Southern California Defense Blog

On December 29, 2009, CNN reported that Charlie Sheen’s Wife, Brooke Mueller, has accused Mr. Sheen of threatening to have her killed. CNN reports that Mueller alleges Sheen said, "I have ex-police I can hire who know how to get the job done, and they won't leave any trace," as he held her down with a knife.

Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day and is being charged with assault, menacing with a deadly weapon and criminal mischief. He posted $8,500 bond and was released.

To be convicted of assault under California Penal Code section 240, the prosecuting agency must prove (1) that you "willfully" acted in a way that would likely result in physical contact with another, (2) that you were aware that your "act" would likely result in that physical contact, and (3) that when you "willfully acted" you had the ability to follow through with the act that would cause that contact. It is important to note that "physical contact" means any touch, no matter how slight, if the touch is done in an angry, harmful or even offensive manner.

Continue reading "Charlie Sheen is Accused of Assault: What this Means and How an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help Him Avoid Jail" »

Chula Vista is located in southern San Diego County and has a population of about 217,478. As the second largest city in San Diego County, Chula Vista is 51.2 square miles in size. Chula Vista has experienced a population growth of over 20% since the year 2000. Considering its closeness to the California coast, Chula Vista has become a more desirable place for people to live and visit. As a consequence of the large amount of residents and tourists taking to the roads in Chula Vista, arrests for DUI have been known to occur in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing is likely to take place.

It is quite common for motorists arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to not know that the officer who makes their arrest will take possession of their driver’s license. Additionally, a person charged with DUI in Chula Vista only has 10 days after his or her arrest to schedule a DMV hearing. If a charged individual does not request a DMV hearing, their driver’s license will be suspended automatically for thirty days from the date of arrest, or longer if any prior DUI convictions have taken place. These issues are only the tip of the iceberg. There are several other legal matters that may be addressed in a DMV hearing and there are numerous DUI consequences that may affect your life unless you contact an experienced attorney to assist you.

To ensure that you retain your driving privileges after being charged with DUI in Chula Vista, you may want to get in touch with a skilled and aggressive Chula Vista DMV hearings attorney from Wallin & Klarich. Our knowledgeable Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been defending the rights of individuals facing criminal charges like DUI for over 30 years. Contact us today by calling 1-888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information. We have the legal resources and experience that you need to obtain a successful outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case.

As a result of Operation Community Shield, law enforcement has arrested 1,785 gang members and associates around the country between March and September of this year. Of those arrested, approximately 300 were from the Los Angeles area. Gangs that were targeted in Los Angeles County during the sweep included the Avenues, 18th Street, Barrio Evil 13 and Mara Salvatrucha gangs. Charges against these alleged members ranged from drug dealing, drug trafficking and reentry after deportation to murder.

Virginia Kice, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, stated that the majority of charges of those arrested in Los Angeles County were criminal while the rest were for immigration violations. The goal of Operation Community Shield is to disrupt a gang’s organization in Los Angeles County and throughout the nation by taking out its members with both criminal arrests and prosecution for immigration violations.

Continue reading "Gang Crackdown in LA" »

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is facing accusations of violating a reporter’s rights for its investigation into TMZ founder Harvey Levin’s sources. Levin’s phone records were obtained by the sheriff as part of an investigation into who leaked information over Mel Gibson’s arrest for drunk driving to TMZ back in 2006. Many media law experts argue that such action is illegal as state and federal law protects a reporter’s sources.

Despite these accusations, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department denies any intentional wrongdoing. They point out that they consulted with a prosecutor before requesting the search warrant for the phone records and that the warrant was approved by a judge. Journalism groups and media law experts, however, argue that government investigation into a reporter’s sources threatens the press’s independence as people may then feel reluctant to provide information.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Accused of Violating Reporter's Rights" »

Whether an actual arrest took place is critical to the future of your case because an illegal arrest can result in obtaining critical statements or evidence illegally. There are no magic words which create the sole basis for determining whether an arrest has occurred. The trier of fact must look to the essential elements of custody and distinguish between a temporary detention and a formal arrest. (Ormonde v. DMV (1981) 117 CA3d 889, 173 CR 79).

In People v. Freund (1975) 48 CA3d 49, 119 CR 762, defendants were found to be “under arrest” when they were placed in the back of a patrol car while police obtained a search warrant, even though officer claimed the arrest did not take place until after the search. Where an arrest does take place, the timing of it is determined by looking to the essential elements of taking the arrestee into custody and actual restraint or submission to custody. (See, People v. Parker (1978) 85 CA3d 439, 443 and Green v. DMV (1977) 68 CA3d 536.)

