NTSB Recommends Reducing BAC Limit for DUI to 0.05

The National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency, recommended earlier this week that states reduce the blood-alcohol content (BAC) at which drivers are considered per se intoxicated of 0.05. An average male may reach this BAC after fewer than two entire alcoholic drinks in an hour, and an average female may reach it after just one.

Currently, all states, including Nevada, have a per se intoxication BAC at 0.08 for noncommercial drivers age 21 or older.  The campaign to set the BAC at .08 began nationwide decades ago by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other organizations. Congress stepped in by offering certain grants to states that set the BAC at 0.08. In 2000, Congress passed a law that threatened to cut off transportation funds for states that did not have laws setting the BAC at 0.08 by 2004.

By 2004, all states had complied. Legislation in Congress to do the same for a 0.05 BAC has not materialized yet, and it is uncertain how it would fare.

In their recommendation, the NTSB claims that reduction in deaths related to DUI has stalled, despite the fact that in the 31 years between 1980 and 2011, DUI deaths have been cut in half, from 20,000 to 9,500. This is an apparent utopian effort to reduce DUI deaths to zero — an admirable goal, but one that is simply not feasible.

About 70 percent of DUI fatalities are linked to drivers with a BAC at 0.15 or higher. Targeting less intoxicated drivers is going after the wrong people. Penalties for a Las Vegas DUI are harsh — for a first offense, a person could face from 48 hours to six months in jail or at least 96 hours of community service, fines ranging from $340 to $1,175 in fines, and a 90-day suspension of driving privileges.

If Nevada were to take the recommendation of NTSB, people could face jail time, lose their jobs and have permanent criminal records by driving while buzzed and far less likely to cause a serious accident. In addition to the cost borne by these individuals, we all would bear the costs of incarcerated possibly many more people, who would not have constituted much a danger.

Per se intoxicated means the level of intoxication at which a person is automatically driving illegally, regardless of their actual level of impairment. However, Nevada DUI law makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that one is rendered unable to safely driver. This means that if a person is really unable to safely drive with a BAC at 0.05 or below, that person could be arrested, making any changes to the law unnecessary.

Drunk driving is unsafe, and the intent of those seeking to reduce DUI deaths is commendable. However, unrealistic solutions to these real problems are likely to hurt more than they help.

Supreme Court: Officers Must Get a Warrant Before DUI Blood Test in Most Cases

A Supreme Court decision may end the practice of Las Vegas police officers forcibly strapping down and sticking a needle in DUI suspects without a warrant. In the case, Missouri v. McNeely, the court ruled that the police must obtain a warrant before drawing the blood of a DUI suspect, unless the police are able to demonstrate an exception to the warrant requirement established in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Tyler McNeely was pulled over by a Missouri state trooper. The trooper said he was unstable, and asked him to perform a field sobriety test. McNeely consented to the test and failed. The officer asked him to take a breath test, which he refused. The trooper took him to a hospital to take a blood test. McNeely refused the test, but the trooper ordered the lab technician to proceed, anyway. Prosecutors attempted to use the blood test as evidence.

The issue at hand was whether there was a sufficient “exigent circumstance” to force a DUI blood test without a warrant. An exigent circumstance is a special circumstance in which certain procedural matters that arise from the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures, like warrants, can be skipped over. One such recognized exigent circumstance is when evidence is likely to be destroyed.   Recently in the news with the Boston bombing suspect, we have seen the public safety exception discussed as another exception to the warrant requirement.

In the McNeely case, the government argued that because alcohol naturally dissipates out of the blood over time, the evidence of the suspects BAC is being destroyed and therefore meets an exception to the warrant requirement.  The government argued that the exigent circumstances of destruction of evidence allows the police to forcibly draw blood from DUI suspects.  In the case, the prosecutors relied on Schmerber v. California, a 1966 case in which the Court ruled admissible a DUI blood test when the suspect was taken to a hospital for injuries.

The Court rejected the government’s arguments. While they did not overturn Schmerber, they said the case was only applicable to very narrow circumstances. In this case, the police could get a warrant, and either chose not to or were too disorganized to proceed. While the Court did not go so far as to say a warrant is necessary every time the police wish to draw blood, they said that when police can “reasonably obtain” a warrant, “without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search,” they must do so before obtaining an unconsented blood test.

The implications on Las Vegas DUI prosecution are huge. Under Nevada law, if a DUI suspect refuses a blood test, police may use “reasonable force” to obtain the sample — in other words, strap the suspect does and insert a needle — without a warrant. The justification for this law has been that Nevada drivers give implied consent to a blood test. However, under the McNeely ruling, this practice is likely to considered unconstitutional.

Currently, if a driver is pulled over in Las Vegas and the officer starts demanding any kind of test, including breath and blood tests, it would be in that driver’s best interests to refuse the DUI test. Unlike many other states, there are no consequences for refusal, like license suspension, in Nevada.

If the officer then forcibly straps the suspect down to take the test without a warrant, under the McNeely ruling, that test is likely inadmissible in court. The primary evidence against the suspect can no longer be used, often making for a weak case for the prosecution.

Due to this new United States Supreme Court ruling in McNeely, the state of Nevada DUI cases is in a state of flux.  This means that issues that were usually not litigated, because of long-established precedence, should be litigated all over again.  It is important that you discuss your case with an experienced Las Vegas DUI attorney who has a good understanding of the changing law and how it can affect your case.

Are “Escort Services” Legal in Las Vegas?

Whenever a tourist walks down the Vegas Strip, he or she is likely to see flyers everywhere advertising for escort services. The flyers frequently feature nude women and seem to scream “sex.” However, they almost never say “sex,” and they certainly never say “prostitute.” It would be easy for a tourist to think that any sexual services they believe offered are legal, especially when they see people passing out the flyers right in front of a police officer.

However, whether people on the flyers call themselves “prostitutes” or “escorts,” if they perform a sexual act for compensation, it could be, under the law, the criminal charge of prostitution, and the person paying for such acts could face fines, a criminal record and even jail time if convicted.

Many tourists are not even concerned about the pretense of prostitution vs. escort, because they mistakenly believe prostitution is legal in Las Vegas. The nearest legal brother is in Nye County, far away from the Vegas Strip.

“Escorts” are not illegal. In fact, escort services are regulated by Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, under County Code Chapter 8.32. An escort is defined as a person who consorts or accompanies with another for hire, in public and private settings. Escorts are to be licensed and possess work cards. They are not to perform any kind of sexual service, or risk losing their license and face criminal charges.

Their advertising is also carefully regulated. They are not to even imply that they provide any kind of sexual conduct. And if one were to look at most advertisements, the women may be nude, semi-nude or dressed in lingerie, and they may say the women will come to clients’ hotel rooms, but will never say anything about any sexual service provided.

It is perfectly legal for a tourist to hire an escort to accompany him or her to a show, or dinner, or even to sit in a hotel room and chat. The second that the tourist communicates any expectation of a sexual act during the scope of that escort’s job, however, the tourist has crossed the legal line and may face charges of solicitation.

While most acts of prostitution that occur in Las Vegas do go unprosecuted, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department routinely runs sting operations, where undercover agents target those seeking prostitutes through escort services. If caught in one of these, the accused’s Las Vegas solicitation attorney can review whether an entrapment defense is available.

For an entrapment defense, the accused or his or her attorney must show that the idea for the act came from the undercover agent, that the agent persuaded the accused to act, and that the accused was not willing or ready to commit the crime before the agent persuaded him or her. If entrapment is proven, the accused cannot be convicted.

Post-Las Vegas Spring Break FAQ

Many, many students across the country decide that Spring Break is a time for getting a little wild, and decide that Las Vegas is the best place to do it. Most have a good time, but many find themselves in trouble with the law in Nevada as the result of Spring Break partying. A Las Vegas criminal defense attorney can help reduce the repercussions as much as possible.

The following questions are hypothetical — do not take my words as legal advice, even if your situation sounds exactly the same. Contact a lawyer and discuss your situation.

Q: I got pulled over while driving back to the hotel after a few drinks and got charged with a DUI. Can I go home and ignore it?

A: If you go home and ignore the charges, they’re very likely to come back to haunt you in the form of a suspended license. Nevada shares information, including information about DUI convictions and arrests, with other states via the National Driver Registry and the Problem Driver Pointer System. After a DUI arrest in Nevada, you have seven days to request an administrative license suspension hearing. If you do not, your license is suspended in Nevada. Nevada will share that information with other states, though, and your license is likely to be suspended there, as well.

When you do not appear for court hearings, the judge will issue a bench warrant for your arrest. The warrant will not expire, and any time you are in Nevada you could be arrested. It’s even possible for Nevada to attempt to extradite you from your home state. You’d be well-advised to hire a Las Vegas DUI lawyer to handle the matter here.

Q: I was arrested and charged with solicitation of prostitution while on Spring Break in Vegas. Am I going to have to stay in Nevada to deal with this?

A: If you hire a Las Vegas prostitution lawyer, you may not have to return at all. Your attorney can seek to get your charges reduced or dismissed. He can appear on your behalf in required hearings, and make arrangements so you will not have to return until your offense is set for trial.

Q: I thought medical marijuana was legal in Nevada, so we bought a half ounce. Police found it on me and now I face possession charges. What gives?

A: Medical marijuana was legalized in Nevada, but you must have a prescription to be able to legally carry it. So, unless you have a prescription properly made out to you, you can be charged with possession of marijuana, a crime that carries up to a $600 fine and a punishment of up to six months in jail.

Q: I’m a student at UNLV, but I went to South Padre over Spring Break and got arrested for assault. Can I hire a Las Vegas attorney to represent me on that case?

A: Only if that Las Vegas attorney is licensed to practice in Texas — which few are. For a lawyer who can handle the charge itself, you need someone who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which you are charged. However, if the state you are charged in seeks to extradite you from Las Vegas, a Las Vegas criminal defense attorney can represent you in extradition hearings. Extradition is the process by which a state requests that a suspect in another state be brought back to the charging state to face criminal proceedings.

St. Patrick’s Day DUI in Las Vegas, 2013

This year, St. Patrick’s Day falls on Sunday, March 17, and major festivities will last through the weekend at many popular Las Vegas destinations, including Mandalay Place, Monte Carlo, New York-New York, Treasure Island, the MGM Grand, and other locations across the city.  When the green beer is flowing, alcohol-related incidents always experience an uptick during these celebrations, especially in an entertainment-rich city like Las Vegas where open containers are allowed on the Strip, but not in a vehicle.

There are many reasons to be cautious during this year’s celebration. Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicate that over 700 people were killed nationwide due to accidents involving drunk drivers on St. Patrick’s Day from 2006 to 2010. This figure makes up 2/5 of all deaths from automobile crashes during the same period.  It is important to remember, if you plan on going out drinking or celebrating for St. Patrick’s Day that you take the appropriate precautions to avoid being another statistic.  Get a designated driver.  Take a cab.  Stay at one of the fabulous resorts Las Vegas has to offer.

You can expect to see an increased presence of law enforcement officers during the St. Patrick’s Day weekend throughout Clark County, NV, in an effort to minimize accidents. This includes patrols from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, North Las Vegas Police Department, Henderson Police Department, and the Nevada Highway Patrol. Law enforcement officials will be on the watch for a number of signals that supposedly indicate a driver’s state of sobriety, such as erratic driving and failure to obey traffic signals.  If you drink and drive, the likelihood that you will be arrested is significant.

It’s important to keep in mind that law enforcement officers must have a reason to pull a driver over in the first place, search the vehicle, or make an arrest. This is known as probable cause and is a standard set forth by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A Las Vegas defense attorney can use any lack of probable cause in defending clients who have been charged with DUI.

Once a police officer pulls the suspected drunk driver over, he or she will be on the lookout for more signs of intoxication. This includes the:

• Presence of open containers in the vehicle
• Smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath
• Slurred speech
• Pupil enlargement or constriction
• Inability to follow specific directions
• Direct admission of guilt by the driver

If the law enforcement officer has confirmed suspicions of the driver’s intoxication, they may ask the driver to complete a field sobriety test. The accuracy of these tests is, at best, highly questionable, especially considering the police officer’s final, subjective decision of pass or fail. Should the driver refuse to take the field sobriety test or fail the test altogether, the officer may request additional chemical testing for alcohol content level. This is most commonly done through a breath, blood, or urine test.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it’s important to remember the important rights laid out in the Miranda Warning that officers are required to read to suspects prior being questioned.  Courts have determined that questioning in a routine traffic stop does not necessarily trigger the requirement that Miranda be read.  Whether Miranda is read to you or not you still have the ability to exercise your constitutional rights:  the right to remain silent, the right not to be compelled to be a witness against yourself, and the right to due process.

• You do have the right to remain silent. In high stress situations, it is entirely possible to inadvertently provide inaccurate or conflicting information in response to an officer’s questions. When anything you say can be used against you later in court, it’s important to remember this at all times.
• You have the right to consult with an attorney. However, in DUI arrests the Courts have determined that the Officers do not need to allow you to speak with an attorney before arrest or blood alcohol testing.  This is where knowing your right to remain silent is your best option.  Do not give officers any information that will be used against you.  Be cordial and nice, follow their directions, but do not say anything.

The consequences for a DUI conviction in Nevada can be severe. Not only will drunk drivers face severe jail time and / or fines, they also will have to deal with other real world consequences. A criminal record can place a roadblock on many future opportunities in employment as well. This is why it’s critical to enjoy the St. Patrick’s Day festivities safely and always remember your rights.

Federal government threatens to withhold funds over Nevada DUI law

USA Today reports that Nevada is among 33 states that the federal government may attempt to withhold federal highway funds from in an effort to coerce the state into tougher laws against drunk driving. The national newspaper reports that the Federal Highway Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has informed the state that it is in not in compliance, and the agency is holding funds in reserve until it completes a review.

It’s unclear whether the tactic will work. The amount being held is only $7.3 million of the funds the state would use for highway construction, which is really just a drop in the bucket when it comes to state and federal spending. The state of Montana, for example, responded that the $8.8 million the feds were attempting to withhold wasn’t enough to warrant the state changing its laws. However, during these lean times, it’s difficult to predict what state government officials will do for a little bit of revenue.

The federal government cites its authority to engage in this tactic from the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole. Congress had passed a law stating that the national drinking age was 21 years old. If the state did not enforce the law, the federal government would withhold 10 percent of federal transportation funds. South Dakota had a drinking age of 19, and disputed the law. The Court ruled that if the amount being withheld is insufficient to be coercive, the ability to create such laws is under Congress’s spending power.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, which sets drunk driving policy, has held up Virginia as a recent model for DUI penalties. The state passed laws last year requiring all first-time DUI offenders to installed ignition interlock devices on their vehicles. This is tougher than Nevada law. If convicted for a first DUI offense in Las Vegas, you may be required to have an interlock device installed, but it’s up to the discretion of the court.

As a Las Vegas drunk driving lawyer, I do not believe that one-size-fits-all penalties are conducive to justice. Each case has nuances that warrant a different approach. Also, if you take away my ability to negotiation a sentence with prosecutors by handing down mandatory sentences, it takes away any incentive to not take every case to trial. There will be far fewer plea bargains if you take away prosecutors’ bargaining power.

Nevada should carefully consider whether it’s worth it to give away state autonomy over a relatively low amount of money.

Things to Keep in Mind About Sensual Massages and Body Rubs in Las Vegas

One the biggest misconceptions visitors often have when coming to Las Vegas is that prostitution is legal. When they arrive on the Strip, there’s little to dissuade them otherwise. The Strip is covered with flyers and ads — some for outright prostitution, but often for erotic or sensual massages or “body rubs.”

While there are licensed brothels in parts of Nevada, prostitution — of any sort — is illegal in Clark County, where Las Vegas and the Strip are located. Prostitution is the act of engaging in any kind of sexual favor for a fee. Sexual favor has a broad definition, and includes much more than just intercourse.

Some people who are aware that prostitution is illegal may think they are skirting prostitution laws with body rubs or massages with “happy endings.” However, these people run the risk of facing the same solicitation charge as the person who picks up a prostitute from the street.

A prostitute, under Nevada Revised Statute 201.295 is defined as any person who, for a fee, engages in “sexual intercourse, oral-genital contact or any touching of the sexual organs or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either person.” If a client pays a masseuse to touch his or her genitals or rub his or her body in a way with the purpose of being sexually stimulated or aroused, that transaction may fall under the legal definition of prostitution.

If you’re wondering whether the massage parlor you’re visiting could get you arrested on prostitution charges, a key thing to look for is whether it’s for a licensed massage parlor. If a massage parlor is not licensed, police generally assume it’s there for prostitution. Some items to look for to determine whether a location is a licensed massage parlor:

• Are the hours earlier than 8 a.m. or later than 9 p.m.?
• Is a list of services and fees missing?
• Are any of the employees wearing transparent clothes?
• Are there alcoholic beverages served?
• Are there two-way mirrors?
• Does the massage therapist offer to touch your genitals or breasts?

If the answer to any of these questions is “Yes,” there’s a good likelihood you are not in a licensed parlor or you’re in a licensed parlor that is acting illegally. If police arrive, you may be arrested merely for being inside.

“Outcall girls” or those who offer to come to your hotel room are slightly trickier. While a licensed massage therapist may give home or hotel visits, most of the services advertised are not licensed massage therapists. A good rule of thumb is that if the service  are in the back pages of a newspaper or magazine or on a flyer, it’s probably not a licensed therapist.

A better rule of thumb is that if you’re contacting any service to touch you in any way so that you get some kind of sexual gratification, you could wind up arrested and charged with solicitation of prostitution. If you’re in town and looking for some excitement by calling for a sensual massage or body rub, be prepared to call a Las Vegas solicitation lawyer.

Will Forced Blood Draws For DUIs Remain Legal In Nevada?

The United States Supreme Court heard argument yesterday regarding whether police need to obtain a warrant before forcing a person to provide blood for a DUI test.  The case involves a Missouri man that was stopped on suspicion of DUI.  In Missouri they allow a person to choose to participate in evidentiary testing, i.e. blood or breath, test for DUIs or lose their license for one year.  In the case before the United States Supreme Court the defendant chose to not have a blood test but the police forced him to provide one anyway.

From the argument it appeared that the Supreme Court Justices were entertaining the idea that police should be required to obtain a warrant before forcing anyone to provide a blood sample.  However, it also appeared that the Justices were not willing to say that it would happen in all DUI tests done.

If the US Supreme Court comes out with a ruling later in the year indicating that a blood test requires a warrant first how would it effect drivers and suspected DUI drivers in Nevada.  This is very difficult to state at this time because the nuances of the Supreme Court’s ruling are not clear, so this is pure speculation…

First you need to look at the current state of the law in Nevada for suspected DUI.  Currently Nevada law allows for the police to do forced blood draws from any person that they suspect is DUI.  Nevada is different from Missouri in that Nevada does not provide a choice for drivers to either submit to the blood test or lose their license, Nevada says that all people must provide a blood or breath test when suspected of DUI.  A driver only gets a choice between which test they take, blood or breath test, when it is believed that it is their first time DUI offense.

If the US Supreme Court says that police need to obtain a warrant before a blood draw, it could stop the way all DUIs are handled in Las Vegas and the State of Nevada.  No longer would it be a given that all people who drive a car are subjecting themselves to the possibility that they will be strapped to a gurney and forced to provide blood.  However, the US Supreme Court could easily state that because Missouri allows for a choice for drivers and the drivers do not choose the test that the police then must obtain a warrant.  If that was the case, Nevada’s laws may not change at all.

My belief is that whatever the US Supreme Court decides this will be a change in how the legal community looks at DUIs and could foster a long series of litigation on the constitutionality of each state’s laws.  For more information on DUI laws in Las Vegas, Nevada go to my webpage.

Bruno Mars Arrested, Are You Next???

 In 2010 Bruno Mars was arrested when he was at a night club in the Hard Rock Casino.  Mars had gone to the bathroom and a bathroom attendant believed Mars to be using drugs and detained him for the police.

What happened to Bruno Mars in 2010 happens every night in Las Vegas Night Clubs.  I have numerous clients who call me about being arrested after going to the bathroom in various Las Vegas night clubs.  The Clubs and the Las Vegas Casinos hire people to literally stand in the bathroom and watch people use the facilities.  The so-called bathroom attendants are not there to assist customers use the facilities and enjoy mints after relieving themselves, rather these attendants are trained to spy on people and attempt to determine those that are using drugs.

Bruno Mars Mug Shot

Once a bathroom attendant suspects you of using drugs the attendant will do whatever it takes to catch you in the act.  I have seen numerous cases were the attendant looks over the top of the stall, kicks in the stall door, or publicly berate you until you come out of the stall.  These attendants have very little limitations on what they can do because they are employed by the property and it is a public restroom.

In Bruno Mars arrest, according to the report, a bathroom attendant approached a security officer at the facility to say that there was a man in a bathroom stall who might be using drugs, telling the guard that a male in the bathroom was “taking a really long time.”

The attendant said he observed the suspect in a striped shirt with a “baggy of white powder substance.” The attendant and the security guard approached the suspect as he exited the stall, and the guard ordered Mars to hand over whatever narcotics he had on him. “This is when Hernandez, with his left hand, pulled out a white powder substance, which was consistent with cocaine, from his left-front jeans pocket.”

When the guard asked Mars if he knew why he was being detained, the singer reportedly said, “Can I speak to you honestly, sir?” and then said he “did a foolish thing and has never used drugs before.”

That is another mistake that I often see people get into with the Las Vegas night clubs.  People who are detained immediately state that the drugs are theirs and request to just be released.  Law makers and police have come down hard on the growing and very profitable night club industry, if the clubs let suspected drug users go then they would put their license to own a club in jeopardy.  Therefore the night clubs have a zero tolerance for anything that appears to be drug use.  No matter what you say the police will be contacted to deal with anyone suspected of drug use.

Remember when you go to these Las Vegas night clubs don’t assume your trip to the bathroom is a private trip.  If you are in this situation, you should always remember you have a constitutional right to remain silent.

Felony Masturbation, and Other Pre-Filed Bills in the Nevada Legislature

The Nevada Legislature consists of 42 members of the Nevada Assembly and 21 members of the Nevada Senate, elected from districts in the November of even-numbered years to determine the laws of this state in sessions that meet in Carson City in the February of odd-numbered years. The members elected last November have started filing bills for the session. These bills are intended, by their author, to be considered in the Legislature in committees, revised, amended, passed by both Houses and signed by the governor, at which point they become law.

Senate Bill 33 would clarify existing laws criminalizing sexual acts for prisoners. Sexual acts, including masturbation, between a prisoner and another person, including other prisoners, is already a Category D felony. This new law adds a required intent: “If the act is unauthorized and committed with the intent to abuse, appeal to or gratify the sexual desires of a person.” The bill also adds a list of several specific acts, including requiring another person to expose himself or herself, fondling, kissing, caressing, or watching a person bathe, use the toilet or change clothes, or attempting, threatening or requesting to engage in these acts.

Prison rape is a very serious issue. We owe the people we incarcerate protection from sexual assault, as both a human rights issues and as a public health issue, since HIV and other diseases are sadly so prevalent in prisons. Additionally, when there is an existing criminal statute, like there is in this case, it’s usually an improvement to add specific intent, as it makes the statute less vague. However, facing criminal charges is less likely to deter someone already in prison. Additionally, a person engaging in mutual consensual masturbation could get another felony sentence, adding to a person’s prison time for a harmless act. If the Legislature wants to address prison rape, it should do so in a way that puts the onus on the state to prevent rape, instead of on people already incarcerated.

Assembly Bill 43 clarifies the law regarding credits that prisoners can receive for good behavior or other positive acts while incarcerated. Under the proposed law, the prisoner may only receive enough credits to expire his or her current sentence.

Assembly Bill 30 would make searches on the online sex offender registry, as well as the contents of  a sex offender’s registration with law enforcement agencies, confidential. When a person is convicted of a sex offense in Las Vegas, his or her name and information is available to the public. Currently, the state is to log all requests for information on the registry. This law removes that requirement, meaning, if convicted of a sex offense and put on the online registry, there will be no log of when people searched for your information. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the information a sex offender gives when registering with local law enforcement agencies is confidential, and not available to the public.

Assembly Bill 55 would make it an enhanced crime to conspire or attempt to commit murder, assault, battery, robbery, sexual assault or other crime against a person older than 60 years old or who is otherwise vulnerable. Currently, if a person is convicted of actually committing any of the crimes against a person older than 60 or who is vulnerable, the convicted person could face an enhanced penalty. Under the proposed law, if a person conspires or attempts to commit any of the acts, he or she could also face the enhanced penalty.

I’ve previously discussed, on this blog, a Bill Draft Request by Assemblyman Tick Segerblom for a bill that would address growhouses for medical marijuana. The BDR has not resulted in a filed bill yet, but there is still plenty of time for that to happen.