Skip to content
Name: Raef v. Appellate Division of Superior Court
Case #: B259792
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 09/30/2015

Vehicle Code section 40008 does not violate the First Amendment. Raef, a paparazzo, was charged with a number of offenses after he engaged in a high-speed pursuit of pop star Justin Bieber, including two counts of violating Vehicle Code section 40008, subdivision (a), which increases the punishment for reckless driving and other traffic offenses committed with the intent to capture an image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person for a commercial purpose. The trial court dismissed those counts on the ground that section 40008 violates the First Amendment. The appellate division reversed and reinstated the counts. Raef…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Luera
Case #: B134479
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/24/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant's conviction under Penal Code section 311.11 is not arbitrary and does not violate due process principles. The rating by the Motion Picture Association of America does not immunize a person making or distributing child pornography illegal. The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to disclose the identity of the informant because the showing here of a reasonable possibility that the informant could give evidence which might result in appellant's exoneration was sheer unreasonable speculation. The possibility that the informant had downloaded the child pornography on appellant's computer was rebutted by appellant's own admission to the officer…

View Full Summary