Nearly 3,000,000 Americans are currently behind bars.  Roughly 1 of every 100 adults is locked up at the moment in this country.  Compared with the rest of the world, it's a wonder we could ever consider ourselves the "Land of the Free."  And the problem has gotten worse.  The US prison population has quadrupled since 1980.

The US has 5% of the world's population, but has 25% of the world's prisoners.  China, a nation with four times the US population has less than 2,000,000 in prison or jail.  Our government is more willing to take away the liberty of its citizenry than almost any other in the world.  If Thomas Jefferson were alive today and made aware of these disturbing truths, he might consider writing a new Declaration of Independence.

Further adding to the alarm, 70% of those incarcerated in the US are non-whites, with especially appalling numbers for black males.  One in every nine African-American males is currently incarcerated.  The graph above shows just how severe the problem is.  If this were going on in another country - if one race was being so systematically incarcerated - we would call it a human rights violation. 

Even without the racial component, the US prison system offers a disturbing outlook, when compared with the rest of the world.  At no point in human history, has any nation approached the roughly 3,000,000 inmates number currently in place in the US.  Countries such as China and India, with nearly four times out general population, manage to maintain order without locking up as many people as we do.  The US has the world's highest rate of incarceration per capita, and it is not even close when compared to other industrialized nations.  Many European nations have less than one fifth of the US incarceration rate, with Germany having the lowest.  Recently, the Netherlands has had to start closing its prisons due to declining crime rates.  Their emphasis on rehabilitation, rather than pure punishment, has helped reduce recidivism and reduce crime altogether.  In the US, nearly half of prisoners released will be back within three years. 

Paired with unparalleled police violence against citizens, one thing is clear: something is wrong with this picture, and significant reform is needed.  In the meantime, I continue to defend one client at a time from an overreaching system in this self-described "land of the free."  By making the system work for my clients, one at a time, I can make a major difference in individual lives.  It is up to our judges, politicians and society at large to implement the major reforms necessary to help the US catch up to the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with crime.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
LA Sheriff's Inmate Locator 
Los Angeles Superior Court  
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles Felony Bail Schedule
Los Angeles Misdemeanor Bail Schedule

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
Nicholas.Loncar@iDefendLosAngeles.com
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar

LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
In a recent blog article, I explored the legality of K-9 sniffs.  In that article, I concluded that despite the Court's permission of the practice, the Fourth Amendment would consider K-9 sniffs a search.  Further, I urged that allowing law enforcement to sidestep the Fourth Amendment and the Court's ruling in Kyllo v. United States could have further-reaching effects on our privacy rights than we might think.  533 U.S. 27 (2001).

In Kyllo, the Court held that law enforcement's use of infrared technology to detect illegal marijuana grow operations constituted a search and requires a search warrant.  The technology does not enter a building, but allows law enforcement to detect the lights used to grow marijuana.  Similarly, a K-9 sniff allows law enforcement to detect the presence of contraband in a building or vehicle.  When police lack the probable cause or warrant to conduct a search, they are allowed to use a dog to see inside a car or building they have no right to enter.  Real police officers cannot tell what's inside, and use the dogs in much the same way that they used infrared technology prior to Kyllo.  Still, the Court found this practice permissible when it considered the issue of K-9 sniffs during traffic stops.  Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).  Next, in Florida v. Jardines, the Court will rule whether a K-9 sniff at the front door of a home constitutes a search.  This decision may include reconsideration of Caballes, but could also affect how law enforcement will proceed with the use of drone technology for surveillance.

Police do not need a warrant to fly over a property in a plane or helicopter, but drone technology permits closer, and perhaps even more discrete surveillance of a home.  To what extend will law enforcement be permitted to use this technology to further erode our individual privacy rights?

Currently, the FAA does permit use of drone surveillance by law enforcement.  While not yet widespread, the decreasing cost of this technology could eliminate our expectation of privacy in our own homes.  A window with its curtains drawn, even if 100 yards away from a public street or walkway, will no longer ensure privacy.  Many states have begun to regulate the use of drone technology, but the legislation is mostly in the early stages.  This is an important question of constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights and requires Federal government attention.

US Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has proposed legislation that would, among other things, require a warrant for drone use by law enforcement and would require publication of drone flights on a public website.  If the bill passes, it will have gone a long way toward safe-guarding our privacy rights.  If it doesn't pass, we're in for further erosion of our sacred rights as Americans.  Either way, this is an issue likely to be before the US Supreme Court sooner or later, and one that must be resolved swiftly so as to protect our privacy rights.  Cops looking inside houses with floating cameras would have Thomas Jefferson turning in his grave.  Turning in his grave, drafting a renewed Declaration of Independence.

This issue seriously threatens privacy.  Drone surveillance should require a warrant.

UPDATE:  (By Lauren Noriega, April 14, 2016)

The Use of Drones in Police Enforcement

Although technology advances at lightning speed in this generation, many states are putting the brakes on use of that technology to police and enforce the law. This could be because there are unanswered constitutional questions regarding the use of such technology, or because citizens are uncomfortable with law enforcement holding technological power in their policing tactics. However, police utilizing technological advancements is an inevitable consequence, and some states are currently allowing the use of police drones.

Drones are small, unmanned aircraft that can potentially carry out a long list of functions. Today, some drones are equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology, and even speakers capable of monitoring. Drones are useful to police, because they allow law enforcement to chase a suspect without the danger associated with a police officer pursuing the suspect. Because drones are capable of doing just about everything, and because law and technology do not advance at the same speed, there are many open, controversial questions regarding the use of drones in law enforcement.

One of the most controversial uses of police drones was first approved in the state of North Dakota – where it is now legal for police to fire “less than lethal” weapons from drones in the air. “Less than lethal” weapons include: rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and tasers. Those who argue against this use of drones say that even “less than lethal” weapons can be deadly depending on the suspect. For example, as of 2015, nearly 40 people had been killed by police tasers. Those who oppose the use of drones for administering less than lethal weaponry will be glad to know that drones are very expensive, and most departments simply don’t have the funding to obtain drones for this use. However, there are a still a significant amount of states that allow for this type of drone use.

Drones not only have implications for their use in “less than lethal” weapons, but there are significant issues regarding current search and seizure laws with the use of drones. When drones are used as an instrument for domestic surveillance, there are obvious Fourth Amendment issues. The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Because drones are so highly sophisticated, the search and seizure laws come into play, but there are no specific rules regarding drones at this point. In fact, it’s likely that drones will create some loopholes around the current search and seizure laws until specific rules are in place regarding their use by the government.

Throughout the course of history, courts have adopted specific rules regarding searches by aircraft and even drug-sniffing dogs. However, it took a significant amount of litigation for these rules to finally be adopted. In the interim, citizens were open to potential criminal liability through evidentiary findings by these modes of “technology.” The danger with drones is that their high level of sophistication opens them up to potential abuse by over zealous law enforcement personnel. Until there are applicable rules for searches by drones, the defendant’s fate is really up to their criminal defense attorney, the court, and the prosecutor. For this reason, it is extremely important for the defendant to obtain experienced counsel who understands Fourth Amendment history, the public policy behind the adopted rules, and the consequences these decisions may have on future privacy rights.

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
Nicholas.Loncar@iDefendLosAngeles.com
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar

LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
Many states deny convicted felons the right to vote.  The history of these laws is truly disturbing and is rooted only in ignorance and racism, with no legitimate purpose whatsoever.  In the 1890s, many states (particularly those in the South) created a comprehensive series of laws to limit black voting.  States created literacy and landownership requirements for voting, but also made disenfranchisement a consequence of crimes most likely to be committed by African Americans.  Back then, they weren't shy about it either.  Here's what Virginia Delegate Carter Glass had to say on the House floor:

"This plan of popular suffrage will eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years, so that in no single county of the Commonwealth will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government."

So why do we have felon disenfranchisement laws?  Simply put, to ensure that white men can continue to run the country uninterrupted.  Today, one in three African-American males in Florida is unable to vote because of these laws.  The laws were struck down in the 1960s, but then quickly re-implemented by Southern States wishing to continue to suppress the black vote.

Before the Supreme Court will invalidate a law with a discriminatory effect, there must be evidence of discriminatory intent.  In 1900, the government was honest about its racism and Mr. Glass didn't feel a need to hide the true reason behind banning felon voting.  Courts struck down some of these laws, but only where the discriminatory purpose was clearly stated.  After the laws were struck down, the states re-enacted laws with virtually the same effect, but this time they didn't voice their racist intentions.  The only way I can look at this is that our courts, the supposed safeguard of our rights and the Constitution, really do not wish to fix the problems we face; they merely do not want to see or hear evidence of wrongdoing they must know is taking place.  In today's realm of political correctness, politicians will not voice a racist intention in voter suppression actions.  Obviously.  This does not mean that the

Many states still have felon voting bans, but can you think of any legitimate reason to keep people from participating in society while also expecting them to follow the rules?  In Germany, for example, inmates are encouraged to take part in the political process to facilitate rehabilitation reintegration into society.  Our government chooses alienation instead.  Only Vermont allows voting while incarcerated.  Other states should follow suit, and voting bans, whether lifetime or for a set number of years must go as well.

As a criminal defense attorney, the best I can do is to help my clients avoid felony convictions, but ultimately large-scale reform is necessary.  Felons should not be alienated from participation in their government, regardless of their race.  Additionally, it cannot be ignored that this issue disproportionately robs African-Americans and Latinos of their voice in our political process.

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
Nicholas.Loncar@iDefendLosAngeles.com
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar

LOS ANGELES DRUG CRIMES ATTORNEY
Police use K-9 "officers" to sniff the exterior of cars, homes, warehouses, luggage, etc. to detect contraband.  The dogs are trained to find contraband through the use of scented toys.  Trainers select playful, energetic dogs who will eagerly seek out a toy, then accompany the toy with the smell of some form of contraband (e.g. marijuana).  The dog, wanting to play with the toy, will find the toy wherever it is hidden.  Training the dog to find the toy is easy.  Getting the dog to associate the toy with the smell of contraband is also easy, sometimes taking less than a day.  A bit more difficult, however, is the process of getting the dog to disregard the other scents the toy gives off and getting the dog to give a positive signal ONLY for contraband.  After all, the toy is what attracted the dog to the contraband in the first place.  Well trained dogs can be very accurate and effective at determining whether contraband exists, but there are indications that training is not always up to par.  Additionally, there is evidence of law enforcement officers inducing "false positives" to get probable cause.Police use a K-9 sniff to determine the contents of something they have no legal right to see for themselves.  When an officer lacks probable cause to search a trunk, a garage or a storage unit, they can bring a dog in.  So long as the dog signals that contraband is present, police will usually have the probable cause to conduct a search.  Accuracy and ethical use (the inducing "false positives" problem) aside, K-9 sniffs violate the Fourth Amendment.

In 2001, the US Supreme Court held that law enforcement's use of infrared detectors to detect illegal marijuana grow operations inside a home is a search and requires a warrant.  Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).  The Court reasoned that law enforcement's use of technology to see what could not be seen by the naked eye makes the scan a search, even without physically entering the property.  While this case did not address the K-9 sniff, the situations are clearly analogous.  A police officer lacks the probable cause to conduct a search (i.e. lacks the legal right to see what is inside a car, container, house, etc.), and cannot determine the contents on his own.  The officer then uses the dog to see inside the very place he has no right to be.  The Kyllo decision should have been the beginning of the end of the K-9 sniff. 

Instead, in 2005, the Court decided that a K-9 sniff during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the practice does not unreasonably add to the delay of the stop.  Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).  Admittedly, dogs are not technology.  But they are certainly not officers, as the law enforcement side would have us believe.  They aren't paid, can't be held accountable, can't reason the way humans do, and do not even understand the purpose of their function.  Remember, the dog is associating the marijuana it finds with a toy it once wanted to chew on with no concept of anything relating to the arrest or prosecution of the sniff's victim.  The officer (the human officer, that is) is in full control, using his trained tool to tell him what is inside the place he has no right to go himself.  The Caballes Court reasoned that because the K-9 sniff is designed only to determine whether a car contains contraband no one is allowed to possess, that there is no rights violation.  Essentially, the Court is saying that a person cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to contraband.  This is false. 

