Maybe. It depends on the type of gun, how you plan to carry it and how long you plan to stay.
If you are merely traveling through California as a visitor, as long as the gun is not on the list of banned firearms from California, such as certain assault weapons [check the California Secretary of State’s website for the full list of banned firearms], if you can legally carry the weapon in your home state, you can have the weapon with you in California if you carry it in a separate locked container within your vehicle and the weapon is unloaded. The locked container cannot be the glove box or the utility box that is attached to the vehicle, it needs to be a separate locked container.
If you are moving to California, you need to apply for a certificate to own the gun in California within 60 days of your move here. New residents need to contact the secretary of state at https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/ab991 and submit a New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership (BOF 4010A) form along with a $19 application fee. If you do not apply for a certificate to keep the weapon, the law requires that you sell or transfer the firearm to a California licensed firearms dealer or to another individual using a California licensed firearms dealer to conduct the transaction; or sell or transfer the firearm to a California police or sheriff's department. If you choose to sell or transfer the firearm to a police or sheriff’s department, you should contact them for instructions before bringing in your weapon so that they can instruct you on how to conduct the transfer.
Good luck.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney- client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Disclosure; If you click on the Amazon link below you will be directed to the Amazon website Check out the great deals they have on auto accessories.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Romantic Date For Teens Goes Awry
It appeared to be the perfect spot to grab a quick bite to eat before the end of an inexpensive date for two teenagers. But then something went wrong.
The water was beautiful and the boat beckoned to two teens out on a late summer night date. The teens wanted to finish their date in style. They hopped aboard the boat to eat their meals from a local fast-food restaurant and to click some selfies to remember this night.
But when the camera flashed, the teens were surprised by the family of five who were woken up by the flash of their camera at 2 a.m. The frightened teens fled but left their fast-food bags on the boat, including the receipts.
From these receipts, local officers in Norwalk, Connecticut were able to track down the teens. The full story can be found at The Hour (The Hour, http://www.thehour.com)
News reports of this incident indicate that the teens now face charges of breach of peace and criminal trespass.
In California, the charge of disturbing the peace is found in Penal Code section 415, which provides, “Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both. . :
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
Willfully is defined in Penal Code section 7, subdivision (1), as “a purpose or willingness to
commit the act, or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage.”
Maliciously is defined in Penal Code section 7, subdivision (4), as “a wish to vex,
annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.”
Thus, although the flash woke up the family of five, the teenagers probably would not be charged with disturbing the peace here because if they were it could be argued that the teens were not acting willfully and maliciously because they were not aware of the family’s presence on the boat. Also, the defense attorney might also argue that the family was disturbed the the “flash” of the camera, not by the noise the teens made.
Also, trespass in California is found in Penal Code section 602. Penal Code section 602, subdivision (m), provides that one type of trespass is, “Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession.” Most trespasses are charged as misdemeanors, which means, if convicted, a defendant can be sentenced to up to six month in jail or ordered to pay a fine up to $1,000, or receive both a jail sentence and a fine. However, a motion can usually be made to reduce a misdemeanor trespass to an infraction.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
The water was beautiful and the boat beckoned to two teens out on a late summer night date. The teens wanted to finish their date in style. They hopped aboard the boat to eat their meals from a local fast-food restaurant and to click some selfies to remember this night.
But when the camera flashed, the teens were surprised by the family of five who were woken up by the flash of their camera at 2 a.m. The frightened teens fled but left their fast-food bags on the boat, including the receipts.
From these receipts, local officers in Norwalk, Connecticut were able to track down the teens. The full story can be found at The Hour (The Hour, http://www.thehour.com)
News reports of this incident indicate that the teens now face charges of breach of peace and criminal trespass.
In California, the charge of disturbing the peace is found in Penal Code section 415, which provides, “Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both. . :
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
Willfully is defined in Penal Code section 7, subdivision (1), as “a purpose or willingness to
commit the act, or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage.”
Maliciously is defined in Penal Code section 7, subdivision (4), as “a wish to vex,
annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.”
Thus, although the flash woke up the family of five, the teenagers probably would not be charged with disturbing the peace here because if they were it could be argued that the teens were not acting willfully and maliciously because they were not aware of the family’s presence on the boat. Also, the defense attorney might also argue that the family was disturbed the the “flash” of the camera, not by the noise the teens made.
Also, trespass in California is found in Penal Code section 602. Penal Code section 602, subdivision (m), provides that one type of trespass is, “Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession.” Most trespasses are charged as misdemeanors, which means, if convicted, a defendant can be sentenced to up to six month in jail or ordered to pay a fine up to $1,000, or receive both a jail sentence and a fine. However, a motion can usually be made to reduce a misdemeanor trespass to an infraction.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Facebook v. Superior Court (Darrell Hunter) (2015) : Pretrial Discovery Subpoena Is Quashed
In Facebook v. Superior Court (2015) _Cal.App.4th__, decided on September 8, 2015, in a petition for a writ of mandate, each of the Defendants served a subpoena duces tecum on one or more of the petitioners seeking both public and private content from user accounts of the murder victim and a witness. Petitioners moved to quash the subpoenas, objecting under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA or Act) (§ 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) to the compelled disclosure of the content of their users’ electronic communications.
Section 2702(a) provides that electronic communication services “shall not knowingly divulge” the contents of a user communication to anyone, with limited exceptions (§ 2702(b)). Defendants responded that the requested information is necessary to properly defend against the pending charges, and that any statutory privacy protections afforded a social media user must yield to a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, presentation of a complete defense, and effective assistance of counsel.
The trial court denied petitioners’ motions to quash and ordered petitioners to produce responsive material for in camera review. Petitioners filed the instant petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in this court. The Court of Appeal issued an order staying the production order and requested opposition.
After consideration of Defendants’ answer, and petitioners’ reply thereto, The Court of Appeal denied Defendants’ request to dissolve the temporary stay and issued an order requiring the respondent superior court to show cause why the relief requested by petitioners should not be granted. The appellate court granted the petition and directed the trial court to issue an order quashing the subpoenas.
However, the appellate court noted that “our ruling is limited to the pretrial context in which the trial court’s order was made” - which was precisely one day before trial. And the appellate court adds, “Nothing in this opinion would preclude Defendants from seeking at trial the production of the materials sought here (or petitioners again seeking to quash subpoenas), where the trial court would be far better equipped to balance the Defendants’ need for effective cross-examination and the policies the SCA is intended to serve.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Section 2702(a) provides that electronic communication services “shall not knowingly divulge” the contents of a user communication to anyone, with limited exceptions (§ 2702(b)). Defendants responded that the requested information is necessary to properly defend against the pending charges, and that any statutory privacy protections afforded a social media user must yield to a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, presentation of a complete defense, and effective assistance of counsel.
The trial court denied petitioners’ motions to quash and ordered petitioners to produce responsive material for in camera review. Petitioners filed the instant petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in this court. The Court of Appeal issued an order staying the production order and requested opposition.
After consideration of Defendants’ answer, and petitioners’ reply thereto, The Court of Appeal denied Defendants’ request to dissolve the temporary stay and issued an order requiring the respondent superior court to show cause why the relief requested by petitioners should not be granted. The appellate court granted the petition and directed the trial court to issue an order quashing the subpoenas.
However, the appellate court noted that “our ruling is limited to the pretrial context in which the trial court’s order was made” - which was precisely one day before trial. And the appellate court adds, “Nothing in this opinion would preclude Defendants from seeking at trial the production of the materials sought here (or petitioners again seeking to quash subpoenas), where the trial court would be far better equipped to balance the Defendants’ need for effective cross-examination and the policies the SCA is intended to serve.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Evidence Obtained From “Butt Dialed” Calls Can Lead to Arrest or Civil Liability
“9-1-1, what’s your emergency?” No one answered, but the 9-1-1 operator heard evidence concerning a crime in an inadvertent call to 9-1-1, colloquially called a “butt dialed” call, but more formally called “pocket dialing” by the courts.
The operator in New Jersey heard a man and his accomplice talk about breaking into homes, emptying drawers, and stealing household goods, according to an AP report from last Friday. This evidence was used to indict the man on burglary charges, according to NJ.com reports. A police report allegedly indicates that jewelry, electronics, $11,300 in bonds, and a handgun were recovered.
In a recent decision, the Sixth District Court of Appeals found that a man on vacation in Italy has no privacy rights in his conversation that occurred on a balcony in Italy, when he inadvertently pocket dialed a number and the recipient recorded a conversation the man was having with a friend where they were discussing a potential employment termination at a U.S. company. The recipient of this call was in the U.S. and she took notes, and recorded part of the call, which is being offered as evidence in a civil lawsuit for discrimination. (See, Huff and Huff vs. Spaw (6th Cir. 2015), decided on July 21, 2015, Case No. 14-5123.)
Because inadvertent calls can be made at the most awkward moments, Lisa Brownlee, a contributor to Forbes magazine, recommends a call confirmation program, like Call Confirm, to prevent accidental calls. She writes that this app prevents a single accidental tap from dialing a number because a second affirmative tap is required to confirm that you intend the call to go through.
Otherwise, she recommends that the best solution is to power off the phone while not in use to prevent inadvertent calls.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
The operator in New Jersey heard a man and his accomplice talk about breaking into homes, emptying drawers, and stealing household goods, according to an AP report from last Friday. This evidence was used to indict the man on burglary charges, according to NJ.com reports. A police report allegedly indicates that jewelry, electronics, $11,300 in bonds, and a handgun were recovered.
In a recent decision, the Sixth District Court of Appeals found that a man on vacation in Italy has no privacy rights in his conversation that occurred on a balcony in Italy, when he inadvertently pocket dialed a number and the recipient recorded a conversation the man was having with a friend where they were discussing a potential employment termination at a U.S. company. The recipient of this call was in the U.S. and she took notes, and recorded part of the call, which is being offered as evidence in a civil lawsuit for discrimination. (See, Huff and Huff vs. Spaw (6th Cir. 2015), decided on July 21, 2015, Case No. 14-5123.)
Because inadvertent calls can be made at the most awkward moments, Lisa Brownlee, a contributor to Forbes magazine, recommends a call confirmation program, like Call Confirm, to prevent accidental calls. She writes that this app prevents a single accidental tap from dialing a number because a second affirmative tap is required to confirm that you intend the call to go through.
Otherwise, she recommends that the best solution is to power off the phone while not in use to prevent inadvertent calls.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Bowling on Wheels
Some days it just doesn't pay to get out of bed. A Pennsylvania man had a coughing fit while at work today and when he finished, he had destroyed 23 cars.
While driving his milk truck earlier today, the man choked on his soft drink. While his attention was consumed by his choking fit, he wasn't paying attention to where he was on the the road and he accidentally plowed down 23 cars at a new car dealership.
The Associated Press reports that the police inspected the milk truck for mechanical malfunctions and none were found. Allegedly, the truck rolled down an embankment off the highway and onto the dealership lot, but the driver never applied his brakes throughout this incident. The truck driver was charged with careless driving in Pennsylvania.
In California, this would likely be charged as reckless driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23103, subdivision (a), which provides, “A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a).)
The penalty for reckless driving, if convicted, is imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.” (Veh. Code, §23103, subd. (c ).) Additionally, the court can order restitution to the victim, which means if this traffic accident occurred in California, a court could order the truck driver to reimburse the dealership for its damages. But, if this truck driver was an employee, his employer might pay direct victim restitution under a respondent superior theory of liability.
For more information, see The (Sharon) Herald (http://bit.ly/1XG02em )
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
While driving his milk truck earlier today, the man choked on his soft drink. While his attention was consumed by his choking fit, he wasn't paying attention to where he was on the the road and he accidentally plowed down 23 cars at a new car dealership.
The Associated Press reports that the police inspected the milk truck for mechanical malfunctions and none were found. Allegedly, the truck rolled down an embankment off the highway and onto the dealership lot, but the driver never applied his brakes throughout this incident. The truck driver was charged with careless driving in Pennsylvania.
In California, this would likely be charged as reckless driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23103, subdivision (a), which provides, “A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a).)
The penalty for reckless driving, if convicted, is imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.” (Veh. Code, §23103, subd. (c ).) Additionally, the court can order restitution to the victim, which means if this traffic accident occurred in California, a court could order the truck driver to reimburse the dealership for its damages. But, if this truck driver was an employee, his employer might pay direct victim restitution under a respondent superior theory of liability.
For more information, see The (Sharon) Herald (http://bit.ly/1XG02em )
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
A Ride on a Buffing Machine Comes to an End
Who wouldn’t want to take a ride on a high-powered buffing machine? School custodians, who get to use the buffing machine, have such an awesome job!
A young man in Florida might have been thinking exactly that as he broke into a Florida middle school on Labor Day Monday when the school was closed. The young man's goal apparently was to take the buffing machine for a ride, according to the Associated Press.
What might have begun as fun didn't remain fun for long. When he tried to use the school’s elevator to take the buffing machine to another floor, he found himself stuck.
The young man called 9-1-1 to get help out of the elevator. When he was found, the young man was wearing a jacket that did not belong to him. The man was promptly arrested for burglary, theft and criminal mischief.
In California, burglary is found in Penal Code section 459. Burglary has two elements: (1) unlawful entry; accompanied by (2) the intent to commit theft (either felony or misdemeanor) or any other felony. (§§ 459, 490a; People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1041 & fn. 8 (Montoya)) The intent to commit the underlying theft or felony must exist at the time of entry. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 699.)
Here, the young man’s defense attorney could argue that he had no intention of committing the theft of the jacket until after he entered the school building and saw it there.
But, the prosecution could still argue that upon entering the building, the young man intended to commit criminal mischief with the buffing machine. Because intent is rarely susceptible of direct proof, it may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. (People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41.) "[I]n showing that a defendant entered the premises with felonious intent, the [prosecution] can rely upon reasonable inferences drawn 'from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence,' since felonious intent is rarely proven through direct evidence. [Citation.]" (In re Anthony M. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 491, 501.) "Burglarious intent can reasonably be inferred from an unlawful entry alone. [Citation.] (People v. Jordan (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 782, 786-787.)
Because the school is a building, not a residence, this would be charged as a second degree burglary. Second degree burglary is also known as commercial burglary and can be charged by the prosecutor as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor commercial burglary has a penalty of up to one year in county jail. Felony commercial burglary has a penalty of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in county jail under California’s new AB109 sentencing guidelines. At sentencing, for many cases, a judge also has discretion to place a person convicted of second degree burglary on probation.
Theft of the jacket in California would likely be charged as a petty theft because the jacket’s fair market value is under $950. Petty theft under Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a), is a misdemeanor that carries a potential penalty of a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both. (Pen.,Code, § 490.)
Criminal mischief is called vandalism in California (Pen. Code, § 594) and can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the amount of damage caused. Damage of under $400 would be a misdemeanor but damage of $400 or more would likely be charged as a felony.
Copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
A young man in Florida might have been thinking exactly that as he broke into a Florida middle school on Labor Day Monday when the school was closed. The young man's goal apparently was to take the buffing machine for a ride, according to the Associated Press.
What might have begun as fun didn't remain fun for long. When he tried to use the school’s elevator to take the buffing machine to another floor, he found himself stuck.
The young man called 9-1-1 to get help out of the elevator. When he was found, the young man was wearing a jacket that did not belong to him. The man was promptly arrested for burglary, theft and criminal mischief.
In California, burglary is found in Penal Code section 459. Burglary has two elements: (1) unlawful entry; accompanied by (2) the intent to commit theft (either felony or misdemeanor) or any other felony. (§§ 459, 490a; People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1041 & fn. 8 (Montoya)) The intent to commit the underlying theft or felony must exist at the time of entry. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 699.)
Here, the young man’s defense attorney could argue that he had no intention of committing the theft of the jacket until after he entered the school building and saw it there.
But, the prosecution could still argue that upon entering the building, the young man intended to commit criminal mischief with the buffing machine. Because intent is rarely susceptible of direct proof, it may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. (People v. Matson (1974) 13 Cal.3d 35, 41.) "[I]n showing that a defendant entered the premises with felonious intent, the [prosecution] can rely upon reasonable inferences drawn 'from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence,' since felonious intent is rarely proven through direct evidence. [Citation.]" (In re Anthony M. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 491, 501.) "Burglarious intent can reasonably be inferred from an unlawful entry alone. [Citation.] (People v. Jordan (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 782, 786-787.)
Because the school is a building, not a residence, this would be charged as a second degree burglary. Second degree burglary is also known as commercial burglary and can be charged by the prosecutor as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor commercial burglary has a penalty of up to one year in county jail. Felony commercial burglary has a penalty of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in county jail under California’s new AB109 sentencing guidelines. At sentencing, for many cases, a judge also has discretion to place a person convicted of second degree burglary on probation.
Theft of the jacket in California would likely be charged as a petty theft because the jacket’s fair market value is under $950. Petty theft under Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a), is a misdemeanor that carries a potential penalty of a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or both. (Pen.,Code, § 490.)
Criminal mischief is called vandalism in California (Pen. Code, § 594) and can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the amount of damage caused. Damage of under $400 would be a misdemeanor but damage of $400 or more would likely be charged as a felony.
Copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Deer Catch a Buzz in Oregon
There are some happy deer in Grants Pass, Oregon. They found a really large meal at a hemp farm there. But they are probably still looking for a midnight snack.
One thousand (1,000) hemp plants were planted at the farm. After the deer evaded some barbed wire, they breathed in the aroma of all that bountiful hemp. It smelled so good that there are now only about 40 plants left, according to the Grants Pass Daily Courier.
Deer are wild animals so there is no crime.
But, in California, if you have a small animal, like a dog, who trespasses on your neighbor’s property and destroys plants and property, and this happens repeatedly, this behavior could cause you to receive a citation from your local municipality.
For example, people living within the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles, who have a dog that repeatedly gets out and destroys neighborhood property could be cited with a violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Article 10, which states, “Any animal that harasses passerby or vehicles, attacks other animals, is repeatedly at large, continuously barks, or trespasses on school, public property, or private property will be considered a public nuisance. It is a misdemeanor to continue to allow your animal to remain a public nuisance. (Los Angeles County Code Sec. 10.40.065)
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
One thousand (1,000) hemp plants were planted at the farm. After the deer evaded some barbed wire, they breathed in the aroma of all that bountiful hemp. It smelled so good that there are now only about 40 plants left, according to the Grants Pass Daily Courier.
Deer are wild animals so there is no crime.
But, in California, if you have a small animal, like a dog, who trespasses on your neighbor’s property and destroys plants and property, and this happens repeatedly, this behavior could cause you to receive a citation from your local municipality.
For example, people living within the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles, who have a dog that repeatedly gets out and destroys neighborhood property could be cited with a violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Article 10, which states, “Any animal that harasses passerby or vehicles, attacks other animals, is repeatedly at large, continuously barks, or trespasses on school, public property, or private property will be considered a public nuisance. It is a misdemeanor to continue to allow your animal to remain a public nuisance. (Los Angeles County Code Sec. 10.40.065)
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)