A case before a California appellate court last week questioned what kind of pets a convict should be allowed to keep secret from his probation officer. An incredulous-sounding Justice Barton Gaut wrote for the majority that a requirement to notify authorities about one's pet ownership was overbroad and unreasonable, saying of the appellant: "He had some drugs in his car. No animal was present, and there was no reason to think that any animal had anything to do with ... possession of the drugs."
October 04, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Goldfish and tabby cats don’t often rise to a hot topic of discussion, much less debate, in California’s appellate courts.
Yet there was plenty of both at the 4th District Court of Appeal last week, in a case that questioned what kind of pets a convict should be allowed to keep secret from his probation officer.
Presented by BigVoodoo
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
Legalweek New York explores Business and Regulatory Trends, Technology and Talent drivers impacting law firms.
DEPUTY PORT ATTORNEY III Oakland, CA Salary: $17,294 - $21,419/month, 37.5-hr work week Your Port. Your Community. Your Career. Whe...
Stern, Lavinthal & Frankenberg, LLC, is seeking a foreclosure attorney experienced in the NJ and/or NY foreclosure process and default l...
Mineola defense firm seeks attorneys with 3-5 years of actual insurance defense experience to handle complex general liability matters. Sala...