Continue reading "When Has a Person Been Legally Arrested?" »

The city of Riverside has an approximate population of 311,575. As the largest city in the Inland Empire region of California, Riverside is also the 12th largest city in the state. With a population density of 3,267.2 people per square mile and with a total area of 98.4 square miles, one can only imagine just how many residents, in addition to visitors, drive along Riverside’s roadways. Similar to other large areas, arrests for DUI in Riverside often take place in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will most likely occur.

Being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs can be an overwhelming experience. Many motorists do not realize the severity of such charges. Also, many drivers are surprised to learn that the police officer who makes their arrest will take away their driver’s license. After a DUI arrest, an individual only has ten days to schedule a DMV hearing. Failing to do this will lead to an automatic surrender of a hearing, therefore suspending driving privileges for thirty days from the date of your arrest.

If you have been arrested for DUI in Riverside and want to make sure that you keep your driving privileges, you may want to consider contacting a skilled Riverside DMV hearings lawyer. At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending the rights of those accused of criminal offenses such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal resources and knowledge to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Call our aggressive lawyers today at 1-888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

The Los Angeles Collective Association and the Green Oasis dispensary, which is made up of medical marijuana collectives, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles’ moratorium that seeks to control the sale of medical marijuana. They argue that the moratorium is too vague and its extension into mid-March is in violation of state law.

Robert A. Kahn, an attorney representing the Los Angeles Collective Association and Green Oasis’ attorney , believes that the City Council’s failure to properly extend the ban and its extension past the state limit of 24 months make the moratorium legally unenforceable. The City Council’s Planning Committee has been working on an ordinance that would replace the moratorium; however, it is still months from completion. Nonetheless, the Los Angeles attorney’s office, the district attorney’s office and the Los Angeles Police Department have all emphasize that selling medical marijuana over the counter is illegal under California state law.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Filed in Attempt to Overturn City Council Decision to Limit Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" »

Recently, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases involving life sentences without the option for parole for minors. The two cases, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida both involved two minors who were convicted of serious felonies when they were 16 and 13 years old, respectively. The boys were subsequently sentenced to life in prison and their cases are now before the United States Supreme Court.

The attorneys for the boys argue that life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses violates the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Most of the recent Supreme Court decisions involving cruel and unusual punishment have been decided by a 5-4 vote. It is anticipated that this decision may result in a similar close 5-4 decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts made two revealing comments during the oral argument—both of which seem to suggest that he is willing to compromise. Initially, Justice Roberts said that his “initial instinct is that the difference in life and life without parole is just not a factor in deterrence” asking “Why does a juvenile have a constitutional right to hope, but an adult does not.” Later in the proceedings, Justice Roberts commented that it would be best not to draw a hard line but instead to allow judges to take special account of a juvenile’s age when deciding whether the sentence is proportional to the crime. This would allow minors to cite their age when appealing the harshness of a sentence and courts would handle the issue on a case-by-case basis.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for Life without Parole for Minors" »

Law enforcement agencies and courts do not take threats lightly. Many times a statement intended as a joke or a statement that was hastily made with little or no thought of its implications, could be construed as a criminal threat under Penal Code Section 422.

In order to qualify as a threat, the statement only needs to reasonably be thought of as immediate and actionable. In other words, a conviction for criminal threats depends on how the person who received the alleged threat felt. If the person has a reasonable belief that they may be in danger, the otherwise innocent statement could get you arrested.

The California Supreme Court has set forth the five elements of a criminal threat (PC section 422) violation: The prosecution must establish all of the following: (1) that the defendant willfully threatened to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person; (2) that the defendant made the threat with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out; (3) that the threat—which may be made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device (email or cell phone)—was on its face and under the circumstances in which it was made, so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat; (4) that the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety; and (5) that the threatened person's fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

Continue reading "Criminal Threats Are More Serious than You Think - How Penal Code Section 422 Could Result in Criminal Charges" »

Factual innocence is one of the many remedies available to those who have been arrested for a crime but ultimately had the charges dismissed. However, there are many essential elements that must be proven before a court will deem you factually innocent.

A recent California appellate court decision addressed the elements of factual innocence. The court stated that even though the defendant was released shortly after her arrest, she had no claim of factual innocence. The defendant was released because there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime, but, the court concluded, there was still enough evidence to support a reasonable belief that she may have been involved.

A finding of factual innocence is impossible if there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant in some way contributed to the crime they were arrested for. Reasonable cause is a well-established legal standard defined as that state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime. In other words, under no set of circumstances could the defendant have been subjected to the criminal process.

Continue reading "What is Factual Innocence and How Can I Be Found to Have Been Factually Innocent According to Penal Code Section 851.8?" »

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), through the help of Congress has assembled a categorized list of drugs known as the schedule list. The list includes almost all of the drugs, and their derivative compounds, that can be found in the legal or illegal market. There are five “schedules” or categories; each with its own definition, limits, and punishment.

• Schedule One: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


• Schedule Two: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.


• Schedule Three: (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.


• Schedule Four: (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.


• Schedule Five: (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Continue reading "Why You Need a Skilled Federal Criminal Defense Law Firm at Your Side when Facing a Federal Drug Offense" »

‘Tis the Season. Police will conduct another holiday sobriety checkpoint starting at 8 p.m. on Saturday December, 26 until 3 a.m. Sunday December 27, at a major, unannounced thoroughfare.
Motorists passing through the checkpoint will also receive safe driving literature donated by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

The local checkpoint is one of 300 DUI checkpoints planned by law enforcement agencies throughout the state as part of an 18-day "Holiday DUI Crackdown Campaign" funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

OTS spokesmen said 11,773 people died across the nation in 2008 highway crashes involving a driver or motorcycle rider with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. In California, 1,029 died on state and local roads driving with a .08 blood alcohol level or higher, with another 28,457 injured in alcohol-involved collisions.

Continue reading "Anaheim DUI Sobriety Checkpoint" »

With approximately 348,467 residents, Anaheim is the tenth largest city in California based on population. Covering a major region in Orange County, Anaheim is 50.5 square miles in size. Mostly known for being home to Disneyland, Disney’s California Adventure, and the Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim is a highly desired tourist spot. Considering the immense amount of families visiting the theme parks and several businesses making use of the convention center throughout the year, Anaheim experiences its share of DUI arrests in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will mostly take place.

Unless you’ve been arrested for DUI in Anaheim before, a person charged with DUI may not know that the police officer who makes their arrest will confiscate their driver’s license. In addition, you will only have 10 days after your arrest to schedule a DMV hearing. If you do not request a DMV hearing in Anaheim, you driver’s license will be automatically suspended for thirty days from the date of your arrest, or longer if this isn’t your first DUI offense. These factors are only the beginning, as there are numerous other matters that may be addressed in a DMV hearing. There are also multiple DUI consequences that may affect your life unless you retain the services of a skilled attorney to assist you.

To make sure that you are able to keep your driving privileges after being charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Anaheim, it may be in your best interest to contact an aggressive Anaheim DMV hearings attorney from Wallin & Klarich. Our experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges like DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources that you need to reach a successful outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact our attorneys today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

A recent article details the burglary spree that victimized homes of young Hollywood stars Audrina Patridge, Lindsay Lohan, Orlando Bloom, Rachel Bilson and the Hilton family. The ringleader behind these thefts, according to a confession by one of the robbers, was a 19 year old Las Vegas woman whose desire to own the designer clothes and jewelry of such celebrities as Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton motivated her to spearhead the thefts.

The suspect who turned informant gave authorities the details they were looking for in the burglaries. He detailed how the 19 year old woman would suggest a celebrity name and how he would go to the internet to research the star and find their home. After watching a house, they would break into poorly protected properties, often by simply walking through unlocked doors. The burglars made off with cash, narcotics and thousands of dollars worth of jewelry, including family heirlooms.

In addition to the ringleader and suspect turned informant, four others have been arrested in connection with the thefts. The four others, most between the ages of 18 and 20, have been charged with felony burglary.

Continue reading "Celebrity Burglaries Led by 19-Year-Old" »

This is a continuation of our blog from yesterday and it provides you with additional critical information as to the issue of when law enforcement must read you your Miranda rights.

An analysis of the facts of your case will help answer the question of whether you were "in custody" for Miranda purposes. The time, length, and location of the interrogation are all significant factors that must be analyzed. Your attorney should also analyze the number of officers involved in the questioning, and the presence of the suspect's attorney or other non-law enforcement personnel who may have been present during questioning.

Courts consider four general factors in deciding the custody question. The first factor to consider is the site of the interrogation; the second is whether the investigation was focused on the suspect; the third is whether the objective signs of arrest, such as handcuffs, weapons displayed, and statement of arrest were present; and the fourth is the length and form of the interrogation. (United States v. Salvo, 523 U.S. 1122, 1998).

Continue reading "When Does a Police Officer Have to Read Me My Miranda Rights? The Answer is Only When You Are Considered "In Custody" (Part 2) " »

We are often asked, “When do the police have to read me my Miranda rights?” The answer is the police must read you your Miranda rights if you are deemed to be “in custody” and the police wish to ask you questions. If a suspect is not in "custody," no Miranda rules apply.

However, the far more difficult question is, “When is a person legally considered ‘in custody’?”

To determine whether a suspect was in custody, courts consider several factors. First, was there a formal arrest? Second, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not free to end the questioning and walk away? Third, was the suspect's movement restrained or curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest? (Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 1995).

The determination of whether a suspect was in custody is very fact sensitive. The determination is measured objectively by looking at the above factors. It is important to understand that neither the officer's nor the suspect's subjective belief about custody status figure very significantly in the analysis. It will be your attorney who will need to apply the law to the facts in your case to make sure your constitutional rights are protected.

Continue reading "When Does a Police Officer Have to Read Me My Miranda Rights? The Answer is Only When You Are Considered "In Custody" (Part 1)" »

A Long Beach woman was recently sentenced to 90 days in jail after pleading guilty in the West Orange County Justice Center to felony theft by fraud, according to an article in the Orange County Register. The woman allegedly threw a birthday party for her son that she never intended to pay for.

The article explains that the woman went to a party rental supply store and selected various items for her child’s party. She rented several items including a Delux Snokonette snow cone machine, an Econo Floss cotton candy machine, and a popcorn machine. She then proceeded to pay for the items with someone else’s credit card and address information. The only problem is that the woman used her actual phone number.

When the party rental store contacted her and left a message, she texted them back informing them that they would never see their products again. Needless to say, the authorities were easily able to find the woman by tracing her cell phone. The machines were found during a search of the property and the woman and an accomplice were arrested.

Continue reading "Stolen Party Machinery Results in Jail Time and Grand Theft Conviction" »

In a recent California Appellate Court decision, the court determined that a person who is being subjected to a “citizen’s arrest” may use self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of excessive force by the arresting citizen.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. For example, a citizen’s arrest would occur when your neighbor, who is not a sworn law-enforcement official, takes you into custody for stealing his lawnmower. A citizen has the right to do this if he or she reasonable believes that you, in fact, did steal the lawnmower.

In People v. Adams, the defendant was subjected to a citizen’s arrest in which he resisted with force. He was then charged with a crime for assaulting the person who had attempted to place him under citizen’s arrest. The court ruled that an individual who is subjected to a citizen’s arrest has a right to use self-defense not only when excessive force is being applied to him, but also when he reasonably believes that a threat of bodily injury or unlawful touching is imminent, even if the threat does not in fact exist.

Continue reading "You Can Defend Yourself against Excessive Force in a Citizen's Arrest" »

According to California Penal Code Section 503 Embezzlement is “the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted.” In other words, if some one entrusts you with money or property, and you use that money or property for something other than it was originally intended, you are guilty of embezzlement.

For instance, if your boss hands you a bag full of money to deposit at the bank and you intentionally use the money for something else, you’re guilty of embezzlement.

Embezzlement can have serious consequences including state prison time depending on the amount money or value of the item or items embezzled. In addition, your reputation is on the line. Crimes of moral turpitude such as embezzlement can affect your ability to work in places where trust is essential.

Continue reading "Embezzlement: What is It?" »

Santa Ana has an estimated population of 339,130, making it the most heavily populated city within the large region of Orange County. The city of Santa Ana is only 10 miles away from several California beaches and is located alongside the Santa Ana River in Southern California. Located within the second largest metropolitan area (thirteen million people) in all of the U.S., Santa Ana is the fourth most densely populated city. As a consequence of its growing popularity, the roadways in Santa Ana can become very busy in which arrests are often made for drunk driving and Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) hearings often take place.

Many motorists charged with driving under the influence in Santa Ana are surprised to learn that the police officer who makes their arrest will take away their driver’s license. Another extremely important factor involved with a DUI charge that many individuals are not aware of is that a person only has ten days to schedule their DMV hearing. This is your chance to retain your driving privileges. Failure to schedule your DMV hearing within the allotted time will automatically cause your hearing to be surrendered, thus suspending your driving privileges for thirty days from the date of your arrest.

The skilled Santa Ana DMV hearings attorneys at Wallin & Klarich understand how important it is for your DMV hearing, and any other trials pertaining to your DUI, to be successful. To ensure that you retain your driving privileges after being charged with a DUI in Santa Ana, it may be in your best interest to contact Wallin & Klarich as soon as possible. Our skilled Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources to help you obtain a positive outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact our aggressive attorneys today by calling 888-290-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

The Los Angeles district attorney has announced that if Switzerland does extradite filmmaker Roman Polanski, the criminal case from which he fled 31 years ago will be reopened. Polanski was originally indicted by the grand jury on six felonies that included rape against a 13 year old, but these charges were later dismissed after he accepted a deal to plead guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor.

