To the list of police officers overreacting when they see persons operating vehicles that can barely be described as vehicles, under the influence, you can now add officers in Minnesota. Cops there arrested a 34-year-old man, for driving his Zamboni while intoxicated.

The 34-year-old man was operating the Zamboni, which is an ice resurfacing machine. Witnesses at the scene said that they saw the Zamboni careening across the ice, and bouncing off the sidewalk.

When police officers responded to the scene, they saw the man at the ice rink, operating the Zamboni. When the officers approached the man, they smelled alcohol, and found that the man was unsteady on his feet. Officers administered a field sobriety test, and the man was then taken to the police station where he was subjected to a blood alcohol test.

The last time that San Diego DUI lawyers can remember a Zamboni being involved in a DUI was back in 2005. In that incident, a 63-year-old man in New Jersey was arrested for driving a Zamboni under the influence of alcohol at a rink. However, in that case, the judge dismissed the charges, because he believed that the Zamboni was not a motor vehicle. He based this decision on the presumption that the Zamboni cannot carry passengers, and cannot be used on roadways like other vehicles can, and therefore, does not meet the defining criteria for a motor vehicle.

In recent years, law enforcement officers have pulled over persons for operating a number of vehicles under the influence. There have been a number of amusing but frustrating instances where persons have been arrested for driving lawnmowers, beer coolers, and even a motorized recliner under the influence.

San Diego law enforcement officers responding to reports of a drunk driver on Seacoast Drive were not expecting to see a man they had arrested at least twice earlier in the same week.

San Diego police had pulled over him over on January 17, and troopers of the California Highway Patrol had pulled him over last week on suspicion of drunk driving. Over the weekend, Sheriff’s deputies received a report of a drunk driver, and reached the scene to find that it was Lakarnafeaux again. He had already moved to another bar to get more beer. He was arrested and booked into the San Diego Central Jail, in his 3rd arrest of the week. He is being held on a $100,000 bail.

A person who has been arrested for DUI on more than one occasion needs to get in touch with a San Diego DUI lawyer as quickly as possible. Being charged with repeat DUI's can substantially increase the penalties that you're eligible for.

For instance, you can expect to pay substantially higher fines for a 2nd or 3rd DUI, than for the first one. After a 2nd DUI conviction, a person can have his license suspended for the first 2 years. After the 3rd DUI conviction, the license suspension can last for 3 years. There is a possibility that your vehicle could be confiscated for a 3rd offense.

That’s not all. People with multiple DUI convictions can also be required to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle. The device prevents a drunk motorist from driving, by shutting down the car's ignition if it detects too much alcohol on their breath.

You don't have to be a San Diego criminal defense lawyer to know that the justice system in the United States has become increasingly aggressive and punitive over the last few decades. A new study confirms just how serious the problem of over-criminalization of American society is. According to the study, approximately one-third of Americans have been arrested for a crime by the age of 23.

The study analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and is believed to be the first of its kind since the 60s to analyze arrest statistics pertaining to adolescents and young adults. The study found that approximately 30.2% of young adults aged 23, who were considered in the analysis, had been arrested for non-traffic crimes. The last such study was conducted back in 1965, and in that year, the number of people arrested was just 22%.

It's obvious that those higher arrest numbers are the result of the justice system becoming increasingly aggressive over this period of time. The arrest rates for some kinds of crimes, like drug crimes, have simply skyrocketed.

This particular study did not look at the difference in arrest rates based on race, but earlier studies have found that blacks were more likely to be arrested at a younger age, than people of other ethnic groups. Additionally, people from lower socio-economic communities were also more likely to be arrested at an earlier age.

According to the research, the risk of being arrested is at its peak when the person is about 18 years old. Approximately 15.9% of the persons in the survey had been arrested at this age. The arrest rates began to taper out when the persons entered their 20s.

The popular belief is that the practice of sexting, or sending or transmitting of nude, seminude and explicit sexual images via electronic communication devices, is widespread among teenagers. However, a new study that has just been published in the Journal Pediatrics indicates that that is far from the truth. According to the study, the number of teenagers who indulge in sexting- a practice which could actually place them at risk of being charged with sex crimes in California - is quite low.

The study found that 1 in 10 minors between the age of 10 and 17 have sent or received nude, semi nude or sexually explicit images or other material on their cell phones over the past year. According to previous studies, the number of minors engaging in sexting was as high as 1 in 5. The problem of sexting involving teenagers has been painted by many as something of a national crisis, especially after a series of incidents in which teenagers, who were found with sexually explicit material on their cell phones, were charged with sex crimes. According to this latest study, however, the practice of sexting may be much more common among adults than teenagers.