Privacy, by its very nature, cannot be judged by the contents of a container.  Until privacy is violated, the trunk is a "mystery box" of sorts.  We cannot logically say that citizens no expectation of privacy in their cars, or in their homes, on the basis of what is contained therein.  Determining what is inside, when doing so is not possible by the naked eye (or human nose), must be deemed a search if the Court is to remain at all consistent with its decision in Kyllo.  In fact, any delay in a routine traffic stop will be more invasive than driving by a home and scanning the exterior.  If a dog is not an officer, then its use is a search.  An officer would not be permitted to use a handheld mechanical nose under Kyllo and should not be permitted to use a K-9 either.  In Kyllo, Justice Scalia warned that allowing officers to use specialized (not widely-used/available) technology to see more than the naked eye permits could eventually lead to a much more substantial deprivation of privacy (airport body scans, anyone?).

If a farce as silly as calling a dog an officer allows law enforcement to sidestep the Kyllo decision, are we in for a real life RoboCop someday?  Can police slap a badge on an infrared detector and continue to use it?  Sure, lots of people have dogs, but the ability to properly train a dog to accurately detect contraband, and only contraband is not widely available.

Luckily for the Bill of Rights, this debate is not over.

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court held that a K-9 sniff conducted at the front door of a marijuana grow house violates the Fourth Amendment.  Florida v. Jardines, 73 So.3d 34 (Fla. 2011).  The Florida Attorney General has appealed the decision and the US Supreme Court will soon hear the case to decide the legality of a K-9 sniff conducted at a home, as opposed to one conducted on a motor vehicle (Docket No. 11-564).  It is long established that people have a greater expectation of privacy in their homes than in a car, so it will be interesting to see how the Court decides this case. 

While the court will not directly address automobile K-9 sniffs in this case, the way the decision defines a search, a sniff and a person's expectation of privacy will have interesting implications and may affect the way some lower courts handle an automobile K-9 sniff (i.e. some lower courts may read the Jardines decision as overruling Caballes if the Court actually follows the Constitution this time around).

It seems this debate will go on for a while, but it really shouldn't have to.  A dog is not a cop.  A K-9 sniff is a search.  A search requires probable cause.  No loopholes.

UPDATE:  Recent Developments in K-9 Sniff Law

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
Nicholas.Loncar@iDefendLosAngeles.com
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar

LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
The LAPD headquarters are housed in one of the most impressive buildings Downtown LA has to offer.  This beautiful piece of architecture is accompanied by a series of sculptures that run along Spring Street.

The highlight of this $450 million dollar building project is that ballsy artist Peter Shelton dared to put pig statues next to the LAPD headquarters.  These sculptures bear resemblance only to Hamm, the piggy bank in Toy Story.  This wasn’t a defiant act of graffiti, but a city-sanctioned series of pig sculptures adorning the worlds most famed pig dwelling.

Former Police Chief William J. Bratton described the sculptures, pictured above, as looking like “some kind of cow splat.”  Bratton said that it’s unclear what the statues are meant to depict, but guessed that the statues look like bison or hippos.  If the sculptures had been of doughnuts, would the chief be saying that they look like tires or cheerios?  The pig sculptures are missing corkscrew tails and signature pig snouts, but the resemblance is uncanny.

How this got past LAPD brass is beyond me.  The term “pig” has been used to refer to police for a long time and is perhaps the most derogatory term used to describe members of law enforcement. 

There’s a Dunkin Donuts right across the street from Philadelphia’s City Hall.  Every morning, the building is absolutely flooded with police.  I always found that funny.  But large, prominent, permanent pig statues on the grounds of the LAPD headquarters?  That’s just priceless.

This should not distract from the very serious instances of police violence and corruption that occur on a daily basis.  Police brutality is a serious problem, and with police left to "police" themselves, we have not seen nearly enough change in this category.  Though some officers have been brought to justice (Rodney King beating, Rampart scandal), police still brutalize citizens, kill people, plant evidence, falsify reports and lie under oath to secure convictions.

