Sheriff: Paris' Life Was "Definitely in Danger"

46. Shut him the hell up and find out where the kickback went!

Posted at 10:42AM on Jun 27th 2007 by Eileen

47. To: todd lissner anti adult anti wholesomeness activist( kadintodd2@aol.com) - Learn how to spell and shut up! You are the reason why American legal system is all screwed up! Judge Sauer should be rewarded for treating Paris Hilton fairly and like everyone else.

Posted at 10:40AM on Jun 27th 2007 by Shop Girl

48. #25 Meg
The sheriff was not trying to be impartial. He was trying to get a matching Lexus for his wife.

Posted at 10:51AM on Jun 27th 2007 by Paris the Convict

49. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Lets send all the prisoners home who's lives have become "out of balance" since they got busted. What an idiot.

Posted at 11:09AM on Jun 27th 2007 by BoyandhisDog

50. Luckily for the people in LA this Sheriff has a much greater thinking capacity than the masses. Paris was sentenced for driving on a suspended license to 45 days which as we all know (those of us that can read anyway) that the sentence was 5 times more than anyone with a similar charge. This Sheriff decided quite rightly that the sentence should not be death and death is what might have happened if he did not do something. If her name was Ann Smith she would not have been sentenced to jail time but if Ann Smith happened to get this judge on a bad day and was sentenced to such a foolish amount of time, I believe that this Sheriff would also save the Ann Smiths of LA too by sending them home to house arrest. He certainly would not want the headlines to read: Woman dies from Panic Attacks while serving jail time for driving on a suspended license like the Prosecutors wife.

There are only 3 explanations for the masses of people that don't seem to get this.
1. They do not have reading comprehension and logic skills
2. They are so jealous of Paris and other celebs that they wish them harm
3. They are easily misled by the media

Remember folks that this can happen to anyone that has a drink and drives soon after the drink resulting in the minimum illegal alcohol level of .08. That is the level Paris had. I am a non drinker and make no excuses for those that drink and drive . However when I hear and read people saying "oh she could have killed someone". It would have been no more likely than if she was not drinking. The drunk driving accidents that kill usually involve alcohol levels of .16 and higher. Paris was not someone that drank all night and then drove. She had 1 drink.

Posted at 11:23AM on Jun 27th 2007 by Jodi

51. PLEASE SHERIFF BACA GIVE ME A BREAK.. SHE WAS IN NO DANGER WHATSOEVER...YOU WANTED TO PROVIDE HER WITH SPECIAL TREATMENT. WHEN U SAW HER IN HER CELL... SHE WAS HAVING ** WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS**..... THAT WAS SO WRONG OF U TO PUT A BRACELET ON HER AND RELEASE HER TO GO BACK HOME... THAT IS LOW.....

Posted at 11:36AM on Jun 27th 2007 by shirl smith

52. To #50 Jodi

Your lack of intelligence amuses me. :) Do your research before you post any comments.

Under Vehicle Code Section 14601:

14601. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for reckless driving in violation of Section 23103 or 23104, any reason listed in subdivision (a) or (c) of Section 12806 authorizing the department to refuse to issue a license, negligent or incompetent operation of a motor vehicle as prescribed in subdivision (e) of Section 12809, or negligent operation as prescribed in Section 12810.5 , if the person so driving has knowledge of the suspension or revocation. Knowledge shall be conclusively presumed if mailed notice has been given by the department to the person pursuant to Section 13106. The presumption established by this subdivision is a presumption affecting the burden of proof.

(b) Any person convicted under this section shall be punished as follows:

(b) Any person convicted under this section shall be punished as follows:

(1) Upon a first conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days or more than six months and by a fine of not less than three hundred dollars ($300) or more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(2) If the offense occurred within five years of a prior offense which resulted in a conviction of a violation of this section or Section 14601.1, 14601.2, or 14601.5, by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 10 days or more than one year and by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) or more than two thousand dollars ($2,000).

Since this is Paris Hilton's second "known" offense, she should get somewhere between 10 days to 1 year in prison, she got 23 days. That being said, Judge Sauer's decision was in accordance with the law.

Here is the link so you can actually educate yourself before you post any more comments that lack substance and intelligence:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc14601.htm

Also, it doesn't matter what her blood alcohol level was, the fact of the matter is, DUI is ILLEGAL.

Oh Jodi Jodi Jodi, even though your stupidity really amuses, please don't make me have to rebut you again, I have better things to do in life.

Posted at 11:59AM on Jun 27th 2007 by Kate

53. Maybe if she was given her medication while she was there in the not overcrowded special needs unit, she wouldn't have been so dangerously ill. She still was never referred to the medical facility and that ankle bracelet wasn't one that tested for alcohol levels.

Baca was an idiot yesterday defending himself by using the overcrowding excuse. Which was it then - mental illness or overcrowding? How much of the overcrowding is caused by repeat offenders who were let go before to early release? Her sentence was maybe a week too long, but she was pulled over 3 times for reckless driving after her DUI, she wasn't pulled over for driving on a suspended license.

Free Tom Sizemore!!

Posted at 12:31PM on Jun 27th 2007 by Just Disappear Already!

54. Paris Hilton, you are number 1 in my book, I didn't know who you were before, but since the mainstream media tried to snuff you, I will always watch your movies or whatever, I am your fan forever for having to put up with the crap from the scumbag media. Murderers, illegal criminal imiagrants, ra[pists , muggers, robbers, violent criminals , gang members run rampant in california, but bigot judges go for the easy convictions.

Posted at 6:46PM on Jun 27th 2007 by FromRussiawithPiva

55. I had a friend in jail one time who needed her med's twice daily and a special diet for a serious medical condition that she suffered from. Knowing that she needed her med's I took them to the county jail in California where she was being held. And when I talked to her a couple of day's later I asked her if she was getting her med's and to my shock she told me no. Even after making a few calls to the medical staff at the jail explaining that she needed said med's they still would not give them to her. I told them to call her doctor and they said that that was not their job. So I called her doctor and told him what was going on and by the time that all of the red tape had been gone through she had been without her twice daily med's for a five day's. And as for her special diet that she needed she never got it the whole time that she was in jail. So to hear Baca say that they let her out because she was suicidal is a joke. Especially when the California county jail my friend was in was trying to kill her.

Posted at 5:18PM on Jun 27th 2007 by THE BIG CHUCQUITA

56. Kate:

While I agree with you in theory, this was her first DUI offense (she violated her probation terms twice) so in actuality, it should have been 5 days to 6 months. 23 days is still within the limits.

If her sentence (which I think she plead down) is within the parameters mandated, then she shouldn't be compared to everyone else who were stupidly let go after 2 - 3 days because there was no room at the Inn. That is the real problem - maybe we need a tent city for all of those "low level" offenders to stay in. There wouldn't be the claustrophobia if she could stick her head out in the 100+ degree air.

Posted at 1:11PM on Jun 27th 2007 by Kate fan

57. To # 52 Kate

This is exactly what I meant by my number 1 reason as to why the masses are misinformed. Failure to comprehend.

You managed to copy and paste the law but did you read it before posting?

Re-read 2. "If the offense occurred within 5 years of a prior offense which resulted in a CONVICTION......Paris was not convicted of the first and therefore it does not count or apply here in any way and the judge knows that. But they confused you.

As for the first time offense and conviction, yes the law says 5 days to 6 months AND a fine of $300 to $1000. All evidence, that being the jail records clearly show that no one else with a first time conviction of driving on suspension ( and no criminal history) has served more than 4 days since as far back as 2002 in the LA county jail. Therefore Paris received very unequal justice when she served 23 days. And the prosecutors wife also received a different kind of unequal justice when she was only fined for driving on suspension and without insurance for more than a year.

Before Paris arrived in jail, all others convicted of the same charge and with the same lack of criminal history were released early (4 days or less) the felons were kept in for a longer portion of their sentence. When Paris entered the jail to be held for a clearly unjust sentence (past the 4 days) the sheriff had to release felons earlier. For example Soraya Lopez, convicted of a felony on 6/13/07, sentenced 45 days and released early on 6/14/2007. She served 1 day and told reporters that she was let out earlier because they need the room for Paris. You can find the Lopez conviction sentence and release under a search of the LA inmate search website.

If Paris had a .79 alcohol she would have not been considered legally drunk behind the wheel. At .80 she was guilty of the DUI. DUMB LUCK


Kate, I do not find a lack of comprehension amusing so think before you continue to confuse more people with a law you failed to understand.

Posted at 1:46PM on Jun 27th 2007 by Jodi

58. Jodi:

I apologize for confusing you and not give you the full picture. Let me explain to you once again why you need to do more research and why you are the confused party and not I.

Paris Hilton pleaded no contest in January 2007 to reckless driving charges stemming from her September 27, 2006 DUI incident. A judge sentenced her to 3 years of probation, ordered her mandatory attendance at an alcohol education program, and that she pay fines of $1,500.

However, Paris Hilton violated at least three terms of her probation.

First, she failed to enroll in an alcohol education course within 21 days of her sentencing.

Second, she had several traffic violations after receiving probation. On February 27, 2007, she was stopped by L.A. Sheriff Deputies for driving at 70 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone in darkness without her headlights on, and without a valid driver’s license. Hilton’s license had been suspended by California's DMV in November 2006 for having an "Excessive Blood Alcohol Level.”

Finally, Hilton failed to obey all laws and orders of the Court, another condition of her probation.

On May 4, 2007, judge Sauer sentenced Hilton to 45 days in jail for violating the terms of her probation, she served 23.

What you failed to understand Jodi, is that Paris Hilton was sent to jail for 45 days NOT because of DUI offense (first or second) alone, she was convicted because she violated her probation and was caught again for DUI and driving with a suspended license.

Also, I don't know who Soraya Lopez is, and I don't know why she was in jail, but if she was in jail because of a combination of DUI charge, driving with a suspended license, violating her probation, then you can compare her to Paris Hilton, but it doesn't appear that's the case. Do more research and tell me I am wrong again.

Posted at 2:27PM on Jun 27th 2007 by Kate

59. Is Baca just plain ol' STUPID?!

Why does he keep on digging himself into the BS Paris Hilton hole? He was WRONG.

Posted at 2:48PM on Jun 27th 2007 by Hole

60. To # 52/55 Kate

Hon, the law you pasted refers only to driving while on a suspended license. It does not have anything to do with a DUI other than the fact that a DUI may be the reason one has a suspended license. Another reason for a suspended license is failure to show proof of insurance when you are in an accident like the prosecutors wife. The law 14601 has only to do with driving on the suspended license and nothing to do with why the license was suspended. The same penalty applies whether your license was suspended for failure to show proof of insurance or pay a ticket or DUI.

Read some more Kate. Paris was sentenced for driving once on a suspended license in Feb. 2007. The license was originally suspended when she was caught for drunk driving with .08 alcohol back in Sept. 06 and pled no contest and received a 3 year probation term which included alcohol class. Her license was also suspended for a term that ended in March 2007. She drove on and was caught driving on the suspended license in Feb. 2007 but she was not drunk driving in Feb. 07 just driving on the suspended license. Paris has 1 and only 1 DUI. She had been caught driving (not drunk driving) on the suspended license twice but only charged and convicted of it once. Therefore only the first penalty state in your law for first offense applies in Paris' case.

A person caught with 2 DUIs' within 10 years would serve 90 days to 1 year and a fine. But again now I do not want to confuse you any more than you appear to be.....Paris has 1 DUI which she pled no contest to followed by 1 conviction for driving with a suspended license while not drunk in Feb. 2007.

2nd to the last paragraph, you say, "and was caught again for DUI and driving with a suspended license." WRONG..1DUI and 1 driving while not drunk on suspended license conviction.

As for Lopez.....She was convicted of a FELONY which is a higher level crime than the misdemeanor crime of driving while not drunk on a suspended license. The felony charged was given a sentence of 45 days and she served 1 day......It dosen't get much clearer than that. Regardless of what felony MS. Lopez was convicted of by law it is a higher level crime and is not normally afforded the same type of early release as a misdemeanor like driving on the suspended license.

Nothing to be embarrassed about hon, the judge and corupt prosecutor have put a great amount of effort into confusing you.

Posted at 3:13PM on Jun 27th 2007 by Jodi