Southern California Defense Blog

While it is legal under California law to open and operate a marijuana dispensary it is not legal under federal law. For many years the federal government took little or no action to shut down these businesses. Then the federal government attempted to go after individual marijuana dispensary businesses with little success because they would succeed in closing one operation to only see ten others open up in nearby areas. Now the federal government has gotten serious and gone to where the money is.

Recently the federal authorities have taken legal action against the landlords that lease office space to these marijuana dispensaries with powerful results. Earlier this month US Attorney Andre Birotte announced the seizure of $135,000 from a local strip mall owner who had rented more than a third of his center to a row of marijuana dispensary businesses. It appears by the US Attorney going after the pocketbook of the landlords it is having the effect of closing down the marijuana storefronts entirely. This action happened in the city of Lake Forest. According to Attorney Jeffrey Dunn, whose law firm represents the City of Lake Forest in their efforts to shut down these businesses, “we don’t have a single dispensary operating in the city of Lake Forest” “They’re all closed after the federal enforcement actions.

If that wasn’t bad enough, according to Attorney Dunn, the City of Lake Forest is now going after the owners of the facilities and the landlord for up to $600,000 in legal fees and costs the city has incurred in their efforts to shut down the marijuana dispensaries. This certainly appears to be a full scale attempt to close down these facilities and by doing so it will also greatly impact the marijuana growers who supply these facilities with the marijuana they sell to their customers.

What will happen next is unclear? Certainly, those that have medical licenses to use marijuana are going to vehemently argue that this interferes with their lawful right to use a substance that has been deemed by their physicians to be medically necessary. We assume there will soon be major litigation that may end up in the United States Supreme Court at some point in the future.

We are interested in your comments on this major legal maneuver by the federal government. You have to wonder with so much federal crime occurring why the federal government would be spending such valuable resources to attempt to shut down what are considered lawful businesses under California law? Feel free to contact our law firm at 877-466-5245 or reply to this blog below. This is not an issue that will be going away anytime soon

Leave us a comment and let us know what you think.

Redmond O’Neal was arrested and jailed in Los Angeles County after officers found herion in his car. O’Neal is the son of actors Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O’Neal. Officers say they foound herion in O’Neal’s vehicle after they stopped him for a traffic violation. O’Neal completed a drug diversion prpogram stemming from a previous drug arrest, and is currently on probation as a result of that arrest in Los Angeles County.

In California, possession of herion is codified under Health and Safety Code section 11350. This code section states that it is unlawful for anyone to possess specific “controlled substances” without a valid perscription. The most common examples of possessed controlled substances, as it relates to Health and Safety Code section 11350, include opiates, herion, and peyote.

A conviction of a Health and Safety Code 11350 is typically a felony. If convicted of this offense, the defendant faces up to three years in state prison on a first offense. The punishment that a person receives depends in large part to the circumstances surrounding the arrest, and the defendant’s convictions, if any.

There a number of defenses to that can be raised when someone is accussed. The most common defenses to an alleged violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350 are that the accused has a valid perscription, or that they did not possess any controlled substance, and as such, no violation has occurred.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative you contact our firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm is the best way to ensure you keep your freedom. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at wklaw.com for more information.

California law prohibits the possession of certain controlled substances or other illegal drugs for the purposes of sale. Such drugs include hydrocodone, PCP, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and codeine.Under California Health and Safety Code Section 11351, being in possession of drugs with the intent to sell them is a felony offense. A conviction can result in a two, three, or four-year prison sentence.A violation of HS 11351 is different from a simple possession offense (under California Health and Safety Code Section 11350) because the allegation not only includes unlawful possession but also the illegal intent to sell the drugs in possession. As a result, being in possession of drugs for the purpose of selling them is a more serious crime that is not eligible for any kind of drug rehabilitation program such as PC 1000 or Prop 36.When you are arrested for illegal possession of drugs, the intent to sell arises from an inference the police make when considering the circumstances of the arrest. You may be further accused of having the intent to sell if:

• You were caught with a quantity of drugs that is larger than necessary for personal use,


• The drugs were individually packaged for sale,


• Police found a weight scale, business records, or other items associated with sale purposes,


• There is an absence of drug paraphernalia – such as a pipe – that would indicate personal use,


• And a number of other circumstances that would suggest an intent to sell the drugs in possession.

After you are arrested, you will be taken into custody where you will remain until your arraignment court date. However, if you can post bail, you will be released from police custody until your arraignment. It is possible to sufficiently post bail by paying up to 10% of the total bail amount, which can be done through a bail bondsman.If you are unable to post bail, you arraignment date will be scheduled within two court days after the arrest date. However, if you are released early by posting bail, your arraignment may be continued to a later date. This can afford you up to three months to find a criminal defense attorney who can help you through this matter.With an attorney on your side, you can significantly increase your chances of getting a reduced charge, a lenient sentence, or an outright acquittal. The earlier you obtain an attorney, the better your chances. For example, an attorney can negotiate with the prosecution about possibly reducing the charge to a lesser crime or dismissing your case altogether before it is even filed.If you are still required to appear at your arraignment, your attorney will also be there with you to advise you on the best plea for you to enter. Typically, the best plea to enter is "not guilty" or a request for a continuance in order to further assess the case and review the evidence. You would not have to appear at all to any court appearances if your attorney had been able to negotiate your possession charge down to a misdemeanor offense. This is a huge benefit because it means you would not have to take time away from work or school to wait at a courthouse to stand before a judge.After the arraignment, the court will normally schedule a pretrial hearing where your attorney will negotiate with the prosecution to bring about a beneficial resolution for both sides. Even if your attorney may not be able to negotiate a full acquittal, if he/she can reduce the charge to a misdemeanor possession charge, you will be eligible for a drug diversion program, which also leads to a full dismissal.To learn more about the process following an arrest, please visit us online at www.wklaw.com and click on "Criminal Process."If you are arrested for illegally possessing drugs with the intent to sell them, it is very important that you seek the knowledge and expertise of a skilled criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you achieve the best possible results in your drug possession matter. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

On December 10, 2010, video allegedly taken by one of Miley Cyrus’ friends appears to show her inhaling smoke from a bong. Sources later disclosed that the alleged substance in the bong was not marijuana, but salvia.

Salvia is a psychoactive drug like marijuana, but unlike marijuana, it is completely legal to possess or use if a person is 18 years or older. (P.C. 379.) If a person is under 18 years old and possesses or uses salvia, the person may go to jail for up to six months and/or pay a $1,000 fine.

The video was allegedly taken on November 28, 2010, five days after Cyrus’ 18th birthday. If the video was taken after she turned 18 and the substance was actually salvia, Cyrus committed no crime.

The backlash against Cyrus has been fierce, but so far, Cyrus has yet to publicly comment on the video. She is currently shooting a movie and was the star of the Disney series Hannah Montana.

If you have been accused of possessing an illicit substance, but you are over 18 and the substance was salvia, then you are not guilty of a crime. Contact a Southern California criminal defense attorney immediately to help you fight this false drug charge.

Do not, under any circumstances, agree to speak to law enforcement or consent to a search of your person or vehicle. If law enforcement arrests you or otherwise searches you or your property without your permission, do not physically resist, but clearly and unequivocally express your objection to the search. This may help your defense if the search yields other incriminating evidence.

If you are accused of a drug crime, you will need an experienced Southern California drug crime attorney to help you with your case. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of drug crimes for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr is skeptical about the propriety of several provisions in LA’s new marijuana laws. Mohr expressed his concerns at a hearing last Tuesday for lawsuits filed by collectives and patients challenging the constitutionality of the city’s new law.

Especially perplexing to Mohr is a provision that requires collectives – many of them marijuana dispensaries that supply pot for “donations” – to make patient lists openly available to law enforcement without search warrants.

“That makes me very nervous,” the judge lamented. “If I am a patient, that [recommendation] is as private as any document in my doctor’s office. How can you say this does not violate my right to privacy?”

In the provision’s defense, Deputy City Attorney Jane E. Usher said the provision is necessary to deter distribution of medical marijuana for illegal purposes. Mohr remained unconvinced.