Overall, according to the study, 149 youths or just 9.6% of the people in the survey admitted that they had sent or received sexually explicit material on their cell phones at least once over the past year. Among those who had indulged in sexting, just over 2% said that they had sent or received messages that included pictures of themselves. About 7% admitted that they had received sexually explicit content on their cell phones from someone else.

As any San Diego criminal defense lawyer knows, the intent behind sexting involving most teens is not malicious or criminal in nature. Many cases where teenagers are found exchanging sexually explicit material, involve pranks, an exchange of content between 2 teenagers in a relationship, flirtatious gestures or something equally harmless.

A former San Diego Police Department officer, who was accused of demanding sexual favors from women he pulled over for DUI and other offenses, has been found guilty on multiple counts.

The former cop, Anthony Arevalos was convicted of 12 counts, including 4 misdemeanors. The charges against him included assault and battery by a police officer, assault and battery by an officer asking for a bribe, and others. However, he was acquitted of other felony charges.

Some of the woman who accused him testified in the trial of the San Diego County Superior Court. According to one of the women, she was pulled over by Arevalos, who asked her to take a breath test. The woman registered a .09% on the test. Later, she was asked by the police officer to drive to a nearby 7-11, where he allegedly propositioned her, informing her that he would make the DUI go away, if she did what he asked her to do. The woman testified in court that Arevalos then asked to see her breasts, and touched her genitals. The next day, the woman reported the incident to police.

Arevalos is due to be sentenced on December 9. He's looking at a possible prison sentence of 10 years and 4 months, and will be required to serve at least half of that time. San Diego criminal defense lawyers also expect that Arevalos will be required to register as a sex offender.

Some of the women who accused Arevalos have already filed a claim against the city, stemming from their treatment by the former cop. During the trial, it became more and more evident that other officers in the San Diego Police Department had suspected that Arevalos’ conduct was not exactly above board, but failed to report this to higher-ups. The Department has assured people that it will investigate this matter.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up two cases involving individuals who were sentenced to mandatory life term without parole, for murder crimes that were committed when they were fourteen years of age.

The two cases are from Alabama and Arkansas, and San Diego criminal defense lawyers are hoping that the court will place a limit on the kind of sentences young persons are handed for such crimes. There are currently approximately 73 prisoners across the country who have been convicted of similar crimes committed when they were fourteen years of age. All of these were then sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

This is the latest in a flurry of recent activity at the US Supreme Court involving juvenile crimes. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that that life imprisonment for juveniles, who have committed non-murder crimes when they were below eighteen, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had earlier taken another decision banning the death penalty for juveniles.

In the state of California, anyone below the age of eighteen can be charged with juvenile crimes. However, individuals above fourteen years can be tried as adults in certain cases. These people may be tried as adults if they are charged with crimes like murder, rape and robbery with a weapon. Most juvenile crimes that California criminal defense lawyers come across involve DUI, drug crimes, sex crimes and violence.

In many cases, juvenile crimes are the result of external factors that include a history of physical or sexual abuse, and a poor family environment. Younger persons who live in neighborhoods that have higher rates of criminal activity are more likely to commit crimes. Juvenile crimes are also often linked to drug and alcohol abuse, and gang membership.

The recent actions of Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant coach of Penn State who is currently at the center of a sex crime scandal, provides valuable lessons for persons who have been accused of sex crimes. Last week, Sandusky spoke to NBC's Bob Costas in his first interview after charges of child sex abuse were filed against him. Those charges stem from allegations that he molested young boys at his Second Mile Foundation.

In the interview, Sandusky denies that he is a pedophile, but makes several statements that he could find difficult to deny later. For one, he admits that he frequently took showers with young boys. He also does not deny that he had touched these boys in the leg region, although without any sexual intent. He admits that in hindsight, he can see that he should not have showered with those boys at all.

The problem with the interview is that whatever he said is now part of the case against him. If his criminal defense lawyers were planning to use outright denial that he was ever in any shower with any boys as part of their strategy, that defense now goes out the window.

One of the first pieces of advice that San Diego criminal Defense attorneys would give any public figure accused of sex crimes is - be silent. Any public statement that a defendant makes can find its way to court in the form of testimony against the defendant.

What Sandusky could have done was release a public statement proclaiming his innocence, instead of exposing himself to the media. Very little good can come out of offering yourself up for public consumption in this manner. It's likely that the beleaguered former coach felt under pressure to have his say, but it is not a course of action that any San Diego criminal defense lawyer would advise any person facing serious criminal charges.

Several police departments around the country, including in California, are expanding their use of video cameras to record law enforcement activities as they occur. In Oakland, California, that use of cameras was responsible for the video recording of a fatal shooting in which a man was shot by a police officer. The footage was shot on a video camera that had been clipped on the police officer’s vest, and is likely to play a prominent role in an internal investigation by the Oakland police department.

An increasing number of police departments across the country are adopting such technology. The use of technology to record illegal or illicit activities is not new to San Diego criminal defense lawyers. For instance, we currently have cameras mounted on cruisers to record everything from illegal left turns to violated stop signs. This information provides officers evidence that can be used in court.

However, this advanced video camera technology goes further by using small, barely-noticeable video cameras that are clipped on to officer’s clothing to collect evidence. These small cameras are the size of a pager. According to police officers, these cameras provide them the kind of objective evidence that would otherwise have relied heavily on witness accounts. According to legal experts, video evidence of this kind can only serve the cause of justice. It lowers dependence on possibly conflicting verbal accounts.

The growing use of such technology combined with the ease with which video clips can be uploaded on YouTube, has complicated matters. In some cases, people, who have uploaded footage of police officer, have been charged with violating wiretapping and eavesdropping laws. Courts around the country are grappling with the fine line between citizens’ First Amendment rights and criminal activity.

Federal law enforcement authorities are launching a major crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in California. The four U.S. attorneys in California have warned dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries that they will be subjected to civil or criminal action unless they shut down.

Among the people who might get caught in the crossfire are people who rent out space to medical marijuana dispensaries. Attorneys have been bringing charges against people for growing and distributing marijuana for medical purposes. They have also been sending letters to owners of properties where marijuana is grown or sold.

Prosecutors allege that many of these medical marijuana dispensaries are covering for-profit drug sales under the guise of medical use. According to federal prosecutors, medical marijuana laws in California have been used to cover up large-scale illegitimate drug trafficking operations. They allege that millions of dollars worth of marijuana is being transported across the country through bases in California.

These actions by the federal administration come as a shock to San Diego drug crimes lawyers. In 2009, the Obama administration had assured states with medical marijuana laws that prosecutors would not target individual patients or persons who sell marijuana in any state that has legal marijuana laws. Besides California, there are at least fifteen other states that have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. By launching a crackdown like this, the federal administration seems to have reneged on its promise.

According to some reports, so far 16 landlords in California have received letters informing them that they are violating federal drug crime laws, which preempt the state’s medical marijuana laws. These actions by the administration ride roughshod over states that have laws allowing the sale of marijuana for medical purposes

Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee has been officially charged with federal mail fraud crimes. She's currently free on a $100,000 bond. According to news reports, Senator Dianne Feinstein has also admitted that her campaign was a victim of the fraud. Senator Feinstein believes as much as a million dollars could have been swiped from her campaign.

The fraud allegedly began as early as 2005. Kinde Durkee is accused of misappropriating money, beginning that year when she took to cover the accounting business of Jules Grazer, under whom she had worked for many years. Audits discovered that in 2005, she took $2,500 from Assemblyman Jerome Horton's campaign and used it to pay her company, Durkee and Associates. Auditors also found that one of her former employees had embezzled more than $8,000 from the same campaign in 2005 and 2006. Kinde Durkee covered up that embezzlement, accounting for that money as her consulting fees.

She's now charged with one count of mail fraud, after federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint that accused her of taking more than $677,000 in campaign money from Orange County Assemblyman José Solorio. She allegedly used the money to pay off her credit card bills and fund her payroll. Some of the money went to paying the costs of her mother's assisted living facility.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating Kinde Durkee in January. By then, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office was also investigating the use of campaign funds. Since Durkee’s arrest, several of her former clients have come forward to complain about missing funds, including the mayor of Irvine, Sukhee Kang and the Los Angeles Democratic Party. Durkee is expected to enter a not guilty plea.

Mail fraud crimes are those crimes that involve the use of the U.S. Postal Service, and therefore, fall under the category of federal crimes. These are some of the most serious crimes a California criminal defense lawyers can come across, and often, a person may not even be aware that he or she is under investigation by federal agencies until the FBI is ready to press charges.