Lindsay Lohan jailed for violating probation
April 22nd, 2011
07:40 PM ET

Lindsay Lohan jailed for violating probation

[7:30 p.m. ET, 4:30 p.m. PT] Lindsay Lohan was ordered Friday to serve 120 days in jail for violating her probation by getting arrested on allegations of stealing a necklace from a store.

Lohan was immediately taken into custody.

Her lawyer immediately filed a notice of appeal, which allowed her to post bond since the case involves a misdemeanor violation.

The judge set her bond at $75,000, which she was expected to post Friday evening.

The same judge earlier reduced her felony theft charge to a misdemeanor.

[5:30 p.m. ET, 2:30 p.m. PT] The judge has ruled that the necklace theft case against Lindsay Lohan will go forward to trial, but with the felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor.

"I'm going to give her an opportunity," Judge Stephanie Sautner said.

Post by:
Filed under: Crime • Lindsay Lohan
soundoff (151 Responses)
  1. silk

    Can we get this so-called trial off the planet? Either you charge her or let her go. We don't need to hear about Lohan all the time, she's a nobody and we have more serious things to deal with. And how much money the court and everyone else have wasted on this stupid trial?

    April 22, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • I Am That I Am

      Of course it was reduced. She's not a mere mortal like the rest of the human peons. She is a Hollywood GODDESS and should be deferred to always.

      April 22, 2011 at 5:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • AL.P

      ooooo she is now the teflon Lohan I guess ,nothing sticks to her.......

      April 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sandra

      She no longer LOOKS like a goddess - her face looks like a meth addict's face.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • nick

      If she is a waste of time, why are you being a hypocrite and reading the article? Worse yet, why are you spending even more time leaving a comment which serves only to be a testament to your idiocy. And of course, you will have a retort for me because you will be reading this. You'll need to get a jab back, which means again, Lindsay Lohan is consuming a whole lot of your time.

      April 22, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Nat

    This judge is a moron. How many opportunities has Lohan been given only to stupidly blow it and flaunt continual disregard for the law? Pathetic.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matthew

      You're absolutely right for the most part. However the part where you're wrong shows how truly ignorant, both in general and of the facts of this case, you are. This judge isn't a moron, this judge knows that the only way she'll be able to give Lohan any type of punishment for this is if it's a misdemeanor. There is nothing to tie her to felony theft but plenty to tie her to misdemeanor theft.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunzi

      Why don't they just issue her a card like a D.L. that states she is exempt from all laws?! It'd save a lot of court fees, attorney fees & reporter's salaries. Our Judicial system is a FARCE when it comes to all these Meth head celebrities! The bonus to that plan is the rest of us wouldn't have to see her face on the News all the time!!

      April 22, 2011 at 6:51 pm | Report abuse |
  3. autumn wright

    If it had been someone without a lot of money such as myself we would be in jail for committing a felony these actors and wealthy people get away with a lot while poor people get locked up for stealing bread

    April 22, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
  4. autumn wright

    If I were on probation and accused of a crime I would be in jail until my trial date

    April 22, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Report abuse |
  5. James

    Why even pursue this kind of crap–Waste of everyone's time, but then the Prosecuting Attorney has nothing but time on his or her hands and that "Hang them All " mentality–

    April 22, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Alan

      Prosecutor is running for attorney general. I am sure a conviction would have helped the cause.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Jan

    YAWN. So the judge had a price, it'll come back on him.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jenny

      First of all, the judge in this case is female. Secondly, the charge was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor due to the value of the necklace. This is exactly what should have been done, as per the law. In this situation, Lindsay was treated like everyone else. Do your homework before making idiotic and uninformed pronouncements.

      April 22, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
  7. karlotious

    if that was me id be in jail

    April 22, 2011 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Come on guys. You "do your homework". The price tag on the necklaces was far greater that the $950 amout required to file as a felony. The wholsale price a retailer pays for an item, in this case $850 is not what is used when determining how to file charges. If you stole a $1000 necklace that Costco paid $300 for, I suggest, in 100% of the cases a felony charge would be filed against you. Unless of course you are extremly wealthy or have the fame and fortune to have an attorneyand or judge willing to do the wrong thing for your recovery and that of society.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • shaktakdopulous

      anyone who steals from costco sits in a jail at least overnight. costoc is jesus, the easter bunny allah and mildred pierce too

      April 22, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Briffault

    This is getting ridiculous, "give her an opportunity"? She's had plenty of those, throw her in jail for a bit. I don't even pay attention to celebrity court issues but this one is starting to get on my nerves. Absolutely silly!!!!

    April 22, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mikie

      I totally agree – throw her cute fat ass in jail for a few years and maybe – just maybe she will get the message. Then again – maybe she won't?? Either way – a LOOOOOng term in jail would be good for her in the long run and get her outta the news for just a teeny amount of time ...

      April 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
  9. steve

    Is mother Lohan proud of her child yet? If she had done her job, maybe we would not be reading this garbage all the time.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
  10. kn

    How many "OPPORTUNITIES" does she (and her kind) get?? What a hack judge.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Jinda

    HAHAHAHA! Yeah, just what this tart needs — another "opportunity"

    April 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Report abuse |
  12. James

    Thank you Judge Stephanie Sautner, Lindsay will surely be grateful for this 2nd chance.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Sherri

    Maybe she can get a job as one of Charlie Sheens goddesses.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Eric

    Give her an opportunity for what? These "Hollywood Judges" that treat the glitteratti as if they were special make a mockery of our justice system. If I were a defense attorney appearing in front of this judge representing anyone else I'd want to compare whatever my client is charged with with what Lohan is charged with and want explanations if the treatment is different.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Denizen Kate

      I was thinking the same thing. How is this fair to anyone? Lohan will learn nothing, will continue to get away with this sort of behavior, and those of us who aren't celebrities will get the full weight of the law on us for a similar offense. Ridiculous. I hope the next defense attorney who comes in front of this judge will try the same tactic for one of us nobodies and we'll see what happens.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
  15. zepplin

    501 dollars is a felony....bracelet is 2500 dollars in value +, why the break judge....why all these breaks...where is justice these know this stinks to high heaven...makinhg laughing stock of your "kindness," and her doing what ever she wishes...disgusting and i hope you boss, judge looks at this miscarriage of justice and reprimands your lack of common sense and ill advised use of your judicial discretion which is so obvious.

    April 22, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Barb

      No. That wasn't the value of the necklace – that was the store's retail price after their markup. When determining a felony or a misdemeanor, the value of the item in question is the wholesale price, not the retail price. It's worth <500 and as such, the charge had to be reduced to a misdemeanor.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Denizen Kate

      @Barb, try stealing something similarly marked up in value, then try to argue the same when you go to court. I'll bet that even if you had the same judge, you wouldn't get that felony reduced to a misdemeanor.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • CaEd

      I believe that you are wrong.
      You steal something of value, you steal retail.
      You don't get a discounted value down to the wholesale, jobber or manufacturer costs.

      If what you say were true then you could say that a gold necklace or diamond ring was only the value of the gold on the spot market or a diamond at the De Beer's sight price.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nat

      @Barb- even if you were correct (which you aren't) the wholesale value of the necklace is $850, still rendering it a felony offense as anything under $500 is a misdemeanor.

      April 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9