Southern California Defense Blog

Is the child support payment that you are receiving not what it should be? Or, is the father or mother of your child not paying any child support at all, even though they should be? Or, are you are paying too much child support? If you answered yes to any one of these three questions, you are not alone. With the divorce rates in California and across the nation on the rise, more and more people now have to face issues relating to child support!

Child support refers to monetary compensation that one parent provides to the other parent of a minor child, to help in the care of that child. There are several factors that are considered when calculating what the child support payment should be. We will not list all of these factors now. Nonetheless, the most prevalent factors include the number of minor children, the length of time that each parent has with the children, and the amount of money that each parent makes.

Moreover, the amount of child support can always be adjusted as long as there is a change in circumstance. The two most obvious changes in circumstance would be change in percentage of time that each parent has with each parent and change in the amount of money that either parent makes.

Wallin and Klarich has been in the business of helping people with their child support issues as well as other California family law related issues for over 30 years and it would like to help you with yours! Call Wallin and Klarich today and a qualified family law attorney from the firm will be able to evaluate your case. Wallin and Klarich is always available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Custody Issues

Bookmark:

The Supreme Court recently decided that it take up a Los Angeles case to decide whether a chief prosecutor can be held liable for a man's wrongful conviction for murder.
The case of Van de Kamp vs. Goldstein will test the reach of the rule, set down by the Court in 1976 that prosecutors are immune from being sued, even when defendants are shown to be innocent. Prosecutors, like judges, must be free to do their jobs without fear of being sued later, the high court said in the case of Imbler v. Patchman (1976) 424 U.S. 409. This rule of "absolute immunity" applies whenever a prosecutor "acts within the scope of his prosecutorial duties," the Court said in Imbler.

What is not clear, though, is whether this immunity rule protects supervising prosecutors against suits over alleged management failures in the prosecutor’s office. Thomas L. Goldstein, a Marine Corps veteran from Long Beach who spent 24 years in prison before his murder conviction was overturned in 2004, is not asking the Supreme Court to overrule Imbler. Instead, he argues that Imbler should be limited to prosecutors who actually appear in court, and should not be extended to supervisors who set policies for the prosecutor’s office.

After being released from state prison, Goldstein sued John Van de Kamp, who was the Los Angeles County DA when Goldstein was prosecuted. He alleged that Van de Kamp and his top deputy DA allowed prosecutors throughout the county to make use of unreliable jailhouse informants in prosecuting defendants. To make matters worse, at the time, Los Angeles County had no system in place to keep track of whether these jailhouse snitches had been offered immunity or leniency for their testimony.

In Goldstein's case, Edward Fink, a repeat offender, was put on the witness stand to testify that Goldstein, while in a holding cell, had confessed to a shooting. Goldstein maintained his innocence, and years later, it was revealed that the informant lied when he denied receiving favors from prosecutors in exchange for his testimony.

Continue reading "UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR CASE THAT COULD SEVERELY LIMIT PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense

Bookmark:

The case, United States v. Polizzi, involved a child pornography prosecution.

The Defendant in the case immigrated to the United States from Sicily when he was a young adult. He thereafter married and had five successful sons. Additionally, he was able to purchase a restaurant, which he turned into a successful establishment as a result of working eighteen hours per day, seven days per week.

When the Defendant was a child in Sicily, he was raped by his uncle, a family friend as well as two Italian police officers. The Defendant also witnessed the murder of one of his friends, as well as the kidnapping of another by Italian police, potentially relating to child sexual abuse. There was extensive testimony regarding psychological harm the Defendant has suffered as a result of these incidents, including post traumatic stress disorder and obsessive compulsive disorders. The Defendant never sought any psychological help.

Approximately five years before this case arose; the Defendant began accessing child pornography on the Internet. Eventually, he amassed approximately 5,000 images of child pornography, mostly young girls. The Defendant never attempted to contact any minors in on-line chat rooms, and possession of child pornography was apparently the Defendant’s only brush with the law.

The circumstances that led to the Defendant’s arrest apparently started with the receipt, by an unrelated person, of a “spam” e-mail advertising a child pornography club. This unrelated person turned the e-mail over to local police, and the police and FBI worked to reach the source of the e-mail. Once that source was caught, records were examined, and the Defendant’s information was discovered. Apparently, the Defendant had joined the “club” and paid a fee to access images of child pornography. The Defendant was arrested and prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on twelve counts of receiving child pornography and twelve counts of possession of child pornography.

Before, during, and after trial, Defendant’s counsel repeatedly moved to have the Court instruct the jury that the offense carried a mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison, and the Court refused to grant the request. At the end of the trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty. After the verdicts were received, the Court inquired of the jury as to whether, had they known of the five year mandatory minimum, they would have returned the same verdicts. Many jurors stated that they did not wish to state their feelings on the question, however, all of the jurors who did express an opinion felt that the Defendant deserved mandatory treatment and close supervision, and not a lengthy prison sentence. Defendant’s sex crime defense lawyers indicated as well that they spoke to the jury after it had been discharged and the jurors indicated that there was an almost universal feeling among the jurors that the Defendant should not be sent to prison.

Continue reading "COURT: SIXTH AMENDMENT GIVES DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO HAVE JURY INFORMED OF MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense

Bookmark:

With summer upon us, many people will be taking advantage of the warm weather and sunshine by going boating, water skiing, jet skiing, and the like. Those who do, and who might be imbibing, should be aware of “BUI” laws.

While everyone knows that it is illegal to drive while “under the influence” of alcohol and/or drugs, many may not be aware that similar laws apply on the water. That is, it is illegal in the State of California to engage in “Boating Under the Influence.”

Specifically, Harbors and Navigation Code section 655 provides as follows:

(b) No person shall operate any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug.

(c) No person shall operate any recreational vessel or manipulate any water skis, aquaplane, or similar device if the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more in his or her blood.

“BUI” is a misdemeanor crime and can be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to six months, and/or by a fine of up to $1,000.00. (Harb. & Nav. Code, § 668, subd. (d).) If you have been arrested for “BUI,” you need an aggressive drunk driving defense law firm to represent you in your case. Contact the firm of Wallin & Klarich immediately to discuss your case.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Microsoft has developed a small plug-in device that investigators can use to quickly extract forensic data from computers that may have been used in internet crimes.

The “COFEE,” which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB "thumb drive" that Microsoft distributes to law enforcement agencies investigating computer related crimes.

COFEE contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer. It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.

More than 2,000 officers in 15 countries, including Poland, the Philippines, Germany, New Zealand and the United States, are using the device, which Microsoft provides free.

If you are being investigated for a “cybercrime” you deserve to be represented by an aggressive firm that knows how to defend people accused of such crimes. Contact Wallin & Klarich immediately to discuss your case.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Internet Crimes

Bookmark:

So says the California Court of Appeals in the recent case of People v. Gemelli. In that case, the victim provided information regarding losses sustained as a result of a burglary, but did not submit “proof” of loss in the form of receipts and the like. The Court found that, once a crime victim sets forth a prima facie showing of economic loss, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the loss claimed by the victim. The Court ruled that there is no requirement that the victim provide independent or verified “proof” of loss in order to meet this prima facie standard.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense

Bookmark:

The parents of Jamiel Shaw, a standout high school football player who was shot and killed, allegedly by a gang member who is present in the United States illegally, have asked the Los Angeles City Counsel to enact a City Ordinance designed to crack down on gang members who are in the United States illegally. Under a current and controversial LAPD Policy known as “Special Order 40” LAPD officers are not permitted to contact people for the purpose of discovering their immigration status. The Shaw family is seeking to have this policy overturned by the Los Angeles City Counsel.

At Wallin & Klarich, we approach every case with the belief that the person we're defending could easily be one of our own family members. We've seen firsthand how stressful legal matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. We are committed to being available to our clients at all times -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Southern California, you should call Wallin & Klarich today for a free evaluation of your case. Call 1-888-749-0034 or fill out our online consultation form to get in contact with a legal professional today. We will be there when you call.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense

Bookmark:

If you have accumulated too many traffic points because of traffic ticket convictions, you run the risk of being tagged as a “negligent operator” by the DMV. By law, a driver is presumed to be a negligent operator if the driver has 4 or more points in 12 months, 6 or more points in 24 months, or 8 or more points in 36 months. (Veh. Code, § 12810.5, subd. (a).) Being labeled a “negligent operator” can result in a suspension of your driving privilege.

