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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Take the case of Megan Meier. Ms. Meier was a teenager from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri who had a falling out with a friend. Thereafter, the friend and her mother allegedly set up a web page on the social networking site MySpace. The thing is, according to the allegations, they did not use their own names and identities. The page indicated that it belonged to a teenage boy by the name of Josh Evans. This identity was apparently not related to any real person with that name. It should be noted that Ms. Meier’s friend’s mother has denied setting up this MySpace page.

Allegedly, after establishing this fake identity online, “Josh Evans” began contacting Ms. Meier via Ms. Meier’s MySpace page. The initial contacts were friendly, with “Josh Evans” telling Ms. Meier that he thought she was attractive. Thereafter, the tone of the messages began to change. “Josh Evans” began sending Ms. Meier hurtful messages, and indicating that he was no longer interested in being Ms. Meier’s friend. There was an indication in news reports that the last message indicated that the “world would be a better place without” Ms. Meier. Investigators were not able to find any record of this message. Ms. Meier apparently discussed these hurtful messages with her mother, and this discussion ensued in an argument between Ms. Meier and her mother. Ms. Meier was found thereafter hanging by her neck in her bedroom closet. She subsequently died and her death has been ruled a suicide.

Additionally, the City of Dardenne Prairie has enacted a law in response to this incident. The law, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days and/or a $500.00 fine, prohibits harassment that utilizes any electronic meduim, such as the Internet. Given the noterieity this case has received, it would seem likely that other federal and state legislatures will follow suit.

Mr. Callahan subsequently filed a lawsuit against the police in federal court for violating his constitutional rights. The US District Court dismissed his case, and, on appeal, the US Court of Appeals re-instated the lawsuit and the officers sought review before the US Supreme Court.

The contract still must be approved by the full Los Angeles City Counsel and also by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The one dissenting Committee member cited concerns that IBM, who would be charged with installing the cameras in the patrol cars, would not use Los Angeles based companies, and, therefore, that Los Angeles would not be re-investing in its own economy.

The cameras could be activated manually by officers, or automatically by certain “triggers” such as when the officer activates the patrol car’s lights or siren, or when airbags are deployed, or when the car’s shotgun is removed. The LAPD’s long term goal is to install such cameras in all of its police cars, at an estimated cost of roughly $34million.

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 California criminal charge 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.

The LA Superior Court judge who took the plea sentenced Mr. Berton to 12 years state prison. Berton, who pleaded to at least one count for each of the 16 victims, also was ordered to pay restitution totaling $346,826. He has been in custody since his arrest on January 4, 2008.

According to the District Attorney, Mr. Berton used an elaborate network of associates whom he paid to refer clients. Often times, these associates were members of the same immigrant communities as the victims. Mr. Berton allegedly extorted more than $120,000 from his victims, some of whom now face being removed from the United States by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The CHP press release described how every year individuals are arrested for DUI and enter the legal process and that some individuals either fail to appear in court or fail to pay fines associated with DUI offenses. As a result, arrest warrants are issued for these individuals. However, sometimes these warrants are not served in a timely manner allowing the violators to avoid justice until they’re apprehended.

The CHP has indicated that, in order to assure that proper attention is given to outstanding DUI felony and misdemeanor warrants, the CHP has launched a major anti-DUI crackdown through a new federal grant entitled “Stop DUI II.” This grant will allow the CHP to take an aggressive approach to reduce the number of outstanding DUI warrants by establishing teams of officers for the specific purpose of serving outstanding DUI warrants.

California Highway Patrol officers will serve these warrants and arrest the individuals who have been evading the law. The grant’s focus is on CHP’s Valley, Golden Gate and Southern Divisions and extends through December 31, 2008.

If you have failed to appear in court relating to a California DUI offense, the Court has likely issued a warrant for your arrest, and, with this grant to the CHP, it is only a matter of time before you will be accosted at your home or place of work by uniformed officers looking to arrest you on the warrant and take you to county jail.

If you want to save yourself the shock, expense and embarrassment of being arrested in front of your family, neighbors, or co-workers, contact Wallin & Klarich right away for assistance. Our firm has 30 years of experience in helping people to get arrest warrants lifted so that they no longer have to live in fear wondering each day whether this will be “the day” when their luck will run out and they will be arrested by the police. In some cases, our firm has even been able to get the warrant recalled without the client ever having to appear in court or at a police station so call us to see if we can make similar arrangements in your case. The sooner you contact us, the sooner we can start putting our 30 years of experience to work for you.

Interestingly enough, though, MySpace does not maintain information about the removed profiles, so in removing the registered sex offenders, they also disposed of evidence about their identities and the like.

Wallin and Klarich has developed a unique understanding of how these cases work and an aggressive, thorough approach to defending them. Defending sex crime charges is a complex and specialized type of criminal defense. Few criminal defense lawyers have the experience, training and resources necessary to win a sex-related case.

It might seem that, for those who like to go out to restaurants and bars and imbibe, about the only thing that might be good about the twice a year ritual of changing the clocks is when the clocks are changed from Daylight Time to Standard Time (i.e., when we “Fall Back” one hour in Autumn), and here’s why.

Under California law, no bar or restaurant may sell any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2:00AM and 6:00AM, meaning that alcoholic beverage service is closed down at 2:00AM at bars and restaurants throughout the state, and may not commence again until 6:00AM. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25631.) The law specifically declares that anyone who sells alcoholic beverages, “between the hours of 2 o'clock a.m. and 6 o'clock a.m. of the same day, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (Id.)

Coincidentally, when we “Fall Back” one hour in Autumn, that time change officially occurs at 2:00AM, meaning that, officially, on the date when clocks go from Daylight Saving Time to Standard time, the time goes from 1:59AM Daylight Saving Time to 1:00AM Standard Time, thereby giving us not only an extra hour of sleep, but also an extra hour of drinking at our favorite watering hole, right?

Let’s take an example and see if we can work through this. We make the change back to Pacific Standard Time on November 2, 2008, meaning that the time goes from 1:59AM Daylight Time on 11/2/2008 to 1:00AM Standard Time on 11/2/2008. Applying California law, on 11/2/2008 (i.e., a “day that a time change occurs”), “2 o’clock a.m. means two hours after midnight on the day preceding” 11/2/2008. Thus, under the law, on 11/2/2008, 2 o’clock a.m. means, in essence, 2 o’clock a.m. on 11/1/2008. As we know, bars may not sell alcoholic beverages “between the hours of 2 o’clock a.m. and 6 o’clock a.m. of the same day.” Therefore, it would seem that, on 11/1/2008 at 2:00AM, bars will close their doors and, thereafter, may not re-open until 6:00AM on 11/2/2008 – a period of 28 hours (29 if you count the lost hour). Or, maybe since the law says “between the hours of 2 o’clock a.m. and 6 o’clock a.m. of the same day” that means that, on the day the time changes, bars are required to close at 2:00AM the day before and can re-open at 6:00AM and can remain open until 2:00AM the FOLLOWING day. Or, maybe you do get your extra hour and the bars should just close at 2:00AM Pacific Standard Time. Confused? We are too.

Sadly, the Legislature had previously declared that, on time change days, “2 o'clock a.m.’ means two hours after 12 o'clock p.m. of the day preceding the day such change occurs.” Yes, that’s right. 12 o’clock p.m. – as in noon the day before. Thus, it would seem that, from 12 noon on the day before the time change, until 6:00AM on the day of the time change, no alcohol could be sold. Of course, this was not how the law was applied and it would seem that everyone knew what the Legislature meant – that the time change was to have no impact upon when alcohol could be sold and that bars could not remain open for an extra hour just because the clocks changed.

Nonetheless, the Legislature sought to clarify this apparent oversight, and, in the process, has left the statute just as muddled as it was before. Perhaps, next year, they will get it right and declare that “[o]n the day that a time change occurs from Pacific standard time to Pacific daylight saving time, or back again to Pacific standard time, “2 o'clock a.m.” means two hours after midnight of the day such change occurs.” I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

20 people who had been arrested for DUI in New Jersey collectively filed a lawsuit challenging the use of the breath tests in their cases. Specifically, the defendants argued that the manner in which the calculations were made by the device caused the devices to overestimate the breath alcohol concentration in some drivers.

The Court, after hearing four months of testimony, declared that, in the vast majority of cases, the device underestimated the person’s breath alcohol level. The Court specifically found that, although the device actually overestimated the breath alcohol level in some individuals, that was not sufficient to justify any modification of the device or discontinued use of the device.

In addition if you speak to an inmate who is in a jail cell with you it is critical you realize that that inmate may wish to receive leniency on their case in exchange for revealing what they claim you stated to them to the prosecution. The best possible advice is to only speak to anyone who is in custody about any of the facts related to your case. In fact in some cases it can be dangerous to your safety to discuss the charges you are facing with other inmates.

If you have a question about this legal topic or any other legal issue contact Wallin and Klarich 24/7 and we will be glad to speak to you about your case.