Possession of marijuana, if not for medicinal purposes, is a criminal offense in California under Health and Safety Code Section 11357. A conviction under this law may result in imprisonment in county jail for up to six months if you were in possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. In most cases, however, you may not get a jail sentence, but will likely pay a fine between $100 and $500.

If you qualify, your attorney may also be able to arrange for you to enter a drug diversion program that may allow the court to dismiss the charges against you upon successful completion of an applicable rehabilitation program. This means you can avoid jail time and a conviction on your criminal record.

If you are facing marijuana possession charges, it is very important that you seek the expertise of a skilled drug defense attorney who can help you avoid conviction. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California Attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling drug possession cases and will work hard to present the best defense for you. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

Most people would likely agree that drug crimes were a major contributing factor in the alarming increase in the number of Americans currently incarcerated in the various penal institutions in the country. The overpopulation in our prisons is partly due to the increase in drug crime rate. At Wallin & Klarich, our drug crime attorneys have seen a significant increase since our firm started over 30 years ago.

America’s so called “war on drugs” perhaps began when then President Nixon declared to Congress that drugs were a “serious national threat.” Nixon officially declares a "war on drugs," identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No. 1." It was also Nixon who created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1971. In 1986, President Ronald Regan appropriated $1.7 billion dollars as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 to fight the drug war. The bill also created mandatory minimum penalties for drug crimes, which are increasingly criticized for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population because of the differences in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.

Continue reading "Treatment of Substance Abuse For Prisoners Can Lead To Less Drug Crime And A Lower Prison Population" »

According to a report by KTLA, Shaun Rothwell, 30, Shane Dearth, 29, and Thomas Nichols, 30, all of Los Angeles, were arrested in Torrance, California. The three were taken into custody after a marijuana hydroponics farm was found by police in a building located on the 17100 block of Figueroa Street in Gardena. Rothwell, Dearth, and Nichols were each charged with “marijuana cultivation, possession of marijuana for sale and theft of electricity” according to the story. The police recovered over 300 marijuana plants and 15 pounds of marijuana ready for sale.

Drug charges like the ones about can lead to serious penalties if a person is found guilty. These types of drug charges will be felonies due to the volume of drugs found and the intent to sell the drugs. A conviction can be punishable by up to 3 years in state prison.

Continue reading "Drug Charges - California Health and Safety Code 11358" »

Under California law, a person is recognized to have “possession” of a tangible object when they have personal charge or control of, or exercise the right of ownership or management over the tangible object.

It is important to understand that possession of a controlled substance in California may be actual or constructive. Constructive possession is not as straightforward as actual possession, but constitutes possession nonetheless.

"Constructive possession" can apply in situations where the controlled substance is not found on the defendant's person (pockets, jacket, etc). Although there is no actual possession, constructive possession can occur if actual possession of the controlled substance can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

Continue reading "What Can Constitute "Possession" for the Purposes of Possession of a Controlled Substance? Health and Safety Code Sections 11350 & 11377" »

How an Experienced Southern California Drug Defense Attorney Can Help You

If the police detain you for any reason and you are caught with drugs you may be charged with drug possession. But, if the police believe that you possessed the drugs in order to sell them, then that is a separate charge called “possession for sale.” What would give police the proof that you intended to sell the drugs as opposed to merely possess them for your own personal use? Some of the many factors include the amount of currency the defendant had at the time of arrest, the quantity of drugs possessed, whether the drugs were individually packaged, whether the defendant was in possession of drug paraphernalia, and whether the location where the suspect was arrested is a high narcotics sales area.

Although possession and possession for sale are both serious charges, there are many reasons why avoiding a possession for sale charge is critical. For example, many people charged with possession are eligible for a special diversion program that if successfully completed, could result in a dismissal of the charges altogether. These diversion programs are usually not available for possession for sale charges because those diversion classes are meant to help users, not sellers.

Continue reading "The Difference between Possession of Drugs and Possession of Drugs for Sale Charges - California Health and Safety Code Section 11350 & 11351" »

Anyone charged with possession for sale of marijuana should speak with an experienced drug possession attorney in Southern California. Possession for sale of marijuana is a serious crime that comes with harsh penalties and consequences.

California Health and Safety Code Section 11359 makes it a felony for anyone to unlawfully possess marijuana for the purpose of sales. To be convicted under Section 11359, it needs to be proven that the defendant unlawfully possessed marijuana; the defendant knew of its presence; the defendant knew of the substance’s nature as a controlled substance; the defendant possessed a usable amount; and that at the time of the possession, the defendant had the intent to sell it.

With a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney on your side, you can raise certain defenses against this charge. A viable defense that may be available to you is submitting a motion to the court to suppress evidence of confiscated marijuana. If the evidence is shown to have been illegally obtained, the judge may decide not to admit it as evidence. This would likely result in the dismissal of the case against you. You may also be able to challenge the individual elements of the charge by claiming a lack of possession, knowledge of the drug’s presence or nature, presence of a usable amount, or the intent to sell.

Continue reading "Possession for Sale of Marijuana - California Health and Safety Code Section 11359" »

California Health and Safety Code Section 11377 makes methamphetamine (“meth”) possession illegal. Meth Possession is a serious crime with serious penalties. If you are charged with meth possession, it is important that you speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney to get you the best possible result in your case.

Meth possession means that you had physical custody of the meth. You must also know the nature of meth as a controlled substance to be convicted. The amount of meth also has to be usable. If this can be proven, you may face a conviction for meth possession.

Having an experienced attorney can help you bring up defenses to your charge. There are many defenses to meth possession. The obvious one is that the defendant did not have physical control over the substance. Furthermore, the defendant cannot be convicted of possession of methamphetamine if he/she was not aware or had knowledge that the methamphetamine was in their presence or that it was a controlled substance.

There is also the momentary meth possession defense. Momentary possession requires that the defendant only possessed the substance for a momentary or transitory period; the possession of methamphetamine was for purposes of abandoning it, disposing of it or to destroy it.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Meth Possession - What Should I Do? - California Health and Safety Code Section 11377" »

California Health & Safety Code Section 11350 is a law that makes it illegal to possess various types of drugs as defined within the health and safety code.

In order to be convicted of possession of a controlled substance, the prosecution must prove that you unlawfully possessed a controlled substance, that you knew of its presence, that you knew of the substance’s nature or character as a controlled substance, what the controlled substance was, and that the quantity possessed was a usable amount. Possession means that a person has physical custody and control over the substance.

One of the many defenses to possession of a controlled substance is momentary/transitory possession. In order to successfully assert the defense of momentary/transitory possession, it must be shown that the defendant possessed the controlled substance only for a momentary or transitory period, that the defendant possessed the controlled substance in order to abandon, dispose of, or destroy it, and that the defendant did not intend to prevent law enforcement officials from obtaining the controlled substance. Of course, because every case is unique it is vital that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney about the particular facts of your case and any defense that may be available to you.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Possession of a Controlled Substance - What Should I Do? - California Health & Safety Code Section 11350" »

On October 19th, the United States Department of Justice issued a memorandum to the United States Attorneys in California detailing a shift in the Department’s policy regarding the investigation and prosecution of federal drug offenses in California. Although the memo is favorable to California’s marijuana laws, in no way does it permit the cultivation, possession, use or distribution of marijuana. The federal Controlled Substances Act continues to make those types of acts illegal.

Specifically, the memo dictates that “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana” should not be the Department’s main focus. In fact, the Justice Department will continue to prosecute those individuals or entities relying on state marijuana laws as a pretext for the illegal distribution of marijuana. Most importantly, the memo states that individuals who are in compliance with medical marijuana laws can still be prosecuted in federal court if it serves an important federal interest. Clearly, this exception leaves the door wide open to prosecute individuals regardless of the new Justice Department guidelines.

Continue reading "U.S. Justice Department Issues Memorandum Regarding State Marijuana Laws" »

The California appellate court has held that even though a vehicle does in fact have a temporary operating permit displayed somewhere on the vehicle, if the police officer does not see the temporary operating permit, and the vehicle does not have license plates, then the stop of the vehicle is legal. People v. Dotson ﴾3rd Dist., Nov. 30, 2009﴿ 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1904﴿.

In Dotson, the defendant, a convicted felon, was found to be in possession of a firearm, ammunition, and methamphetamine when a police officer stopped his vehicle. Although the vehicle had a temporary operating permit, an arresting officer had testified that at the time of the stop he saw that defendant's vehicle did not have license plates. In fact, in a dimly lit parking lot, the officer had a hard time identifying even the color of the vehicle. He saw that there were no license plates, so he made the stop. The defendant argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop since the defendant’s car had a temporary operating permit attached to the rear window.

Continue reading "Police Can Legally Stop a Vehicle in California Even If a Temporary Operating Permit Attached To a Rear Window " »

Why Having an Experienced Drug Offense Attorney Can Mean the Difference Between Jail and Freedom

A recent California Court of Appeals decision, People v. Archer, held that, in medical marijuana possession cases, the jury must be informed that the patient has a right to possess an amount that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.

The California Legislature recently enacted Health and Safety Code section 11362.77 of Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which provides that the “legal limit” for possessing medical marijuana was eight ounces. However, before the legislatures enacted section 11362.77, the only relevant section as to how much marijuana a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Under section 11362.5, subdivision (d) of the Heath and Safety Code, the only qualification concerning the amount of marijuana that a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was that the marijuana be for the "personal medical purposes" of the patient. (section 11362.5, subd. (d).)

Therefore, assuming section 11362.77, subdivision (a) of the MMPA, is unconstitutional, as the parties jointly contended, the relevant law on the issue of the amount of marijuana Archer could possess would be section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and the cases interpreting that statute.

As noted, courts have interpreted this qualification to mean a reasonable amount: "[T]he quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. What precisely are the 'patient's current medical needs' [is], of course . . . a factual question to be determined by [the jury]." (People v. Trippet, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1549.)

Here, the evidence in the record showed Archer was using about a half pound of medical marijuana each month in April 2006, mostly by ingesting it, and that he possessed about 1.72 pounds of marijuana—or about a three-month supply of medical marijuana—when police entered his home and confiscated it and his plants. There was no evidence Archer possessed the 1.72 pounds of marijuana for purposes other than for his own personal medical use.

Continue reading "Possession of Medical Marijuana is Limited to the Patient's Current Medical Needs" »

A recent California Court of Appeals decision in People v. Hirata held that a search warrant is invalid after the passing of a substantial period of time. In this case, the period of time was 84 days.

The defendant (Hirata) was charged with possessing drugs and being part of a drug conspiracy ring. Investigators had built substantial evidence against Hirata and a number of other co-conspirators. Armed with this information, the authorities put together an affidavit and were able to secure a search warrant for a number of the residences believed to be a part of the conspiracy. The search warrant was signed and put into effect on June 14; however, it was not executed (when the search actually took place) until September 4.

Continue reading "Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply Where the Search Warrant is 84 Days Old - Penal Code Section 1538.5" »

The Issue of Possession of Marijuana for Personal Medical Needs, Versus, Possession of Marijuana for the Needs of Others

Defendant, Nathaniel Archer, was found guilty of cultivation of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358, a felony, and of simple possession of marijuana in violation of section 11357(a). On appeal, the parties were in agreement that the trial court erred when it included the numerical limits set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a) of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) in instructing the jury regarding the amount of medical marijuana that Archer could lawfully possess and/or cultivate because this section unlawfully amends the Compassionate Use Act (section 11362.5) (CUA) passed by voters in 1996 as Proposition 215. On appeal, the parties disagreed as to whether the error was harmless.

Defendant contented that because he possessed and/or cultivated an amount of marijuana in excess of the numerical limits set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a), his convictions were not based on a determination of his medical marijuana needs of and at least two of his "patients" who had designated him as their "primary caregiver" within the meaning of section 11362.5, subdivision (e).

The People argued that because Defendant admitted growing marijuana for at least four other people, in addition to himself, and because as a matter of law he does not qualify as a primary caregiver for the only two qualified patients he identified at trial. The Defendant did not present any evidence to show he was the primary caregiver for any of them, including the two that testified on his behalf at trial. As such, the People argued that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court agreed.

Continue reading "A Common Legal Issue in the Context of Medical Marijuana Litigation" »

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 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" »

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" »