When a driver becomes a “negligent operator” the DMV will send them a notice informing them that their license is going to be suspended and that they have a right to a hearing to contest the suspension IF they call the California DMV to request a hearing within a specified period of time, usually 14 days from the date of the notice. Many people foolishly fail to contact DMV to request a hearing, thereby having their driver’s license suspended by default. If you receive such a notice in the mail, don’t become a statistic. Wallin & Klarich has an excellent success rate in defending people accused by DMV of being “negligent operators.”

For instance, the DMV determination to tag a driver as “negligent” is based ONLY on the total DMV “point” count. While getting too many traffic tickets might be evidence of a driver who is negligent, it might be possible that the driver is actually safer than your “average” driver. That is, perhaps the driver drives three times more miles than the “average” driver, meaning that, applying the “law of averages” the driver will get more tickets in a shorter time than the “average” driver. Perhaps also the driver has taken steps to improve their driving habits and these steps can be brought to the attention of DMV at a hearing.

In short, if you have received a “negligent operator” notice from DMV, contact Wallin & Klarich immediately so that we can help you save your driver’s license.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DMV Hearings

Bookmark:

Two new laws dealing with the use of wireless telephones while driving go into effect July 1,

2008. Below is a list of Frequently Asked Questions concerning these new laws.

Q:

When do the new wireless telephone laws take effect?

A:

The new laws take effect July 1, 2008

Q:

What is the difference between the two laws?

A:

The first prohibits all drivers from using a handheld wireless telephone while operating a

motor vehicle.

(Vehicle Code (VC) §23123).

Motorists 18 and over may use a hands-free

device. Drivers under the age of 18 may NOT use a wireless telephone or hands-free

device while operating a motor vehicle

(VC §23124).

Q:

What if I need to use my telephone during an emergency, and I do not have a hands-

free device?

A:

The law allows a driver to use a wireless telephone to make emergency calls to a law

enforcement agency, a medical provider, the fire department, or other emergency services

agency.

Q:

What are the fines if I’m convicted?

A:

The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions.

According to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, with the addition of penalty

assessments, a first offense is $76 and a second offense is $190.

Q: Will I receive a point on my drivers license if I’m convicted for a violation of the

wireless telephone law?

A:

NO. The violation is a reportable offense: however, DMV will not assign a violation

point.

Q:

Will the conviction appear on my driving record?

A:

Yes, but the violation point will not be added.

Q:

Will there be a grace period when motorists will only get a warning?

A:

NO. The law becomes in effect on July 1, 2008. Whether a citation is issued is always at

the discretion of the officer based upon his or her determination of the most appropriate

remedy for the situation.

Q:

Are passengers affected by this law?

A:

No. This law only applies to the person driving a motor vehicle.

Q:

Do these laws apply to out-of-state drivers whose home states do not have such

laws?

A:

Yes

Q:

Can I be pulled over by a law enforcement officer for using my handheld wireless

telephone?

A:

YES. A law enforcement officer can pull you over just for this infraction.

Q:

What if my phone has a push-to-talk feature, can I use that?

A:

No. The law does provide an exception for those

operating a commercial motor truck or

truck tractor (excluding pickups), implements of husbandry, farm vehicle or tow truck, to use

a two-way radio operated by a “push-to-talk” feature.

Q:

What other exceptions are there?

A:

Operators of an authorized emergency vehicle during the course of employment are

exempt as are those motorists operating a vehicle on private property

Continue reading "Wireless Telephone Laws FAQs" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Police officers in Washington, D.C. are so anxious to get guns out of the city they are actually going door-to-door asking citizens for "consent" to enter their homes to search for illegal guns. Washington, D.C. is home to one of the most restrictive gun bans in the United States. The gun ban is currently the subject of a case that is pending before the United States Supreme Court.

People should be aware that, if they give the police permission to search their home, or their car, or their person, that they are giving up valuable rights under our Constitution. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids the police from engaging in "unreasonable" searches, and generally, the police are forbidden from searching people's homes without a search warrant issued by a judge. You should know though, that, if you give the police permission to search, you have no right to complain later on that the police did not have a warrant to search. Accordingly, if you are approached by police officers and asked if it is "alright" for them to search your car, your house, or your person, you should politely tell the officers that you do not want to give them permission to search without first speaking to a lawyer. This will preserve your right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to be free from "unreasonable" searches by the police.

Call Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-749-0034 and we can answer any legal questions you may have.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense

Bookmark:

The short answer to this question is, as a general rule - NO!! If you have been pulled over or contacted by police officers that suspect that you have been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you are, with one possible exception, under no legal obligation to submit to so-called "Field Sobriety Tests." One big exception is if you have been previously convicted of a DUI and the Court has placed you on probation, and you are still on probation to the Court, since most courts order, as a condition of probation, that the probationer submit to all Field Sobriety Tests if requested to do so by the police.

There are numerous so-called Field Sobriety Tests that an officer will have a suspected DUI driver perform; however, most officers will chose between 2 and 5 of the following tests:

* Finger-to-nose

* Horizontal gaze nystagmus

* Heel-to-toe

* Alphabet recitation

* Hand pat

* Fingers-to-thumb

* One-leg-stand

* Modified position of attention (the Rhomberg test)

Most of the time, when a person suspected of DUI submits to these tests, they are NOT videotaped and no "evidence" exists of how the person performed on the tests - save, of course, for the arresting officer's subjective interpretation of the arrestee's performance on the tests. Ask any attorney experienced in defending people accused of DUI driving, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich, how many of their clients have said that they "passed" the Field Sobriety Tests, only to find out later that, according to the arresting officer that they "failed" the test, and you will quickly realize why (unless you are on probation for a DUI) it is probably best to politely refuse to submit to Field Sobriety Tests.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

In a recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court ruled that US Customs officers can search the electronic contents of an international passenger's computer without having a "reasonable suspicion" that the computer contains illegal material.

The case, United States v. Arnold, involved a person who arrived at the Los Angeles International Airport from the Philippines. On arrival, customs officials singled out the passenger for additional screening. When the officials searched the passenger's luggage, they found a laptop computer and ordered the passenger to turn it on. When the officials looked through the information stored on the computer, they found that the computer contained child pornography. The passenger was subsequently prosecuted and moved to suppress the search, arguing that the search, which was conducted without reasonable suspicion, which violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that, because the passenger was arriving at a port of entry from overseas, officials had a right to search the computer to determine whether it contained contraband.

At Wallin & Klarich, we approach every case with the belief that the person we're defending could easily be one of our own family members. We've seen firsthand how stressful legal matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. We are committed to being available to our clients at all times -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Southern California, you should call Wallin & Klarich today for a free evaluation of your case. Call 1-888-749-0034 or fill out our online consultation form to get in contact with a legal professional today. We will be there when you call.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Criminal Defense

Bookmark:

Police Officers can legally pull a person over for just about any violation of the California Vehicle Code as an excuse to investigate whether the driver of the vehicle is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, one of the more common violations officers cite as the probable cause to pull vehicles over to investigate DUI's is Vehicle Code Section 22107, more commonly known as "unsafe turning movement". This section reads as follows: No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

What this means, in a nutshell, is that you do NOT have to use your turn signal (blinker) unless there is another vehicle that could be affected by your turning movement. Cops often times don't know this provision in the code and think that you must always use your turn signal when changing lanes or turning. Police who use this excuse to pull over DUI drivers often neglect to mention in their DUI report that there was another vehicle that could have been affected by that vehicle's turning movement.

Our firm recently handled a case where a Police Sergeant with over 20 years of experience on the force pulled over our client for VC 22107. At the motion to suppress, the Officer testified that he observed our client's car side by side and to the left of another vehicle when our client made a "sharp turn" to the left without using his signal and the officer pulled him over for an alleged violation of VC 22107. The officer contacted our client who admitted that he'd had too much to drink and he was arrested for DUI. We argued to the judge that the vehicle to the right of our client's vehicle could NOT have been affected by our client's left turn. The judge agreed and granted our motion and the case was dismissed.

For the record, we are not saying that you should change lanes or make turns without using your signal and are certainly not condoning driving under the influence. What we are saying is that if you are cited for a DUI, you should hire an experienced and knowledgeable law firm like Wallin & Klarich to handle your case to give you the best chance of a favorable outcome.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

When an obligating parent quits his job voluntarily to pursue another career or to go back to school, the court may impute that obligating parent’s earning capacity ability and better yet, the court may also impute that parent’s earnings at the time he/she quit his/her job even if that parent goes back to school and is not working or just working part time while going to school so long as that obligating parent voluntarily quit his full time job.

If the circumstances are that the obligating parent was laid off or his company downsized, that parent may still be imputed his past earning capacity from previous employers, and certainly, other factors come into play as to the opportunity and the availability of the positions in that particular field that the obligating parent once held in the past.

Get an experienced California Family Law Attorney from Wallin & Klarich to properly represent you. This could be the difference in your child getting the appropriate child support. Contact Wallin & Klarich for your family law representation. See our website at www.wkfamilylaw.com or call us at 1-888-749-0034.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Child Custody Issues

Bookmark:

Shoplifting is the crime of stealing, or making an effort to steal, or intentionally paying less than the full amount for products or goods in a store. Shoplifting can include taking something without the intention of paying for it, hiding, concealing, or modifying a store’s goods (including the price tag) with the intention of stealing it or unlawfully paying less that it is being sold for.

In California, shoplifting goods with a value less than $400 may constitutes a petty theft misdemeanor charge. Shoplifting goods with a greater value may constitute a grand theft or larceny felony charge. The charges for shoplifting also depend on whether a person has a criminal history of shoplifting and other specific factors.

The penalties for shoplifting vary by circumstance and location but can include fines up to two times the amount of the value that was stolen, prison or jail time, and community service. In some cases compensatory fines may also be assessed in shoplifting cases in order to compensate a store owner for his or her losses.

If you would like to learn more about shoplifting, you may wish to contact a qualified and experienced legal expert from Wallin & Klarich who can advise you of your legal rights and options. An attorney can help to protect and maximize your legal interests in a shoplifting case.

Call Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-749-0034 and we can answer any legal questions you may have.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Theft & Shoplifting

Bookmark:

Embezzlement is the theft of property and/or money by an individual or entity that is responsible for handling the assets. Embezzlement typically occurs in corporate settings and places of employment.

Embezzlement charges can carry serious consequences regardless of whether the defendant is guilty. Accusations of embezzlement are extremely embarrassing and can oftentimes ruin an individual or an entity’s reputation. Furthermore, an embezzlement conviction may result in hefty fines and/or a prison sentence of up to 20 years depending of the value of assets taken and other factors in the case.

To ensure your legal rights and interests are fully protected, it is important to retain a highly qualified and experienced criminal law lawyer from Wallin & Klarich who has knowledge of embezzlement law and can help reduce the charges, or even get an acquittal.

Call Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-749-0034 and we can answer any legal questions you may have.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Embezzelment

Bookmark:

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is a serious offense, which can carry harsh penalties including heavy fines, license suspension, and even jail time. The severity of DUI laws varies from state-to-state; however, most states enforce DUI laws rigorously. If you have been arrested on charges of DUI, you may wish to speak with an experienced attorney at Wallin & Klarich who can help you understand your rights.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a common factor in determining a person's level of intoxication. The minimum BAC needed for a DUI conviction in CA is .08%. In the case of underage drivers, any BAC may constitute a DUI offense.

An officer can obtain a person's BAC through a Breathalyzer test, or blood analysis. Unfortunately, these tests are not failsafe as the margin for error is large. A qualified DUI attorney from Wallin & Klarich can answer any questions you may have about these tests and their outcomes.

Call Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-749-0034 and we can answer any legal questions you may have.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Battery is the nonconsensual, harmful or offensive touching of a person or anything attached to that person, such as a wallet or purse. Unlike assault, battery requires actual physical contact. Proof of damage from the injury is not always required for successful battery charges, but in most jurisdictions, proof of intent to cause harm is.

If you or a loved one has been charged with battery, it is important to understand your legal rights and options. Such as possible defenses like: Lack of intent, Self defense, and the defense of others. The help of an experienced criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich can be invaluable to those who are facing battery charges and can help ensure that your legal rights are protected.

Call Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-749-0034 and we can answer any legal questions you may have. You can also check out our website at www.wklaw.com.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault & Battery

Bookmark:

For the uninitiated, the term “sock-puppet” is used in reference to the Internet to describe a situation where a person creates a fake online identity, usually for the purpose of deception. While it might seem obvious that, for instance, if a person makes up a false identity, and posts an ad offering to sell a baseball autographed by Babe Ruth for $10,000, but the poster has no such baseball, and the poster takes another person’s $10,000 and