Southern California Defense Blog

A recent opinion by the California Court of Appeals has ruled that it is an UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE when law enforcement sees a person smoking marijuana in their apartment and then enters the apartment and finds evidence of other drug crimes. The “evidence” that the officers seized during the search was held to be illegal.

The court of appeals stated that since possession of marijuana of less than one ounce is a “non jailable offense” the police could not enter the property for the purpose of arresting the defendants or search their apartment. The charges against the defendant were dismissed.

If you are facing Orange County criminal charges it is critical that your lawyers are knowledgeable about every law and every case that can result in winning your case. At Wallin & Klarich we stay on top of all recent changes in the law so that our clients get the best possible outcome in their case. Contact Wallin & Klarich 24/7 to discuss your case.
--

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Offenses

Bookmark:

Facts:

The defendant was involved in a traffic collision and was injured in the collision. The other party involved in the collision was killed and defendant was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter and convicted at trial. He appealed the conviction on the grounds that the police officer that testified at trial was not qualified to rely on the toxicology report in rendering his opinion that he was under the influence of drugs while operating a motor vehicle and there was insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of a drug for purposes of gross vehicular manslaughter.

Officers interviewed the defendant at the hospital and he could not explain how the accident occurred, stating “I was driving down the road one minute. . . and the next minute I was in an accident. Def admitted to taking ambient at 9:00 a.m. and the accident occurred at 9:20 a.m.. A forensic toxicologist testified that Ambien is a “very strong depressant” that is rapidly eliminated from the body and does not build up over time. According to the manufacturer of Ambien, it remains in the system for eight hours. The window of detection of Ambien is “very limited” and the “effects of the drug are very strong through that whole window.” The observable effects of Ambien include drowsiness, poor coordination, poor judgment, and slurred speech.

Continue reading "People v. Merlen, CA 3rd district, Case No. C051678, unpublished opinion has very good material regarding expert testimony re use of ambient and DUI." »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving , Drug Offenses

Bookmark:

When you or a loved one are facing a criminal charge you are in a vulnerable position. There are many people who will take advantage of that vulnerability. There are even those who will pretend to be a lawyer and make promises that they could never keep in order to get your trust and more importantly for them, your money.

A recent case reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal is a good example of that.

One elderly woman in Los Angeles paid a man who told her that he was an experienced criminal lawyer $22,000. She was promised that in return for this payment of $22,000 he would see to it that her husband who was doing a sentence of 25 years to life for a murder would be released from prison. The "masquerading lawyer" went so far as to tell her that her husband would be released from prison on an exact date and she could pick him up at the train station on that date. The women went to the train station excited to see her husband exit the train and run into her arms. Of course her husband was not on the train. He was in prison and remains in prison.

Continue reading "BE CAREFUL WHO YOU HIRE AS YOUR LAWYER - HE MAY NOT BE A LAWYER AT ALL" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Under current law, a person who is convicted of most crimes, and who is placed on probation, and who completes his or her probation successfully, has a right to have his or her conviction dismissed or “expunged” from his or her record. (Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (a).) Under the law, so long as the defendant successfully complies with all terms of probation for the entire period of probation, the court has no discretion to deny the defendant’s application to expunge the conviction.

However, starting January 1, 2008, a defendant convicted of DUI, reckless driving, or hit and run driving, even if the defendant complies with probation for the entire period thereof, no longer has the ability, as a matter of right, to secure an expungement. (Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (c).) Under the new law, a person convicted of DUI, hit and run, or reckless driving, can only secure an expungement “if the court in its discretion and in the interests of justice” decides to grant an expungement. (Ibid.) What this means is that a defendant convicted of, say, child molestation (Pen. Code, § 647.6), who completes his or her probation successfully, has the absolute right to secure an expungement, a defendant convicted of, say a DUI charge, does not have a similar right unless the court decides, “in the interests of justice” to grant the defendant expungement.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

In an attempt to make life just a little harder for tabloid publications and scandal sheets, the legislature has enacted a law that makes it a misdemeanor crime for a peace officer, court employee, or attorney employed by a public agency, to “[d]isclose[] for financial gain, information obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law” or who “[s]olicits, for financial gain, the exchange of information obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.”

