Wolk SB 755 question for LEO

[jimezdoesit]

Part of SB 755 says:
(b) Except as provided in Section 29855 or subdivision (a) of Section 29800, any person who has been convicted of misdemeanor violations of two or more of any of the following offenses within a three-year period and who, within 10 years of the second conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine:

One of the listed misdemeanors in SB 755:
(6) Subdivision (f) of Section 647.(Drunk in Public)

My question from the above information is this.. Is a 647(f)/849(b)2 considered a conviction from the above? There was no court date or conviction for me. Just a detention. I know about the two or more within a three year period, but if the second offense is a 647(f)/849(b)2, does this fall off? Any LEO out there that can clear the air, this would help. Thanks for your help!

[Heiko]

Part of SB 755 says:
(b) Except as provided in Section 29855 or subdivision (a) of Section 29800, any person who has been convicted of misdemeanor violations of two or more of any of the following offenses within a three-year period and who, within 10 years of the second conviction, owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine:

One of the listed misdemeanors in SB 755:
(6) Subdivision (f) of Section 647.(Drunk in Public)

My question from the above information is this.. Is a 647(f)/849(b)2 considered a conviction from the above? There was no court date or conviction for me. Just a detention. I know about the two or more within a three year period, but if the second offense is a 647(f)/849(b)2, does this fall off? Any LEO out there that can clear the air, this would help. Thanks for your help!

If SB755 requires a conviction and 849(b)(2) is pretty clear that the arrest went no further, then it looks like you're fine.

[jimezdoesit]

If SB755 requires a conviction and 849(b)(2) is pretty clear that the arrest went no further, then it looks like you're fine.

Thank you Heiko!

[Dr.Lou]

FYI:

849.5. PC In any case in which a person is arrested and released and
no accusatory pleading is filed charging him with an offense, any
record of arrest of the person shall include a record of release.
Thereafter, the arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but a detention
only.

[Dr.Lou]

And you should probably have understood what CPC 849(b)2 is before offering an opinion, and encouraging someone to spend money.

Unless they're a criminal attorney (which most aren't), they wouldn't know what 849(b)2 is off the top of their head, unless they're one of those attorneys that has been through the 647f/849(b)2 process (which many have).

[jimezdoesit]

Unless they're a criminal attorney (which most aren't), they wouldn't know what 849(b)2 is of the top of their head, unless they're one of those attorneys that has been through the 647f/849(b)2 process (which many have).

Many thanks Dr.Lou & P5Ret!

[knowyourrights]

And you should probably have understood what CPC 849(b)2 is before offering an opinion, and encouraging someone to spend money.

I understand the section very well, thank you very much and again I say cops are not attorneys. It is not an opinion but a fact, you don't see a DVM for your health issues, but you see an MD. They are both doctors but in different fields... The point is that you get legal advice from an attorney not cops....

[HAVOC5150]

I work in the jail, and Heiko has it correct. A majority of the individuals that are arrested for 647(f) are 849(b). When I worked day shift in intake I would spend about half my day kicking out people that were just there to sober up. I'd have them sign for there property and send them on their way, no court date, no promise to appear, nothing. So that means no conviction.

[P5Ret]

I understand the section very well, thank you very much and again I say cops are not attorneys. It is not an opinion but a fact, you don't see a DVM for your health issues, but you see an MD. They are both doctors but in different fields... The point is that you get legal advice from an attorney not cops....

True enough and I was not suggesting that, but it won't take a $100 an hour attorney to tell you that 647(f) with an 849(b)2 release is not a conviction for 647(f). That is what the question was. I'd be willing to bet that most of the leo's/retired leo's here have filled out the form a time or two, and since it says right on the form "no prosecution desired" or words to that effect, it really doesn't take an attorney to tell someone that that is not a conviction for the arrested charge, of 647(f).

[CalCop]

You don't have to be an attorney to see that the OP answered his own question. The statute requires conviction of two misdemeanors...he said he wasn't convicted. Easy answer...no lawyer needed.

A law degree does not suddenly create a genius in its recipient. I have met lawyers who couldn't argue themselves out of a paper bag. I've also known cops (investigators) who were experts in their field, who were regularly called as expert witnesses. They know the elements required to successfully convict the perp in their area of expertise...better than the deputy DA with two years on the job. The cop often teaches the new DDA what will be needed to prove the case.

Bottom line...
Lawyer does not equal all-knowing law guru.
Cop does not equal arrest report writer who can only document what he sees.

If you know your area of expertise and can back it up...feel free to answer...even if you are not the "all-knowing" lawyer.

[RedVines]

A law degree does not suddenly create a genius in its recipient.

Ain't that the truth.