Legal experts however, believe that Polanski does have options to have the case dismissed should he be returned to Los Angeles. One option is asking that the charges be dropped because of alleged judicial misconduct by Judge Laurence Rittenband for retracting Polanski’s original sentence and adding another punishment. Another option is to withdraw his original guilty plea, which opens the possibility of a new trial with the original six felony charges. While this many seem risky, experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys predict Polanski could benefit from this because the victim is unlikely to cooperate.

Continue reading "Polanski Has Options to Have Case Dismissed" »

Located along the Pacific coast in Southern California, the city of Long Beach has an approximate population of 492,682. As the second-largest city in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Long Beach has a lot to offer its residents and visitors alike. Widely known as one of the world’s largest shipping ports, the Port of Long Beach, the city is also a successful provider towards the development of high-technology and aerospace industry. As several more individuals come to call Long Beach home with each passing year, not to mention the amount of tourists that visit the area, the roadways are susceptible to much congestion. As a consequence experienced by most popular cities, arrests may take place for DUI in Long Beach in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will most likely ensue.

Many motorists do not realize that their driver’s license will be taken away by the police officer who arrests them for driving under the influence. Although being arrested for DUI can be an overwhelming experience, a person should not delay in seeking the important information that they need in order to keep their driving privileges. After an individual is arrested, he or she only has ten days to schedule a DMV hearing. Failure to do this will automatically lead to the suspension of a person’s driving privileges for thirty days from the date of their arrest and is a surrender of a DMV hearing.

Don’t let your legal rights go unsupported. To make sure that you keep your driving privileges after being charged with DUI in Long Beach, you may want to contact a skilled Long Beach DMV hearings attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our aggressive Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal resources and knowledge to help you obtain a successful result in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact our experienced attorneys today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Los Angeles officers Richard Amio, Evan Samuel and Manuel Ortiz have been recently prosecuted for perjury and conspiracy after a videotape revealed images that contradicted their testimonies. While testifying for a drug-possession case, the officers claimed that defendant Guillermo Alarcon threw a box that broke open revealing cocaine. The surveillance tape, however, showed the box was opened by the officers after Alarcon was detained. Consequently, the charges against Alarcon were dismissed.

Such cases are taken very seriously as they effect the integrity of other officers’ testimony. Chief William J. Bratton therefore, has said that they are dealing with the situation carefully and emphasized that this was an isolated case. The attorneys for the officers stated that they would fight these charges, claiming that the videotape had been edited and had not started until after Alarcon was arrested.

Continue reading "Videotape Reveals Images Contradictory to LAPD Officers' Testimony" »

The language in recent case decisions indicates that courts recognize the danger inherent in domestic violence situations. The volatility of situations involving domestic violence make them particularly well suited for an application of the emergency circumstances doctrine, where law enforcement can enter your home without a warrant given that an emergency is taking place.

When officers respond to a 911 domestic abuse call, a judgment call may be required when making a determination of whether law enforcement is permitted to enter a residence. There is language in a recent court case suggesting the need for courts to respect the judgment of officers who feel they must enter a residence in a domestic violence situation.

Continue reading "What You Need to Know if You Are Facing a Domestic Violence Charge" »

Why You Should Retain an Experienced Criminal Defense Law Firm to Help You

Confessions must be the product of a voluntary statement. Whether a confession is voluntary becomes very relevant in the context of a law enforcement interrogation. If a defendant challenges the voluntariness of a confession or admission, the prosecution has the ultimate burden of showing the statement was voluntary. This burden is entirely separate from the question of whether proper Miranda warnings were given and whether a waiver was given.

A confession is invalid if the surrounding circumstances show that the confession was the result of some form of coercion. This is true even if Miranda warnings were given and rights were waived. Make sure to detail the facts and circumstances surrounding your law enforcement encounter. Your criminal defense attorney may be able to argue that your confession or admission was the result of coercion, and thus, not voluntary.

Continue reading "If You Were Arrested and Spoke to Police, Your Statement May Be Suppressed " »

Last month, several LAPD officers teamed up with other Federal agents in a highly coordinated team-effort and arrested 78 suspected members of the notorious “Avenues” street gang. The gang, based out of the north-eastern part of Los Angeles, has been tied to extensive drug trafficking as well as several murders over the past year, including the assassination of a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy.

Nearly 1,200 officers and agents teamed-up for the arrests. Police officials claimed that it was the biggest gang sweep in Los Angeles County in several years. They assert that the arrests have dealt a major blow to the gang and its illegal activities, however also realize that there is still much more to be done in order to combat this gang, of which claims more than 400 members.

Continue reading "LAPD and Federal Agents Arrest 78 People in Major Gang Crack-Down" »

Why You Need a Good Drug Defense Attorney

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has a list of chemicals that it has placed on a watch list. The Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 imposed legal impediments to obtaining the chemicals necessary to manufacture drugs of abuse. The DEA, with the help of the State Department, monitors the flow of these chemicals over state and international borders.

Currently, there are over 22 chemicals and 27 named steroids that are on the FDA’s watch list. Possession of any one of these chemicals or steroids, whether willful or not, could lead to an investigation and ultimately an arrest. The problem is that these chemicals are readily available from any hardware or home improvement superstore and they can be used for other purposes, besides for making drugs. Thus, a perfectly legal purchase for a perfectly legal home improvement could end up in an arrest and federal drug charges.

Continue reading "Possession of Certain Chemicals Could Land You in Jail" »

In general, police must have a warrant before entering a residence. Of course, certain exceptions apply to the general rule which requires a warrant before entry. One such exception is known as the, "emergency exception." The emergency exception is often used by police and prosecutors to justify a warrantless entry. Hiring a Riverside criminal defense attorney who can identify all constitutional violations by the police may mean the difference between jail and freedom in your case.

The emergency exception contains three elements, as follows:

1. Police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property


2. The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence


3. There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched United States v. Martinez (2005) 406 F.3d 1160.

Continue reading "Police Entry into Residence Without a Warrant - What is the "Emergency Exception" to the Warrant Requirement? (Part 2)" »

As the eight largest city in population in the U.S., San Diego has much to offer its residents as well as tourists who enjoy visiting the area. San Diego is situated in the Southwest region of California beside the Pacific Ocean and is approximately 372.1 square miles in size. The city of San Diego depends upon manufacturing, defense, and tourism to fuel its economy. And as home to companies such as Qualcomm Incorporated, the largest naval fleet in the world, and several points of interest like the San Diego Zoo and Sea World, San Diego attracts an enormous amount of visitors every year. With so many motorists passing through San Diego, arrests have been known to take place for DUI in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will most likely occur.

Considering that no one ever plans to be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, most motorists are not aware that their driver’s license will be confiscated by the police officer who makes their arrest. After this happens, a person has only ten days to schedule a DMV hearing. Failure to do this will automatically result in the surrender of a hearing, thus suspending your driving privileges for thirty days from the date of your arrest.

To ensure that you maintain your driving privileges after being charged with DUI in San Diego, you may want to consider contacting an experienced San Diego DMV hearings lawyer. At Wallin & Klarich, our skilled Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal resources and knowledge to help you obtain a successful result in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact our aggressive attorneys today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Several recent Court rulings have addressed the issue of consent entry into one's residence. The issue of lawful consent becomes more complex when dealing with a residence shared by two occupants. In Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 164 L Ed.2d 208, the court held that if two occupants are at the door and one says officers may enter and the other refuses consent to enter, then officers cannot enter unless there is some other basis for doing so.

Whenever dealing with law enforcement entry into the home, it is necessary to consult an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your constitutional rights. Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations are very common and highly relevant to the outcome your case. Identifying any and all constitutional violations may mean the difference between jail and freedom.

Continue reading "You Have Legal Rights When You Share a Residence and Refuse Police Officers Request to Search Your Home or Apartment (Part 1)" »

Two leading domestic violence cases, People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.App.4th 894 and People v. Wilkins (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 761, have held that law enforcement entries into a suspect’s home were lawful as consent entries. The court in People v. Frye stated as follows; it may be inferred from the fact the victim and defendant resided together in the apartment that the victim possessed authority to consent to the officer's entry.

Consent to enter may be express or implied. For example, officers were standing outside the open door asking the victim who had hurt her. The victim motioned to the defendant lying on the couch inside the home. The officers stepped into the apartment to see who the victim was pointing at. Such actions provide sufficient indication of victim's consent to the entry.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence - Officer's Entry Into Suspect's Home Found To Be Lawful Based Upon Express or Implied Consent (Part 3)" »

Los Angeles is the largest city in California and the second largest in the United States. Commonly referred to as the “City of Angels”, approximately 3,833,995 individuals resided within the vast spread of Los Angeles in July 2008. In a greater metropolitan area with about 12.9 million inhabitants, Los Angeles is a major location for large corporations, sports venues, entertainment, and has the advantage of access to several highways. With so many motorists passing through Los Angeles, arrests are often made for DUI in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will most likely take place.

Because no one ever expects that they will be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, most drivers are not aware that a police officer who makes their arrest will confiscate their driver’s license. At this point, an individual only has ten days to schedule a DMV hearing. Failure to do so will automatically result in the surrender of a hearing, thus suspending your driving privileges for thirty days from the date of your arrest. Especially in a city like Los Angeles, residents heavily rely on their privilege to drive as a means to get to and from a variety of extremely important destinations.

To make sure that you retain your driving privileges after being charged with a DUI in Los Angeles, it may be in your best interest to contact an experienced Los Angeles DMV hearings attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our skilled Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources to help you obtain a successful result in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact our aggressive attorneys today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

In the context of an officer's warrantless entry into your residence, the most important issue is objective reasonableness. Whether, under the circumstances of your case, the officer's warrantless entry into your residence was objectively reasonable. If so, the "exigent circumstances" expection to the general warrant requirement may apply to justify the entry.

A common issue in domestic violence cases is whether the officer responding to the scene should have secured a warrant before entering the residence. The police and prosecution will argue that any delay to obtain a warrant would have posed a safety risk to the alleged victim. On the other hand, defense counsel may have facts which go to show that abandoning the scene to obtain a warrant was unlikely to expose the alleged victim to further harm.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence - Exigent Circumstances May Justify An Officer's Warrantless Entry Into Your Residence (Part 2) " »

Several cases have involved situations wherein officers go to a residence in response to a report of domestic violence being committed. Generally, if an obviously battered victim is present and the batterer is still within the residence, the officer may enter the residence to arrest the batterer. This was expressed in the case of People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894.

The issue is whether, in light of the facts known to the officer at the time, the officer could have reasonably concluded that immediate action was necessary. An attorney may be able to argue that had the officer left the scene to obtain a warrant, there was not a significant risk of additional harm. Such an argument is fact-intensive and requires review and analysis by an experienced California domestic violence defense attorney.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence - Officer's Presence At One's Residence (Part 1)" »

In September, a Federal Judge in Riverside County sentenced Richard Monroe Harkless to 100 years in prison for operating a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors of about $35 million. Federal prosecutors boast that the sentence is the longest ever imposed for a financial crime in Southern California. Harkless ran the scheme form 2000-2003 through a company he called MX Factors and dozens of the company’s estimated 700 investors wrote the judge to demand a stiff sentence. Victims complained of postponed retirements, sleepless nights, and prescriptions for anti-depressant medications. U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips, in explaining her sentence, said Harkless has caused “every kind of grief imaginable”. The U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the case commented that Harkless has shown zero remorse and the sentence is appropriate given the incredible amount of harm he has caused.

This case highlights the importance of hiring an experienced Riverside federal defense attorney. This is because Harkless made the extremely unwise decision to act as his own attorney at trial. Harkless blamed the losses on a failed business model and argues that agents in his company had made inappropriate promises to investors without his knowledge. To add insult to injury, Harkless argued in his closing that he had no regrets and would make the same decisions again if he had the opportunity. The old adage “a person who defends himself has a fool for a client” rings ever true in this case.

Continue reading "Riverside County Man Sentenced to 100 Years for Operating Ponzi Scheme" »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a defendant’s death penalty finding that his lawyer did not provide effective assistance of counsel.

In 1982, in an Arizona state court, Laurence Libberton was convicted of the murder of Juan Maya. The key witness at the trial, Martin Norton, a juvenile also charged in connection with the crime, testified that the Libberton shot Maya. During the penalty phase of the trial, Libberton’s counsel only called two witnesses, and Libberton was subsequently sentenced to death for the murder.

On appeal, Libberton presented evidence that was unavailable to him at trial. The appeals court initially ruled that the additional evidence could not be admitted because it was not part of the record at trial. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the evidence was available at trial, but Libberton’s lawyer did not present it and was therefore ineffective. Here, Libberton’s counsel failed to present evidence that could have established that Norton was emotionally unstable and an unreliable witness. The failure to present this evidence—or even to seek it—was unjustified and highly prejudicial. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Libberton’s death sentence and gave the state reasonable time to resentence.

Continue reading "Death Penalty Conviction Overturned Due to an Attorney's Ineffective Assistance of Counsel " »

If any of you were arrested by the CHP in the Ventura area, it might be worth your while to ask your lawyer to give you a copy of the police report and check out the police report. This is especially true if you think that the cop was lying in your report about some of the facts in your case.

Recently, a local Ventura County CHP officer was convicted of a hate crime for yelling racial epithets at a group of people and pretending to use a gun. Do you think this is going to be relevant in cases where the defense is that the cop is lying? You're darn right it is.

Why would a police officer’s conviction for a hate crime be relevant? Well, if you can show that the officer is biased towards a group of people and the defendant happens to fall in that category of people, there is a very big issue of credibility that a jury must consider.

In the case featured in the story below, Officer Seth Taylor of the California Highway Patrol was convicted of misdemeanor disturbing the peace. Apparently he challenged a couple of Latino men to fight at a CHP function and directed ethnic slurs at the men. In another incident, the officer again used ethnic slurs and told the other victims that he was “going to put a cap in them.”

Continue reading "Ventura County CHP Officer Convicted of Hate Crime" »

Simi Valley is Ventura County’s third biggest city with an approximate population of 126,300. As a diverse community in Southern California, Simi Valley is surrounded by beautiful hills and mountains. Covering about 42 square miles, the vast city has convenient access to Highways 118, 23, 101 and Interstates 5, 405, and 210. Such proximity to these freeways also brings many visitors to Simi Valley. Although a safe and thriving area, alleged incidents of reckless driving take place from time to time in Simi Valley in which anyone accused of such an offense may wish to seek legal assistance from a skilled Simi Valley reckless driving defense lawyer.

An officer may charge you with reckless driving if he or she suspects that you have operated your vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property” as defined by California Vehicle Code 23103. A reckless driving conviction has serious consequences and is a misdemeanor offense. Not only do you risk having points added to your driver’s license by the DMV, but you may also face 5 to 90 days of imprisonment, a fine of $145 to $1,000, or all of the above.

If you have been charged with reckless driving or with DUI in Simi Valley, it may be in your best interest to contact an experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyer at Wallin and Klarich as soon as possible. Our attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges in California for over 30 years, lending us the resources and knowledge to obtain a successful outcome in any criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.

Recently, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 91, otherwise know as AB 91, creating a pilot program in Los Angeles County as well as in three other California counties that will effect first time Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenders in Los Angeles County. The pilot project would begin on July 1, 2010 and would extend to January 1, 2016. By July 1, 2015, the Department of Motor Vehicles would have to report to the Legislature on the pilot project’s effectiveness in reducing the number of first time and repeat DUI offenses.

Under the program, first time DUI offenders in Los Angeles County will be required to install a breathalyzer device on every vehicle they own. The device will then permit these offenders to drive only if they pass a “breath –test.”

Continue reading "Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs New Bill to Require First-Time DUI Offenders in Los Angeles County to Install Interlock Devices " »

In a follow-up to a blog previously posted on this site, the California Supreme Court has decided to review to Riverside County criminal cases that had been dismissed for lack of a judge to hear them. The case that was previously posted on and that is currently under review by the California Supreme Court is People v. Wagner. This is the case where the defendant allegedly shot the victim in both knees after the defendant accompanied a female friend to help her retrieve her dog from her ex-boyfriend, the victim. The defendant was charged with very serious crimes and was facing many years in state prison. However, when his trial date got to the “last day” where a continuance would violate his constitutional speedy trial rights and the presiding judge found that there were no court rooms to hear the case, all charges were dismissed.

The Riverside District Attorney’s office decided to appeal the judge’s decision to the court of appeal and argued that the judge abused his discretion and that the criminal case should have been heard before other civil cases and that the court erred by failing to conclude that court congestion and mismanagement constituted good cause to continue the case. The Court of Appeal rejected the DA’s arguments and found that the judge did not abuse his discretion. The DA’s office appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court who decided to hear the case.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court to Hear Riverside Dismissal Cases" »

Van Nuys is located in the center of the San Fernando Valley within Los Angeles County. With an approximate population of 136,443 in 2000, the city of Van Nuys continues to grow as it attracts more and more residents each and every year. Van Nuys Boulevard, the main street in Van Nuys, is well-known for its spread of car dealerships. Also noteworthy is that a set situated in Van Nuys was the filming spot for TV show Beverly Hills 90210. In being so near to Los Angeles, Van Nuys experiences its moments of congested roads. This often motivates law enforcement to keep a look-out for suspected reckless driving and motorists driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

In the event that an officer believes you have operated your vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property” as stated in California Vehicle Code 23103, then you may be charged with reckless driving. A reckless driving conviction can result in points added to your driver’s license by the DMV, which is similar to what takes place with a DUI conviction. Reckless driving may also result in imprisonment for 5 to 90 days, a fine of $145 to $1,000, or both. Taking into account that reckless driving is a misdemeanor offense, anyone who faces this charge may want to seek legal assistance from a skilled Van Nuys reckless driving defense lawyer as soon as possible.

If you have been charged with reckless driving or with DUI in Van Nuys, contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyers at Wallin and Klarich as soon as possible. Our attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges in California for over 30 years, providing us with the resources and knowledge to obtain a successful outcome in any criminal case. Call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation.