even if a teenager in this case conspired to commit a crime, he is not guilty of conspiracy if he truly and affirmatively rejected the conspiracy and communicated that rejection to the co-conspirators. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are text messages that say “I’m out” or “I’m not going along with this.” However, those text messages or other communications must be delivered before someone commits an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If anyone waited until after the “keyloggers” were attached to the computers then they did not effectively withdraw from the conspiracy. That communication – after the overt act – can still save the individual from being held liable for any crimes that are committed after communicating his withdrawal.

What makes conspiracy even more dangerous is that members of a conspiracy are criminally responsible for all of the crimes that are committed by any of the co-conspirators if they are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. This is true even when the members are not aware of the other crimes. This means that if some teenagers agreed to the burglary but didn’t agree to selling the tests, they are still on the hook for selling the stolen property.

Here, the teenagers facing conspiracy to commit burglary would be facing the same penalties that are imposed in connection with the burglary charge alone. The burglary charge for the Palos Verdes High School teenagers would be second degree burglary as a felony, and they each would face sixteen months, or two years or three years in state prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Read the story here.

This Friday: Teens Defacing Property

This week there is a $2,000 reward out for information leading to the individuals who vandalized Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates by spray-painting obscenities and a swastika on the grounds. Fifty lockers were also cut open and their contents scattered all over the floor. Some of the spray painted graffiti included “PV” and “Sea Kings”, leading to speculation that the vandals are teens from rival Palos Verdes High School. Benches, windows, walls and brick were spray painted.

California vandalism and graffiti law prohibits “defacing, damaging, or destroying someone else’s property.” The prosecution must prove that the defendants 1) defaced with graffiti or other inscribed material, damaged, or destroyed another person’s property, 2) that defendants did so maliciously, and 3) that the amount of the defacement, damage, or destruction was either less than $400 for a misdemeanor prosecution, or $400 or more for a felony prosecution.

In the case of the high school vandals, the vandalism appears on presumably public property. In this case, the judge or jury will presume that the defendants neither owned the property nor had permission to deface, damage, or destroy it. Defendants act “maliciously” under the law if they acted for the purpose of annoying or injuring another person, or acted to intentionally commit a wrongful act.

The type of case the defendants will face is based on the value of the damage they caused. If the cost to repair or replace the defaced, damaged, or destroyed property is less than $400, prosecutors will charge them with misdemeanor vandalism. If the cost is $400 or more, prosecutors have a choice of charging a misdemeanor or a felony.

However, in the case of the actions against Peninsula High School, prosecutors can add the acts together to charge defendants with a felony if the aggregate amount totals $400 or more. The prosecutors have to first show that all the acts were part of the same intention, impulse and plan. The vandalism at Peninsula High School happened at time near a basketball game against Palos Verdes High School. It will not be too difficult for prosecutors to show that the intention, impulse and plan of all the acts was to show “PV High” pride on the eve of a basketball game.

The only defense any defendant has here (in the Peninsula High vandalism) would be mistaken identity. Unless there are witness willing to come forward, or cameras in the school hallways, it will be difficult to pinpoint the actual individuals who acted here.

Although not the case here, vandalism can also be charged as an infraction where the cost of damage of less than $250 and it is the defendant’s first vandalism. If the defendant is convicted of misdemeanor vandalism the punishment is informal probation, up to one year in county jail, a maximum fine of $1,000, a California driver’s license suspension of up to two years, and counseling services. Included in the punishment is community service; or personally cleaning, repairing, or replacing the damaged property; or keeping the damaged property or another property in the community graffiti free for up to one year. The judge may require the parents of a defendant under the age of 18 years old to help fulfill these conditions.

If the amount of the damage is $400 or greater, and the defendant is convicted of felony vandalism, the defendant faces a maximum fine of $10,000; up to one year in county jail or up to 16 months, or two or three years in state prison, and the same probation conditions as misdemeanor vandalism.

Read the story here.

New California 2012 Criminal Laws

Happy New Year……okay I know that it is officially too late to be greeting you all with that. However, I noticed that the very important new-laws-of-2012-post has not been published yet. So here we go, criminal law version:

Handgun Open Carry Law

New in 2012, civilians can no longer open-carry handguns. This is because law enforcement officers cannot tell whether openly carried weapons are loaded or not. Violate this law and you could face a penalty of $1,000 and 6 months in jail – making this a misdemeanor crime. Never fear, you can still get a permit for a concealed weapon.

