- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Government OKs Arab-owned company to operate U.S. cargo port
- Defense lawyer: McDonnell’s wife had ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House unveils bill to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
- Hillary: ‘Dead broke’ comment was ‘inartful,’ but insists it was ‘accurate’
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
Prosecutors appeal anti-paparazzi charge dismissal
Question of the Day
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Prosecutors Wednesday appealed the dismissal of anti-paparazzi driving charges against a photographer accused of recklessly chasing Justin Bieber on a Los Angeles freeway earlier this year.
The appeal argues that Superior Court Judge Thomas Rubinson erred last month when he dismissed two counts filed under California’s 2010 anti-paparazzi law against Paul Raef, a freelance photographer. The judge dismissed the charges on grounds that the 2010 law used to charge him was overly broad and violates the First Amendment.
The judge’s ruling could set “a dangerous precedent” that newsgatherers can drive recklessly without facing stiffer penalties, the prosecutors’ filing states.
The law raised the penalty for those who drive dangerously in pursuit of photos for commercial gain, but Rubinson said that could be applied to wedding photographers and many other professions.
Raef’s attorneys, David S. Kestenbaum and Brad Kaiserman, said they had not yet been served with the full appeal, including the prosecutors’ exhibits, but had reviewed a filing summarizing their arguments.
Prosecutors are mistakenly arguing that the statute regulates conduct instead of speech and the ruling should be upheld, they wrote in a statement.
“Judge Rubinson, in ruling that the statute was an overbroad regulation of speech, gave a decision that was appropriate, well-reasoned, and an accurate interpretation of First Amendment law, and we believe that the reviewing court will uphold his decision,” Kestenbaum and Kaiserman wrote.
Rubinson said when ruling Nov. 14 that lawmakers should have simply raised the penalties for all types of reckless driving. The appeal states the judge should have deferred to the way California lawmakers decided to target reckless driving by paparazzi.
“It was not the trial court’s role to substitute its views for those of the Legislature and strike down a valid statute because it felt there were other `effective’ ways to address the problem,” the filing states.
The law used to charge Raef was influenced by the experiences of Jennifer Aniston, who provided details to a lawmaker on being unable to drive away after she was surrounded by paparazzi on Pacific Coast Highway.
Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP.
TWT Video Picks
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- GOP Senate candidate: Obama needs to visit Central America
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Kerry's credibility questioned as fighting in Gaza rages
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in defamation case
- Rush Limbaugh: 'There is no journalism anymore'
- California's Jerry Brown cites God, 'religious call' to embrace illegals
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world