Any person who violates this new law is guilty of a misdemeanor crime and is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000.00. In addition to any fine imposed, any person convicted of violating this law shall forfeit any monetary gain to the State of California. (Pen. Code, § 146g.)

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

A recent incident involving pop singer Brittany Spears brought to the public’s attention section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code – the statutory procedure for involuntarily committing an individual to a mental health facility.

Under the law, if a certain designated professional, such as a law enforcement officer, or mental health professional, believes that a person is, as a result of a mental disorder, either, a danger to him or herself, a danger to other people, or suffering from a “grave disability” the person can be transported to a hospital for an evaluation. If the mental health professional at the hospital agrees with the law enforcement officer or other mental health professional, the hospital will involuntarily hold the person for up to 72 hours. If, during or at the end of the 72 hours, the hospital determines that the person is no longer a danger to him or herself or others and/or is no longer “gravely disabled”, then the person is to be released from the hospital.

However, if the hospital determines that the person is still a danger to him or herself or others and/or is no longer “gravely disabled,” then the person can be held for a longer period of time. Generally, in this situation, the hospital can hold the person for an additional fourteen days, however, if this happens, the patient is entitled to a “certification hearing” within four days to determine if the hospital has good cause to keep the patient in the hospital. The certification hearing is held before a hearing officer, who is generally a judge, court commissioner or referee, and, at the end of the hearing, the hearing officer can either order the patient be released, or, alternatively, can order the patient confined for the additional fourteen days.

Continue reading "INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC HOLDS IN CALIFORNIA" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Effective July 1, 2008, minors (i.e., persons under age 18) in California will not be permitted to use any cellular telephone or other “mobile service device” such as a laptop computer, or text messaging device while driving a motor vehicle. Under the law, a minor may not use a cellular telephone while driving, even if the telephone is equipped with a “hands-free” device. Violation of the law is an infraction punishable by a fine of $20 as a first offense and $50 for subsequent violations. The law provides that an officer may not stop a motor vehicle solely to determine whether the driver is in violation of this law. The law also contains an exception for certain commercial vehicles, and, additionally, a minor may use a cellular telephone in an emergency, such as to contact law enforcement or a health care provider.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

At least that will be the law in California starting July 1, 2008. From that date, it will be illegal for anyone to drive a motor vehicle and use a cellular telephone unless the phone is equipped with a hands-free device, and the hands-free device is used by the driver. Anyone caught violating this law is subject to a fine of $20 for a first offense and, on a second and subsequent offense, $50. The statute contains several exceptions, such as, for example, if the driver is making a call for an emergency purpose, such as to a law enforcement agency, or health care provider, and where the driver is operating certain types of commercial vehicles. Interestingly enough, the law does not apply to vehicles operated on private property, and, also interesting is that the law does not address use of electronic devices other than cellular telephones, such as, for instance, text messaging, laptop computers, and the like.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

It is important to have a court order with a set visitation schedule so you can enforce your child custody visitation rights. If a parent does not have a court order specifying a visitation schedule they are not entitled by law to a set visitation schedule and the police will not intervene. Kevin Federline was previously granted primary custody of their two children and Britney Spears was given monitored visitation due to her recent behavior. Last Thursday Britney had the two children for her monitored visit, however she refused to follow the court order and would not let Kevin take their two children after her scheduled visit. If you have a court order for visitation and the other parent refuses to follow the court order you can seek police assistance in enforcing the order. Because of the court order Kevin Federline was assisted by the police and was able to get the two children back from Britney Spears. This is why it is important to have a knowledgeable family law attorney to help you get court orders for custody and visitation.

Continue reading "KEVIN FEDERLINE USES POLICE INTERVENTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT ORDERED CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT:" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Custody Issues

Bookmark:

Whether it is your first DUI or your third, California State law imposes jail. In cases of a second or third misdemeanor DUI’s the jail time one potentially faces in Orange County DUI cases is very significant, at times up to a YEAR. A skilled attorney, however, can assist in getting you NO county jail time by working with you, the Court and the Probation Department. There is an option in Orange County of rehabilitation and counseling in lieu of jail via DUI Court. There are certain eligibility requirements, however, one must meet before getting accepted into the program. Having an attorney who knows the system and the requirements increases your chances of staying out of jail significantly. So if you find yourself facing a significant amount of jail time in Orange County as a result of a DUI, contact Wallin & Klarich and we will help navigate you through the system and assist you in staying out of jail.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

An attorney was recently disbarred from the practice of law by the California State Bar for his failure to properly defend a client in a robbery trial.

At the defendants first trial the lawyer called an expert witness who testified as to the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. In addition during the first trial the lawyer called several witnesses to support the defendants alibi as well as to the lack of motive for the defendant to commit the crime. The jury was unable to reach a verdict at the end of the first trial.

At the retrial on the same charges the California criminal defense attorney failed to call the expert witness and failed to call to the stand many of the key witnesses who testified for the defense at the first trial. The defendant was found guilty at the conclusion of the second trial.

Continue reading "CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY DISBARRED FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY REPRESENT DEFENDANT IN HIS ROBBERY TRIAL RESULTING IN HIS CONVICTION " »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Appeals

Bookmark:

Do you assume that a cop must be telling the truth or must be abiding by all of the laws just because they are a cop? This is certainly not the case! Time and time again we see cops who do not follow the laws that they took an oath to uphold and in turn violate the constitutional rights that every single American has! They do it for a variety of reasons including: to get a conviction, because they are corrupt, etc. Nonetheless, for whatever reason that cops do not follow the law, it does not make it right!

A recent example of cops breaking the law would be the notorious Rampart division of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The corruption scandal involving the Rampart division as well as recent misconduct by other LAPD officers has resulted in a recent mandate by the Los Angles Police Commission. The mandate requires hundreds of narcotic and anti-gang officers to disclose detailed information about their personal finances.

Another recent example is the scandal involving former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, who is set to begin trial in Federal Court shortly on a slew of corruption charges. Moreover, there is the scandal involving actor Mel Gibson’s recent DUI arrest, in which Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies allegedly gave him preferential treatment. The list goes on and on.

Continue reading "Cops Aren't Always Right " »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may suspend your driver’s license for too many tickets. If you get 4 points in a year or 6 points in two years, you can get your driver’s license suspended. Some violations count as one point, others are 2 points.

The DMV mails a notice saying they are suspending your driver’s license. You are entitled to a hearing to fight the suspension. It is not a waste of time! There is more to the hearing than counting points. A competent, aggressive San Diego attorney can save your driver’s license. You need Wallin & Klarich. Give us a call at (619) 239-5051.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DMV Hearings

Bookmark:

Does the Second Amendment to the United States (US) Constitution allow American citizens to keep handguns at home? This is the question now before the US Supreme Court, at it decided at the end of last year to rule on the issue. The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue shortly and render its decision by summer 2008. Its decision could affect thousands and thousands who want to own handguns. More importantly, however, it could result in the contesting of several State and Federal restrictions and regulations pertaining to firearms ,across the US.

The issue arose after Washington DC residents challenged a law which had prohibited handguns in Washington DC for 31 years. The law was struck down and an appeal was made to the US Supreme court.

In particular, the Second Amendment states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Opponents of the Washington DC law argue that it infringes on this Second Amendment right to bear arms. Meanwhile, proponents of the law claim that most violent crimes involve the use of a handguns and thus, handguns should continue to be outlawed.

Continue reading "I Want to Own a Handgun" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Fire Arms & Weapons

Bookmark: