Lindsay Lohan Bail Denial Reversed, Release Imminent

Lindsay Lohan returned to jail today after a judge ordered her held pending an October 22 probation violation hearing for failing two drug tests since her release in June.

Lindsay's attorney, Shawn Chapman Holley, filed an appeal asserting the Judge exceeded his authority.

The reviewing judge has reversed no bail order. Lindsay will be released within hours.

Judge Patricia Schnegg, Assistant Supervising Judge for the L.A. County Criminal Courts, just threw Judge Fox's bail decision out the window. Judge Schnegg has set bail at $300,000. Lindsay, who is in Lynwood Jail right now, should get out soon ... probably in a few hours.

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Judge Authorizes CA Execution, Inmate Can Choose Drug Cocktail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just how many get out of jail free cards are (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:10:23 PM EST
    there in LL's deck of cards?

    Seriously, why can't she follow the rules and be responsible/accountable for her actions.  Everyone here would be.

    Not sure what kind of... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    responsibility you want her to take, all she did was pee in a cup...no driving, no murder, no pillaging of any sort...just frowned upon pee.  Think about it BTAL, you seem like a reasonable sort.

    How many go to jail cards does the State of California have?  And who is taking responsibility for that mess?  These are the questions a tyrannized state/nation should be asking.


    She broke the rules (none / 0) (#10)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    If you or I had broken the rules, then we (am assuming) that we would abide by the conditions at least until we were out from under the hammer.  By chosing to ignore the hammer (whether it is justified or not) shows her complete lack of understanding and/or maturity.

    As to whether she is an addict and needs medical treatment, IIRC she already had a bite at that apple.  


    I'm guessing you don't have any (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:17:23 PM EST
    close relationships with anyone who has an addiction problem . . .

    "I'm guessing you don't have any" (none / 0) (#16)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:19:46 PM EST
    and you would be guessing wrong.

    then you should be fully aware (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    that a "bite of that apple" isn't always successful. and addicts cannot always control their behavior.

    Fully aware. And you have to acknowledge (none / 0) (#18)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:36:56 PM EST
    that there are not unlimited bites of the apple.



    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    we cannot know how many "bites" it will take.

    So, IOW there is an indefinate number of (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    get out of jail free cards.  

    If you and/or a family member were on the receiving end of LL's DUI via an car accident - how many GOJF cards are you willing to offer up?


    she needs treatment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 11:07:05 PM EST
    not jail and there should not be a limit on treatment. i thought it was pretty clear that was "the bite of the apple" i was talking about.

    I think it's pretty much settled (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    that treatment only works when the person wants it to work enough, and I'm not sure there is any way to measure beforehand whether or not someone wants it to work enough.

    We only know if that person wanted the treatment to work enough when we observe that the treatment did or did not work, ie., after the treatment.

    One of the things that helps people to want treatment to work enough is when enough bad stuff happens to them from the drug abuse.

    My personal opinion is that the more bad stuff that happens to you from your drug abuse, the faster you'll reach your required level of wanting the treatment to work, such that it does in fact work.


    Abuse? (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    Or use?

    Seems to me that is the question. At this point any use is considered criminal. That is a crime, imo.


    I do (none / 0) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    and frankly I'd be okay with the way the system is handling this- with one exception why does she have a driver's license- she's a city with good public transit and supposedly has the money to afford a cab- why considering the biggest problem she's faced in the past was auto related is she allowed to drive while sorting out her addiction issues?

    "You had your chance" is about as cold (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    as it gets, at least from where I'm sitting.

    You say you have experienced the addiction of someone close to you, but it doesn't sound to me as if you actually learned anything about the physiology and psychology of addiction, and are still under the impression that it's all a matter of will.

    An addict's brain does not work like everyone else's - how else to explain that many people are able to use and/or experiment with drugs of all kinds without ever developing an addiction.  Same with alcohol...millions of people can have a drink when and where they want, can decide whether or if the time and/or occasion is right to drink, have no problem not drinking, don't have to drink before events where there won't be alcohol served in order to "get through" it.  But some don't have the same experience.

    Going by the tone and tenor of your comments, I'm guessing you think it's just a matter of exercising control - except that control is the one thing the addict doesn't have.

    We can all sit back and look down our noses at Lohan for failing the drug test - for not being grateful enough for the breaks she's gotten to toe the one line the court set for her - but we do so as those who aren't addicted, who don't know what it's like to feel compelled do the very things we know we shouldn't.

    If there is a failing here, it was in releasing her from treatment after such a short period of time - it simply wasn't enough time for her to understand herself and develop ways of coping with the things that trigger her to use.

    Everyone hits bottom in their own way, but that doesn't mean the people who care about her, and the judicial system in which she is currently caught, can't influence when that happens.  It is impossible for someone using on a regular basis to think rationally until all the drugs and alcohol have cleared the body, and even then, it can be weeks before things start to click.

    I think the system failed Lohan, and what they ought to do is order her back to treatment; she's someone of intelligence and talent, and it would be a shame to see that go to waste.


    I don't know man... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:10:26 PM EST
    luckily I've never been in a "your urine please" probabation situation, just regular probation...I might put my faith in the GNC stuff like I've used to get work...you gotta live your life.

    "Breaking the rules" don't carry no water when the rules are broken...need a better reason to lock people up or take mad cash from 'em, to not be the arsehole in such a situation anyway.


    She was released early from rehab (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 07:49:12 AM EST
    The positive result came after the judge released Lohan early from inpatient rehab at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center.

    Even if Lohan requested it, the judge who authorized the early release IMO make a mistake. Also

    The actress is not entirely free. She will be required to wear an ankle alcohol monitor and stay away from establishments that primarily sell alcohol.

    Source: AP


    BTW, thank you for the kind words. n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:06:35 PM EST
    I'm guessing, based on her conduct, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:27:02 PM EST
    that she "can't [just] follow the rules," because she is an addict and/or alcoholic.  Certainly acting like one.

    Because (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    drug dependency and addiction is an illness. Relapse is expected. It should not be a crime.  California law expressly recognizes that.

    Fair enough but even under additction (none / 0) (#11)
    by BTAL on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:01:31 PM EST
    treatment, the addict must admit to the problem and accept responsibility.  If the addict chooses not to, then what are the options left to society?

    Lohan has admitted that she has (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 07:16:02 AM EST
    an addiction problem and that she needs to take responsibility for her actions.

    Lohan is just one of hundreds of thousands of people in the United States who will spend the night locked in a cage for their drug problems. She has admitted that she has a problem. In recent posts on her Twitter account she wrote, "Substance abuse is a disease, which unfortunately doesn't go away over night," and "I am working hard to overcome it and am taking positive steps." Taking responsibility one's actions is a powerful step in the right direction. HuffPo

    Additional treatment is definitely indicated.


    Jeralyn I don't quite understand your attitude. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 01:19:34 AM EST
    Jeralyn, you seem to be saying that since she is an "addict" nothing should be done to her except to request politely that she get some treatment.

    I say that attitude is dooming her to a bad potentially deadly overdose which typically happens with these type people, i.e. rich celebrities that have access to unlimited amounts of dope from fawning and also greedy enablers.

    I only hope that she doesn't hurt someone else as well.


    Let me try, Gerald (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 10:37:33 AM EST
    If LL were to drive drunk or high, or get into a brawl and hurt someone, her addiction might not count for much, if at all, as mitigation.  But the present situation involves failing a drug test imposed on her as a condition of probation for a drunk driving incident some years ago.  As far as I know, she is currently refraining from driving when impaired, and (since she can afford to have a driver) may be refraining from driving at all, or at least from driving very much.  The current situation does not involve any new criminal conduct.  It shows, if anything, that she need more, or possibly different, treatment.  The new conduct should not result in her being put in jail, since she is neither a present danger to society nor willfully disregarding (as far as I can see) her probation conditions.  To put her in jail for a month "pending a hearing" to see what should be done about the terms of her probation is unreasonable, unhelpful to society, and a waste of taxpayer funds.

    As I see it, she willfully disregarded (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    any probation condition requiring her not to ingest controlled substances.  

    Which probably did not justify denying her bail pending probation violation hearing.


    I don't see use of the problem substance (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    by an addict as being "willful," oculus, at least that's not the blame-implying sense in which I intended my use of that term in my response to Gerald.

    I was using the term as it is usually (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    applied in criminal law.  Did she know what she was doing when she did it.  I have no opinion as to what resolution is appropriate here.  

    Ok, I understand (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    Although for probation violations, in fact, the legal requirement of a blameworthy mental state is actually usually less than needed for a primary crime. So I didn't mean to be understood as commenting on whether the judge could lawfully find her in violation.  Sorry for the confusion.  Not a good use of terminology on my part.

    Wow (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    It is always so simple for you law and order types.

    Black and white.

    No shades, or colors allowed.


    Unless, of course, a third party forced (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    her, against her will, to ingest controlled substances.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    Black and white abstraction.

    It is amazing how many enjoy the fruits of labor that our actors, musicians, artists, and athletes bestow upon us, but how quick some of us are to throw them under the bus when they cross a moral line.

    Of course the reruns and paintings are still greedily enjoyed while the artist rots in jail.

    Selfish hypocrisy fueled by abstract thinking, imo.


    Exaclty in exchange (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    for leniency for crimes people are generally expected abide by a set of rules for conduct- rules which are unfair but which conditions she agreed to abide by- I guess I don't get why the state shouldn't apply the full force of the punishment?

    Hate to say it. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by robotalk on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:40:02 PM EST
    Still hot.

    BTW is that a tatoo on her chest?

    If you hate to say it, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    then don't say it.

    Equal protection under the laws, indeed (none / 0) (#2)
    by markpkessinger on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:10:56 PM EST
    How nice to see that our two-tiered justice system continues apace.

    out of curiousity, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    can the state appeal the reversal?

    WTF is Wrong Here (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    Four comments about slamming LL as if the commenters were right wing judges.

    What kind of threat do y'all consider her to be?

    It is really absurd, she is plopping $300G to stay free until her trial date.  

    Must be some kind of vengeance sort of thing going on here. Hope none of you are ever in the same situation.

    Squeaky, you misunderstood me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    To say there were four comments before yours "slamming" LL and sounding like "right wing judges" is mistaken, since you must have been including mine.  Someone who resorts to drug use while on probation for a DUI is acting like an addict, I pointed out, and seemingly cannot control her own behavior.  An addict needs treatment, not criminal punishment.

    Apologies (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:01:46 PM EST
    I overreacted, and counted three comments as four. My mistake.

    Um considering (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    her previous disregard for court procedeings why wouldn't a high bail amount be set especially in consideration of means.

    But don't forget... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jacob Freeze on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 08:47:12 AM EST
    Apparently most of the lawyers on this thread conveniently "forget" that everything about the criminalization of drugs is STUPID.

    Opium and similar goodies have been floating around the fringes of society forever, and nobody ever thought about arresting USERS until the tight-butted petit bourgeois contracted its over-active sphincter around the law.

    So now any number of prim little clerks purse their "lips" and tut-tut as if they were guardians of a putative moral law which never occurred to any of the real moral philosophers in the history of our miserable species.

    Remember when Jesus preached against drugs?


    How about Socrates?



    Or was it just a bunch of tight-butted petit-bourgeois clowns who somehow got control of the law?

    Good News (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    I am sure that this bit of news is a big relief for Lindsay to hear, not to mention, uplifting for her spirit... Great talent is not easily replaceable.
    Lindsay Lohan might have to worry about being sent back to jail next month, but one thing she doesn't have to fret over ... her next movie.

    Sources close to the movie "Inferno" -- the Linda Lovelace biopic LiLo is scheduled to star in -- tell TMZ they don't want to lose Lindsay for the part ... so they are going to start scouting locations in Los Angeles and begin shooting in January.

    As we first reported, it's going to cost the flick a chunk of change to move from their original location in Louisiana -- but we're told they are willing to spend the dough to keep Lindsay as the lead.

    One source tells us, "We're staying [in Los Angeles] -- good for the movie, but also the best way to deal with travel restrictions or other hijinks."


    probation is a privilege (none / 0) (#37)
    by diogenes on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    Probation is a gift which allows someone to avoid jail despite committing a crime.  It surely makes sense to not allow bail for probation violations, at least until it is decided what to do next.  At her next probation hearing they can then decide whether to resume probation, mandate rehab, or whatever.

    California Constitution, Article I, (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 25, 2010 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    section 12:  link

    this is for pre-plea, no? (none / 0) (#44)
    by diogenes on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    "...the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of
    the case."
    Lindsay Lohan already had her trial; it looks to me like the constitution is referring to allowing bail for potentially innocent people who have not yet been convicted in a court of law.

    Doesn't say so. Section 12 (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 26, 2010 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    includes the word "hearing."

    So... (none / 0) (#48)
    by diogenes on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 06:58:43 PM EST
    If I harass someone, get a misdemenor conviction, get probation, violate it by harassing someone some more, I can get bailed out ad infinitum until somehow the harassment rises to the level of a felony?  Someone convicted of misdemenor DWI on probation can be drunk, have probation violated, and get drunk every day afterwards and continuously bailed out?
    If the case law really says that the California constitution was designed to protect probation violatorsn this way, then I guess California deserves whatever it gets.  I'm glad I don't live there.