New DUI Law

A new section had been added to the California Vehicle Code authorizing court to revoke a driver’s license for 10 years if a person is convicted of three or more DUIs. Motorists may apply for reinstatement of their license with the DMV after five years, if the driver installs an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in their vehicle. See VC23579.

New Reckless Driving Law

This new law allows California drivers convicted of reckless driving under section 23103.5 of the Vehicle Code (“wet reckless”) to apply for a restricted driver’s license prior to the completion of their one year suspension if they meet specific conditions, such as the installation of the Ignition Interlock Device in their vehicle, they have to serve at least a 90-day suspension, and have no more than two prior alcohol-related convictions within 10 years. I would just wait out the suspension rather than suffer with the hassle of the IID.

Controversial DUI Checkpoint Vehicle Impound Law

In 2012, law enforcement officers are prohibited from impounding a vehicle for 30 days at a DUI checkpoint if the only offense is failing to have a valid driver’s license. Specifically LAPD Chief Charlie Beck had proposed lifting the 30-day impound and giving the registered owner or a license driver a reasonable chance to retrieve the vehicle. The controversy revolves around the notion that the changes reward lawbreakers and put politics above safety. Read more at the L.A. Times.

Child Safety-Seat Requirements

The law used to be that kids had to ride in safety or booster seats until they reached age 6 or weighed 60 pounds. Now they have to reach age 8 or at least 4 feet, 9 inches tall before they no longer have to ride in a safety seat. The police can stop a vehicle for a suspected violation of this law.

New Drug-Related Laws

Synthetic Stimulants: Effective in October of 2011, California has outlawed a wide range of synthetic stimulant drugs, including what is called “bath salts” and the several street names it goes under, such as “Ivory Wave,” “Red Dove,” and “Vanilla Sky.” Common ingredients are Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and Naphthylpyrovalerone (NRG-1).  See Health and Safety Code Section 11375.5.

Cough Suppressant: Supplying a drug or compound containing dextromethorphan, a cough suppressant, to a person younger than 18 without a prescription is now illegal.

Corroboration of In-Custody Informants

A jury or judge may not convict a defendant based on the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant.  See Penal Code Section 1111.5.

Cell Phones in Prison

Smuggling or trying to smuggle a cell phone to a prison inmate is now a misdemeanor. Any inmate who is found to be in possession of a wireless communication device shall be subject to time credit denial or loss of up to 90 days.

Anti-Gang-Violence Classes For Parents

A judge can already order the parents of a kid convicted of a gang-related offense to attend anti-gang-violence parenting classes. Now a judge can do that even when the kid is convicted of something other than a gang-related offense “if the court finds the presence of significant risk factors for gang involvement on the part of the minor.”  See Welfare and Institutions Code Section 727.7.

Be safe out there this year…and always.

Friday’s Frolicking Teen in Trouble

This week’s Friday Favorite is about a 17-year-old boy who was arrested Wednesday after allegedly crashing a sport utility vehicle into a Torrance house. He was allegedly the driver of a Chevrolet Blazer which apparently spun out of control and went in backward, landing about ¾ inside the house! Not only did he flee the scene leaving the car in the house, he also abandoned two passengers in the sport utility vehicle. The crash created a 12-by-12-foot hole in the wall of the house on the 2100 block of Cabrillo Avenue in Torrance.

The teenager is being held on suspicion of felony hit-and-run. In California, there are two types of hit-and-run offenses; misdemeanor and felony. A misdemeanor hit-and-run charge is where the defendant left the scene of the accident, without first identifying himself to the other party involved, and another’s property was damaged in the accident. Felony hit-and-run, however, is concerned with injury. That is, a defendant may be charged with the felony if someone was injured.

One of those teen passengers abandoned in the sport utility vehicle had to be cut from the wreckage. Both passengers were taken to hospitals for treatment.

California law requires that in a case such as this, the teenage driver should have provided to the homeowners/occupants his identifying information at the scene of the crash along with the identifying information of any injured passengers. The same information should have been given to any on-scene law enforcement officers. This information would have to include the name and current address of the car’s owner, since here the teenager was driving someone else’s car.

The law also requires that the teenager provide reasonable assistance to any injured person in order to help secure medical attention. This could be as simple, and reasonable, as arranging for transportation for any injured passenger who obviously needs or requests medical help. That is, calling 911 or getting an occupant of the home to transport the injured passengers to a hospital.

By leaving the Torrance house crash scene without first checking if anyone was hurt, the teenager is inviting an aggressive hit-and-run prosecution. The prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was involved in an accident that resulted in injury to another, that the defendant knew an accident had occurred, that the defendant knew either someone was injured or that the accident was of such a nature that it was probable that another was injured, and that the defendant willfully failed to perform one or more of the duties mentioned above.

A “willful” act means that the defendant intended to act (or nor act) as he did. The prosecution would argue that knowingly leaving the scene of an accident, without exchanging information, and without attempting to render “reasonable assistance” – intending to do so – would be acting willfully.

Possible defenses for the 17-year-old would be that he was not in fact the driver. This could be tricky since there are two passengers who will probably identify him as the driver assuming they did not suffer memory loss as a result of their injuries. The teenager’s legal defense team could also argue that he had no reason to know there were any injuries. This would be the case if he knew there was an accident but he wasn’t hurt, the occupants of the house said no one was hurt, and the passengers said they were not hurt. Unfortunately, the teenager would have had to provide his identifying information before leaving the scene.

If convicted of felony hit-and-run, a defendant would face a fine of $1,000 to $10,000 and either up to one year in county jail or sixteen months or two or three years in the California State Prison, restitution if the victims injuries were caused or exacerbated by the fact the defendant left the scene, and two points on the driving record.

In this case, if the teenager is charged as a minor there are a number of different dispositions available in juvenile court – informal probation all the way up to commitment to the California Youth Authority (prison for minors). However, because of his age, seventeen, being so close to adulthood, the prosecution may forgo juvenile court altogether.

You can read the story here.

Friday Fondling

This Friday we focus on a story about a 62 year-old Palos Verdes Estates man who was rearrested this week. He was charged last month with fondling two teen boys he invited to live in his house, and was arrested again on Tuesday on suspicion of molesting two more teenagers.

This Palos Verdes Estates man played himself off as a doctor to gain the teenagers’ trust. As a “doctor” he touched their intimate body parts, allegedly. The teenagers were 18 years old at the time. He is facing five misdemeanor counts of sexual battery and child molestation from his arrest last month.

Apparently, this 62 year-old man rented his homes in Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates where the alleged sexual acts took place. He would invite his grandson’s friends to live in the houses by either paying rent or staying there for free. One teen moved in with the older man after his own parents through him out of the house. The teenager claims that the Palos Verdes Estates man cornered him in the shower and sexually assaulted him. The new arrest earlier this week was as a result of teenagers reading about the November arrest then coming forward to identify themselves as victims.

Now the 62 year-old Palos Verdes Estates man is facing an additional four counts of felony sexual battery by fraud – fraud for telling the teenagers that he was a doctor.

Felony sexual battery in California is an act committed for sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. and is the non-consensual touching of the intimate part of someone who was unconscious as to the nature of the act because he/she was fraudulently convinced that the touching was for professional purposes. California sexual battery, in contrast to California rape, does not require that the offender engage in penetration or sexual intercourse.

California felony sexual battery has an additional requirement that you touch the "bare skin" of the accuser's intimate part. "Fraudulently" means that you made the representation with the intent to deceive and mislead the alleged victim.

Classic defenses are consent or insufficient evidence. In this case, any defense attorney would argue consent and against the fraud aspect. Since these teenagers were 17 or 18 years-old it would be unreasonable for them to believe that the defendant was acting as a doctor in his own home. They would also know from life experience what is appropriate touching in a medical setting and what isn’t. Therefore, a failure to object to the touching could be argued as consent. Otherwise, insufficient evidence is always a good defense where there is no medical evidence. This story sounds like a he-said-he-said scenario. The prosecution cannot rely solely on the victims’ testimony, but needs to bring in corroborative evidence to strengthen the case. That may be very difficult to do.

This will certainly unfold in an interesting way because the victims are not the traditional, impressionable and young victim. These are teenagers that are almost into young adulthood. They will certainly be grilled by defense attorneys regarding “consent.”

Read the story here.

Friday Favorite: Beefing up Security in San Pedro

I am excited to see that San Pedro leaders are taking matters seriously in downtown San Pedro. This week, leadership in San Pedro announced that after a recent spike in thefts, they want to bring in more security features such as lighting up alleys and installing security cameras in downtown San Pedro. It is probably seriously necessary since one outstanding incident occurred when an individual yanked a chain off a customer eating lunch at the Jolly Burrito!

For those individuals committing the thefts, the beefed up security would mean an increased chance in getting caught. A California theft related conviction can be particularly harmful to those defendants in seeking employment or state licensing in this already tough economy. Theft convictions are still harmful even after being expunged because they will arise after background checks when applying to state or federal agencies, or when applying to the state for any kind of license or certification.

Most California theft offenses are considered “crimes of moral turpitude;” and are often cited by state license boards as a reason to deny licenses and certifications. Even more harmful are the effects of a theft conviction for immigration purposes, where an individual is seeking a visa, green card or naturalization to the United States. A crime of moral turpitude could subject a defendant in this country illegally to deportation, and denial of naturalization or revocation of a visa or residency status.

The good news is that a first time petty theft where the item taken has a value less than $50, can sometimes be reduced to an infraction. In some D.A. offices, this deal will only apply if the item taken was a food item and there are other extenuating circumstances. This deal is probably reserved for transients and run-away teenagers living on the streets. The prosecution, in first offense cases, where the defendant has no criminal record, will sometimes consider dismissing the charges if the defendant repays the victim, undergoes theft counseling and performs community service.

A petty theft is normally a misdemeanor; however when there is a prior history of petty thefts then the prosecution can charge a new petty theft as a felony. Petty theft applies to taking property valued up to $950. Taking an item with a value over $950 can be charged as felony grand theft. From the article highlighting the new security measure in downtown San Pedro, it is clear that most crimes are probably petty thefts, characterized as “snatch-and-run” thefts.

It is great to see that San Pedro is trying to build a better downtown community and image. It has a lot to offer to its residents and visitors. Hopefully, these new measures will reduce any and all crimes in downtown San Pedro.


You can read the article about the new San Pedro security measures here.

Friday Story: Faculty and Sex Charges

Sorry for a late entry this week.

This week’s story is about a Peninsula High School teacher in Rolling Hills Estates who plead not guilty to sex charges. He was a dance teacher and he is accused of engaging in sexual conduct with a 16-year-old female student. More specifically, the charges are five counts of oral copulation with a minor and one count of digital penetration with a minor. The acts actually took place four years ago. The female student is now a young adult, but she came forward to the police detailing acts that took place with the teacher in 2006 and 2007 when she was 16 years old.

The acts that she detailed and the charges indicate the real seriousness of the offense. Oral copulation with a minor is the act of touching of the mouth of one person with the sexual organ of another person. Oral copulation with a person under 16 years old carries a punishment as a felony with imprisonment in state prison for up to 3 years. Digital penetration with a minor is the act of causing the sexual organ of another person to be penetrated by a foreign object – in this case “digital” means the defendant’s digits (fingers). Digital penetration with a victim under 16 years old carries a punishment as a felony with imprisonment in state prison for up to 3 years.

The prosecution’s entire case is at the mercy of the victim’s credibility. This is especially so because she waited four years to tell anyone. It will be interesting to learn what her motivation was to come forward now. A good defense attorney will want to subpoena the accuser's school, counseling, and medical records, interview his/her family, friends, schoolmates, and those she chats with online, and conduct a thorough background check on the accuser and any alleged witnesses. Sometimes, investigations reveal that the accuser has a bias and motive to harm the accused and that the accuser has a history of being untruthful and telling lies about other people as well.

If the acts actually took place, then one defense would be that the defendant had a good faith belief the accuser was 18 or over. The accused will be found not guilty if he reasonably and actually believed that the other person was age 18 or older. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably and actually believe that the other person was at least 18 years old. If the prosecution has not met this burden, the accused will be found not guilty. This may not be too difficult for the prosecution since at the time the accuser claims to be 16 she was also in high school as a junior. Defenses that are not available here would be consent or that the defendant and accuser were in a relationship.

You can read the story here.