For a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, these jabs at the Los Angeles Police Department are amusing.  Feel free to share this article with friends and colleagues.

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
Nicholas.Loncar@iDefendLosAngeles.com
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar

LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
I became a criminal defense attorney to ensure liberty and justice.  From a very young age, I recognized the injustice in the criminal justice system.  When I was a child, my immediate family suffered the consequences of a wrongful arrest, based purely on ethnic profiling.  In law school, I had a close friend who was arrested and called a terrorist by the NYPD officers who arrested her for no reason (well…OK…she’s a bit of a pain in the ass, but committed no crime).

When a client hires me I fight the charges against them with everything I have, regardless of guilt.  Sometimes, though, I get calls from people who were already convicted; often wrongfully convicted.  The effect a wrongful conviction has on someone’s life is immeasurable.

I recently got a phone call from a man named Will.  I never represented Will in any way, but he got a hold of me one day and shared his story.  He has asked me to share his story with you.  His is one of the many stories of a life destroyed by a false accusation and a system too eager to convict in the face of shaky evidence.

Will recently finished serving a 3-year prison sentence.  He lives in Northern California in a tent.  Will never committed a sex crime in his life, but is a convicted felon and required to register as a sex offender.  Will is denied employment, housing and even common decency because of his record, but should never have been convicted and incarcerated.

The alleged crime that ruined Will’s life was that of spousal rape.

Will, the criminal justice system failed you.  When Will called me, I asked him what he was hoping to achieve.  He told me that he wanted his life back.  He wanted the courts to set the record straight.  He wanted to take back the years he spent in a cage. 

While it breaks my heart that none of these things can be achieved, I want this article to bring awareness to an important issue.  In Domestic Violence cases, it is not uncommon for a victim to recant.  A battered spouse will often refuse to testify against the person they love and share a life with. 

But how far is too far in pushing someone to testify?  In Will’s case, his wife suffered from significant mental infirmities.  She had difficulty keeping track of even the most simple details.  The interview of Will’s wife that served as the basis for the charges against Will clearly shows someone unaware of what is going on.

Will’s wife couldn’t remember where she was married, asked whether she had initially contacted the police and denied ever being forced to have sex with her husband.  In fact, during this interview, Will’s wife told the police that she always wanted to have sex.

Despite this glaring weakness, the prosecutor in this case decided to move forward with charges.  While our criminal justice system claims to make avoiding false convictions a priority, false convictions are inevitable wherever there is a zealous advocate for guilt. 

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said “distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.”  These words perfectly describe the type of person who wants to fight for the side of proving guilt, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.  Unfortunately, taking joy in the misery of others is all too common of a human trait. 

Worse yet than the prosecutor’s overzealous pursuit of a conviction, was the complete failure of Will’s own attorney to properly explain the evidence to him.  Will’s attorney in this serious felony matter just wanted to be done with the case.  He encouraged a guilty plea despite the weak evidence in the case and showed a complete disregard for his client’s needs.

Attorneys who accept appointments must have the skill necessary to defend the accused, but must also keep in mind that court appointed clients are just as important and deserve the same attention and care as clients paying for our services directly.  There is no room for laziness and no room for greed.  Fighting against an already oppressive system, criminal defendants need someone passionate, aggressive and knowledgeable on their side.

Will may or may not still have legal remedies, but I want his story to serve as a warning and as a motivator for my colleagues.  Public defenders, appointed attorneys and even private counsel who do a lousy job in order to dispose of cases quickly need to see what doing so can do to a person.  As lawyers we have deep ethical obligations, but none are more important than to zealously advocate for our clients.  Operating a case mill might be efficient or profitable, but its wrong.  Dead wrong. 

A false conviction, especially one followed by a long prison term, can ruin someone’s life.  Not only does Will’s record hold him back, but this experience has destroyed his ability to trust others, including the government that was so quick to punish an innocent man.  Will is ashamed by what his country and his fellow man did to him.  A descendant of President John Adams, Will has experienced a criminal justice system that our founding fathers would be ashamed of.

I hope that in time Will can get back on his feet, but I can see the vast obstacles standing in his way.

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
Nicholas.Loncar@iDefendLosAngeles.com
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar