Unless you live under a rock, you probably recall the recent Powerball jackpot that totaled around $1.6 billion dollars, to be split between three big winners.  One of those winning tickets originated at a 7-Eleven in our own Chino Hills, California, but to whom that ticket was sold remains a mystery.

Treacherous Trickery in Chino

Right after the numbers were announced, there was the 62-year-old nurse, whose wretched, awful, NOT funny son played a mean trick on her, and convinced her that she had the winning ticket when in fact, she did not.  The nurse’s boss, owner of the Park Avenue Health Care and Wellness Center in Pomona, had purchased some 18,000 tickets for each of his employees.  He called the son’s trickery “despicable,” and in consideration, gave the nurse and her family an all-expense vacation to a destination of their choice.

Since then, no one else has come forward to claim the Chino winnings, but according to some experts, the delay is no surprise.  In fact, the last big California lottery winner took six weeks to come forward and made a big dramatic spectacle of it when he did finally claim his $425 million jackpot.  Susan Bradley, expert and founder of the Sudden Money Institute of Palm Beach, said it can take at least two months to prepare a winner psychologically and emotionally for the fortune and obstacles ahead.

When in Doubt, Sue 'Em!

Today, Los Angeleno Brandy Milliner sued the Lottery Commission, claiming to have purchased a winning ticket for the SuperLotto Plus from a 7-Eleven in Chatsworth.  The jackpot for this case was $63 million, and the deadline to claim it expired today at 5 p.m.  Milliner allegedly sent in the winning ticket within the period and even received a letter from the Lottery Commission congratulating him on the win.  Later, the Commission reneged on the award and claimed the ticket was “too damaged to be reconstructed.”  The Commission has also refused to return the ticket to him, claims Milliner. 

What Happens to Lost Loot?

So, what happens if no one can prove legal claim to lottery winnings?  The money goes into an “unclaimed funds” account that is eventually given to the California Department of Education to help fund schools within the State.   The process is slow, but eventually, many Californian kids will be much better off as a result of the Lost Lotto Loot!

Last Friday, Franc Cano, 27, and Steven Dean Gordon, 45, were arrested in Anaheim.  On Monday, they were both charged with four counts of special circumstances murder and four counts of felony rape.   If they are convicted, they will face a minimum of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and could face the death penalty.  

Background

Both men were previously charged with lewd and lascivious acts with a child under fourteen and were believed to have met in 2012 when they both cut their ankle bracelets and boarded a grey hound bus to Las Vegas.  They were apprehended two weeks later by federal agents and were returned to CA where they were charged and convicted for failing to register as sex offenders.  After the conviction, both reported monthly and were ordered to wear government issued GPS devises. 

Meanwhile, four women went missing.  Santa Ana Police Chief Carols Rojas reported that the two men “were not on our radar whatsoever.”  He explained that three of the women missing from Santa Ana, went completely off the grid.  They had been searching everywhere when the body of Jarrae Nykkole Estep was found on a conveyor belt at an Anaheim trash-sorting plant.  Once authorities realized that Jarrae had been murdered, and that she shared a similar profile with the other three missing women, they shifted the focus of their investigation. 

The ankle bracelets worn by the accused helped police identify Cano and Gordon as suspects and authorities suspect that there are more victims.

What are Special Circumstances Murders?

“Special Circumstances” are sentencing enhancements that can be used to increase a murder sentence and qualify it for the death penalty.   In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia,the United States Supreme Court found that applying the death penalty without any limitations was a violation of the 8^th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  In response, California enacted Penal Code 190.2.  This section sets out the “special circumstances” that qualify a first degree murder conviction for the death penalty.  The list is a bit all over the place because it is comprised of both legislative additions, and voter additions.  Some of the circumstances include; murder of police, murder of a judge, murder’s involving torture, driving by shootings, bombings and more.  In this case, the special circumstances include murder during the commission of rape, multiple murders, and lying in wait.   

You can read your cell phone map, until you can’t.

Steven Spriggs was driving in stop and go traffic while looking at the map on his cell phone.  An officer saw him holding the device and proceeded to pull him over and issue him a $165.00 citation.   The Superior Court of Fresno County affirmed the conviction, but the Court of Appeal disagreed with their conclusion and reversed.

The Court of Appeals determined that Vehicle Code Section 23133(a) did not prohibit all hand held uses of a cell phone.  The court explained that the code section merely “prohibits ‘listening and talking’ on a wireless telephone unless the telephone is used in a hands-free mode.”  In support of this conclusion, the court explained that the legislative history of the code provision focused on the distraction caused by holding a conversation, not use of the device itself.  Further, that subsequent actions by the legislature that specifically prohibited texting while driving indicated that the legislature had not contemplated a prohibition against all phone use. 

For many, this muddies the water even more.  How exactly will officers be able to tell if someone is looking at a map or sending a text?  Now that the court has put their foot down on map use, officers are retreating to a different law, not included in the 2008 cell provisions, that prohibits “driving while distracted.”  Officers indicate that they will continue to pull over distracted drivers under this provision.

The elephant in the room: opening the back door to racial profiling

With the increasing number of blurry lines when it comes to driving and using your phone, I think it’s no secret that this law can be used as a pretext for racial profiling.  Do you know why I pulled you over? Because it looked like you were holding something in your hand that could have been a cell phone, and you may have been attempting to text while driving.   That could be anyone, at almost any given time.  

The moral of the story, get one of those mats that holds your cell phone to the dashboard for all to see.  

“Swatting” is when people call the police to report a fake crisis, usually a shooting or a fire, currently going down at another person’s house. Police then send out SWAT teams and helicopters, only to find out the report was but a hoax. (Oops!) Lately, Los Angeles is being bamboozled with incidents of swatting, including at the homes of regular citizens and those belonging to celebrities Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus, and yesterday, actor and comedian Russell Brand.

I have to admit: it is kind of funny to picture SWAT teams surrounding the homes of some of the more annoying celebs. (Other “victims” include the Biebs, Chris Brown and Simon Cowell, all of whom I think could use a little messing with.) HOWEVER, the ridiculous price tag on each call is anything but funny. According to LAPD, each incident can cost up to $10,000 depending on the number of officers and helicopters dispatched, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of these annoying shenanigans.

New Anti-Swatting Law

California lawmakers are eager to crack down on the $10k pranks, and have already pushed a bill through the Senate Public Safety Committee to crack down on the swatting. Championed by Senator Ted Lieu, if passed, the bill would authorize judges to make perpetrators of swatting fit the bill for costs incurred by the responding law enforcement. In the case of children making the call, the bill would also allow imposing the fine on the parents of the accused, regardless of their knowledge of or participation in the stunt. Ashton Kutcher’s house was the target of swatting back in 2009; a 12-year-old boy was charged and later admitted to orchestrating the prank, along with another call-out to a Los Angeles bank.

Other anti-swatters are trying to make it a felony to falsely report a crime, creating the potential for real prison time if convicted. In 2008, a Washington state swatter was sentenced to two and a half years in federal prison for his participation in an elaborate swatting hoax intended to discombobulate law enforcement. In that case, there were some 250 “victims” and about $250,000 worth of damages.

Bystanders Beware!

Along with the ridiculous price tag, police here claim that swatting is also extremely dangerous and have repeatedly warned that “it’s only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed as a result.” At first I thought this was a bit melodramatic, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. Why? Because LAPD is maybe the most trigger-happy law enforcement around! Imagine how easily one of them could mistakenly fire on a dog-walker or other innocent bystander while responding to one of these swatting calls. Remember the Deadly Dorner Drama? During the manhunt, police shot two WOMEN in a car that they thought looked like Dorner’s without making any attempt to verify their suspicions whatsoever!

Boy Who Cried Wolf-Much?

Perhaps the most damaging impact of the swatting shenanigans is the future action – or, inaction – of LAPD, as a result of all the pump fakes. I actually heard it on the news (ABC Local News) that police will no longer send out full SWAT teams based on phoned-in reports. Rather, they will only send “a few deputies” to check it out first. In other words, next time there is a serious crime in progress, a couple of lambs (pigs?) will first be sent to slaughter and THEN we will bring out the big guns. Hopefully there is no one on the brink of death, in need of an ambulance and full emergency response or a house burning down, right? Awesome plan. I mean, I get it – Los Angeles certainly does not have the extra money to spend on these little shithead pranks – but I would still rather err on the side of safety when it comes to emergency response.

The current bill won’t see the California Senate floor until at least June or July and if approved, will go into effect as early as September. Stay tuned for developments in anti-swatting laws and ensuing shenanigans!