Southern California Defense Blog

The Wallin & Klarich Attorneys can help you get formal felony probation instead of serving time in prison for a felony conviction. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have the experience it takes to mitigate the punishment, sentence, and consequences of your felony conviction. If you have no prior convictions, and the present felony offense was not a serious or violent felony, our attorneys can help you avoid a prison sentence by seeking a grant of formal probation.

Am I eligible for probation?

Formal probation is a privilege and not a right. We can investigate all facts and circumstances about your case to argue that you are a strong candidate for probation. Having the right attorney representing you makes a considerable difference in helping you avoid a prison sentence. The Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorneys have over 30 years of experience successfully helping our clients obtain formal probation instead of a prison sentence. We can help guide you through the legal process and answer any questions you may have.

The court will look at several criteria when determining whether to grant you probation, including the facts relating to the crime and the facts relating to you. (California Rules of Court rule 4.414). Facts relating to the crime include:

• The nature of the crime;

• If the victim was vulnerable;

• Whether you inflicted personal or emotional injury on the victim;

• Whether you were an active or passive participant in the crime; and

• Whether you took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the crime.

Facts relating to you include:

• Your prior criminal record;

• Your prior performance on probation or parole;

• Any negative consequences a felony conviction will have on your life;

• Whether you were remorseful for your actions; and

• Whether you will be a danger to others if you are not imprisoned.

In certain serious felonies, probation will not be available to you and the court must sentence you to a prison term. However, in the vast majority of cases, you will be eligible for probation and the court has the discretion to either grant probation or sentence you to a prison term. For more information about whether you are eligible for probation, contact a Wallin & Klarich attorney today.

What is formal probation?

Formal probation is supervised probation by the county probation department in the county where the crime occurred as defined in California Penal Code Section 1203. If you are on formal probation, you are required to provide your current residence, employer information, and contact information to the county probation department and your assigned probation officer. You are also required to update this information with the probation department and your probation officer if there are any changes.

Additionally, formal probation requires you to comply with the terms of your probation, including, but not limited to:

• Stay away from the victim;

• Attend and complete certain rehabilitative classes;

• Do not commit any criminal offenses or violate any probation terms and conditions;

• Pay restitution, court, and probation fees;

• Do not possess any contraband or weapons;

• Do not leave the state without permission from your probation officer;

• Report to your probation officer when requested; and

• Submit to a search or seizure upon the request of a police or probation officer.

Probation Violation Hearings

You are entitled to a hearing if you are charged with violating probation. At your Probation Violation Hearing, you have the right to be represented by an attorney. However, you are not entitled to a jury trial and the judge determines whether you are guilty of violating the terms of your probation.

In the event that the judge finds that you violated your probation, the judge may revoke your probation and sentence you to the maximum sentence for the underlying crime for which you were convicted. The judge can also modify your probation by imposing additional terms to your probation or reinstate your probation on the same terms and conditions of your original probation.

Call Wallin & Klarich today

If you have been convicted of a felony, you need to contact a Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorney immediately to learn how we can help you stay out of prison. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been helping clients successfully obtain formal probation to avoid lengthy prison sentences for over 30 years. We have offices in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Victorville, Ventura, West Covina, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks.

Call Wallin & Klarich at (888) 280-6839 today. We will fight for your freedom.

In a recent case, federal prosecutors had deported a critical witness for the defense in a pending felony prosecution.

There was no question that the defense witness was an undocumented alien and could legally be deported. However, the witness had been living in the United States for a substantial period of time. This key witness was only deported after it became known to the prosecution that she was illegal.

The question before the federal court of appeals was whether the prosecutors could legally deport a witness knowing that the defense in the criminal case needed this witness to testify.

The court of appeals said that the prosecutors could not do this. They ordered that the key witness be returned to the United States so she could testify on behalf of the defendant.

This decision will send a clear message to government prosecutors that engaging in “dirty tricks” is not the way to attempt to do justice in a criminal case. Prosecutors are held to a high standard of obeying the law and to not take steps to try to hinder the defense of a person facing a serious criminal charge.

At Wallin and Klarich we have been battling prosecutors conduct for over 30 years. We will fight for your rights and we will do all in our power to see to it that your defense is not compromised due to prosecutorial misconduct. Call us now at 888-280-6839 to know your rights. Visit us at www.wklaw.com

DA OFFICE FILES PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST TWO LAPD OFFICERS FOR LYING IN POLICE REPORTS AND SWORN TESTIMONY

It was reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal that prosecutors have filed felony perjury charges against two LAPD cops for filing a false police report. This criminal case stems from the two officers becoming involved in a DUI “checkpoint.” The two officers allegedly lied in their police report by claiming that a driver did not stop at a traffic stop – which was the reason they gave for pulling the driver over. Then, one of the officers testified under oath at a DMV hearing to similar facts. The DA’s office claims they have evidence to prove that the two officers lied in their report and that one officer lied under oath at the DMV hearing.

So if you wonder if police officers will lie under oath, the answer is yes. Cops are human. Cops get caught up in wanting to “win the case” and want to make sure that the accused person they arrest is convicted. Some officers unfortunately are willing to lie under oath and to lie in their police reports to achieve the goal they want.

This is a sad commentary on our current justice system. However, this highlights the reason why people who are arrested are presumed innocent in every criminal case. It is critical that if you or a loved one are arrested for any crime, you retain a law firm like Wallin and Klarich – who are willing to fight for you and to stand up to police officers so that the truth can come out in court.

Call the Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys of Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839. With over 30 years of experience defending the rights of many individuals facing all types of criminal matters, our firm will provide you with the legal representation you need through your legal issue. We will be there when you call.

On October 1, 2011 in response to a federal court order that the State of California reduce its horribly overcrowded prison population, the legislature changed the California felony sentencing law and made many lower level felonies in California punishable by time in county jail and not in state prison. What has been the impact of this important law change?

In an 8 month period, since the changes to California's felony sentencing law, the state prison population has dropped by about 24,000 inmates down to 136,187. This is good news. We now rank 2nd to Texas in total inmates in our state prisons. We should be happy to give up first place because the goal is to save millions of dollars by no longer housing low level offenders in state prison.

However, the very bad news is that county jail inmate populations in the state have swelled by over 12,000 inmates. The problem with this is that the county jails were already overcrowded before this new law was passed. Now the conditions are completely unlivable in most counties. In fact, it is reported that 31 out of our 58 counties are at their “cap” and cannot accept any more inmates. Thus, when a new inmate comes into custody, the county jail must release that inmate from doing his jail sentence, or release another inmate to make room for him. This is not how our criminal justice system was designed to run.

This problem is due to the fact that California is hurting for money. While the state promised to provide local counties with substantial additional dollars to house the increasing number of inmates, the local counties have not received any additional funds.

Where do we go from here? What else can we do to keep the most serious criminals behind bars while at the same time releasing those from custody for minimal, non-violent offenses?

We certainly need immediately help because at this pace we will likely see inmates in local county jails unable to cope with the overcrowding and that can only lead to very bad developments in the future.

We would appreciate your comments?

Wallin & Klarich's team of professional felony defense attorneys in Los Angeles counts with over 30 years of experience providing clients facing felony charges with superb legal representation throughout Southern California. If your loved one is currently facing felony charges in California, Call us today at 888-280-6839 for immediate assistance and answers to your questions. When you call us, we'll be there.

In a bizarre turn of events, two Orange County attorneys are being prosecuted for a felony charge of conspiracy after being accused of unlawfully planting drugs in a parent volunteer’s automobile with the intention to have her arrested and prosecuted for a drug offense. It is alleged that these two attorneys were unhappy with the manner in which the parent volunteer supervised their son in 2010. The “drugs” found in the vehicle included marijuana, vicodin and percocet.

If the two lawyers are found guilty and convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, they are both facing a maximum of three years in custody.

When the parent volunteer vehemently denied that she knew anything about the drugs, the Irvine Police Department conducted a lengthy investigation that resulted in the prosecution of the two lawyers. Both lawyers were arrested and posted $40,000 in bail. They will be arraigned in Orange County Superior Court on July 17, 2012.

If the allegations in this case are true, one has to wonder what could possibly make these lawyers go to such extremes to falsely have a parent volunteer arrested for felony charges. The prosecution believes that this case is made even more serious because “these people are in a position where they understand the consequences of their actions.”

At Wallin and Klarich we have helped people for 30 years facing all types of criminal charges, including crimes that involve giving false information to police officers. Normally this offense is filed as a misdemeanor. However, in this case, due to the conduct resulting in an innocent person being arrested, the prosecutors have filed felony charges against these two lawyers. We will keep you posted on developments on this case.

If you or a loved one has been accused of a felony charge in California, please contact Wallin & Klarich's Orange County felony defense attorneys at 1-888-749-0034 or fill out our intake form to receive immediate assistance and answers to all your questions regarding felony charges in California.

It was recently reported that authorities are looking for two groups of men that got into a fight which left one man with stab wounds to his body. Authorities reported that a verbal altercation broke out between the groups around 11:30 p.m. inside a T.G.I. Friday's restaurant. The argument precipitated into a violent exchange that spilled into the parking lot. During the brawl, one man revealed a handgun and another had a knife. The man stabbed was taken to a hospital and is in critical but stable condition. Police are still searching for the man who stabbed the victim, who will be charged with attempted murder.

Under California Penal Code Section 21a, an attempt to commit a crime consists of 2 requirements: a specific intent to commit the crime and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. In addition, under California Penal Code Section 187, murder is defined as the killing of a person with malice aforethought. First degree murder is defined as any murder perpetrated by willful or deliberate or by means of a destructive device or by premeditation. See California Penal Code Section 189. Second degree murder is any other kind of murder. On the other hand, if the killing was in self defense or by accident, then he or she may be charged with second degree murder or manslaughter (See Penal Code Section 192).

In addition, punishment for first degree murder is a felony punishable by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. Every person guilty of murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life.

If you or a loved one is facing attempted murder charges or any other serious homicide crime, contact our Southern California attorneys at Wallin and Klarich. Wallin & Klarich will help protect your rights and find the best defense strategy for your case. For over 30 years, our attorneys have been helping clients get accused of serious and violent crimes. Please call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It’s almost never the case in incidents involving involuntary manslaughter that the defendant had intended to kill the victim, but unfortunately a death does in fact occur under the circumstances – even in the absence of any murderous intent. Consequently, the defendant will still face involuntary manslaughter charges as long as the killing was the result of the defendant’s own wrongful conduct or recklessness.

Under California Penal Code Section 192(b), involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing that results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a lawful act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but also not felonious.

To illustrate involuntary manslaughter charges stemming from the failure to exercise reasonable care or skill while performing a lawful act, consider the allegations against Dr. Conrad Murray, who had been Michael Jackson’s personal physician. Murray is charged with involuntary manslaughter for causing the death of the beloved pop star by allegedly treating his insomnia with lethal doses of a powerful anesthetic called propofol.

The issue will revolve around whether administering such a large dose would demonstrate an extreme lack of reasonable care or skill (criminal negligence) on the part of Dr. Murray. Although there is nothing inherently illegal about a doctor administering drugs to a patient, it could be the basis for involuntary manslaughter if it was done in a manner that was drastically unreasonable.

The punishment for involuntary manslaughter include imprisonment for up to four years in state prison. It may also include fines of up $10,000.

Fortunately, there are viable defenses that can help reduce the penalties or dismiss the charge altogether. An experienced criminal defense attorney can formulate and assert these defenses on your behalf. Depending on the facts of your case, your attorney may argue the reasonableness of your actions given the circumstances or claim that the killing was a justifiable homicide (e.g., self-defense, defense of others, etc.).

If you would like learn more about involuntary manslaughter and the options that are available to you if find yourself charged of this crime, visit our website at www.wklaw.com and read our “Involuntary Manslaughter” section.

At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling involuntary manslaughter cases. They will meticulously analyze the facts of your case and zealously represent your interests to achieve the best possible results. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It was recently reported that a missing 11-year-old Chatsworth boy was found safe after being reported missing the night before. Cody Burton went missing at 6:40 on a Sunday night after taking out the trash. He did not return to his apartment complex and did not have contact with his mother the rest of the night. Burton’s mother called the police when her son did not return, fearing he had been kidnapped. The next day, it was learned that he had walked to a friend’s house in Woodland Hills and spent the night. The boy is believed to be safe and unharmed. There is no evidence that a kidnap took place.

Kidnapping in California is regulated by California Penal Code Section 207, which defines kidnapping as the use of force or fear to take a person and move him or her a substantial distance. The punishment for a kidnapping conviction in California is up to eight years of state prison, which can increase if there was injury or abuse to the victim, if the victim was a child, or if the kidnapping was done to facilitate another crime.

If you or a loved one has been accused of kidnapping, it is important that you talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of criminal matters. Our attorneys will work with you to present the best possible defense for your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It was recently reported that Roosevelt Dorn, a longtime fixture in the Los Angeles legal community and Mayor of Inglewood, plead guilty to a conflict of interest charge in connection with an Inglewood loan program. Just hours after entering his plea, he resigned from his mayoral position.

Dorn was charged with misusing a housing loan program designed to help municipal employees afford housing in the area. He allegedly helped create the program, approved it, and had a financial stake in it. Police claim that Dorn took $500,000 from the program and spent half of it paying the mortgage on his house and deposited the rest in his bank account. Reports claim he paid the sum back to the city after it became politically controversial.

Dorn has been an attorney in Inglewood since the 1970’s. In the 1980’s, he was the head criminal prosecutor in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office. He spent the last 18 years as a judge with the Los Angeles County Superior Court presiding over juvenile cases.

Continue reading "Former Mayor and Ex-Judge Pleads Guilty to Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Funds Charges, Receives Generous Plea Deal" »

According to the Orange County Register, five men have been accused with robbing a former mortgage lender at his Newport Coast mansion on December 8, 2009. One was arraigned on December 11, 2009. Two posted bail and were arraigned on January 26, 2010, and warrants have been issued for the other two suspects.

Each suspect has been charged with one felony count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two felony counts of kidnapping to commit robbery, five felony counts of first degree robbery in concert, and six felony counts of assault with a firearm.

According to prosecutors, the five men met up at a grocery store parking lot before the robbery. Then, three of the men went inside the house, tied up the houseguests, and pistol-whipped at least two of them; a third went to the hospital for his injuries.

Continue reading "Five Accused in Newport Beach Robbery - California Penal Code Section 211" »

It was recently reported that two San Bernardino officials have been charged with over a dozen felony counts, including bribery and misappropriation of public funds. Former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and former Assistant County Assessor Jim Erwin are accused of accepting $100,000 apiece from land development company Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit the company filed against the city for $102 million. The lawsuit was filed because the city allegedly failed to make payments for flood control improvements for a development project near Upland.

Postmus is charged with five felony counts, including conspiracy to commit a crime, conflict of interest, misappropriation of public funds, and two counts of accepting a bribe. Erwin is charged with nine felony counts including bribery, misappropriation of public funds, forgery, and two counts each of corrupt influencing and extortion to obtain an official act. Both are awaiting trial on other corruption charges.

Continue reading "Two Elected San Bernardino County Officials Charged with Bribery and Why You Need an Experienced Southern California Defense Attorney to Represent You - California Penal Code Section 641" »

California Penal Code Section 273a defines child endangerment as any person causing great bodily harm or death to a child. This crime includes inflicting physical abuse upon a child, but also punishes any person who allows for a child to physically or mentally suffer. In other words, a person may be convicted of child endangerment if they cause any physical or mental harm to a child.

The definition of child endangerment as found in Penal Code Section 273a is very broad. If the defendant is accused of child endangerment the prosecution will have to prove that the defendant willfully inflicted unjustifiable physical or mental pain upon the child. The pain inflicted must be unjustifiable.

If the defendant did not cause the actual pain, he or she may still be convicted of child endangerment. This situation occurs when the defendant may have been responsible for allowing the child to be put in the position where great bodily harm or death occurred to the child. The prosecution will have to show that the defendant was responsible for the child when the pain was caused, and the defendant was criminally negligent.

There are many defenses to child endangerment. An obvious one is that the person injured must be a child. This means that the alleged victim must be under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged crime.

Another defense is that the law permits an adult to impose reasonable discipline upon their child. A parent may discipline a child in a reasonable manner, such as spanking. However, whether or not the “reasonable discipline” defense will be successful depends in great part upon the specific facts of each case. It is essential that any person being charged with child endangerment talk to a criminal defense attorney when they first discover that they are being accused of this serious crime.

Continue reading "I am Accused of Child Endangerment - What Should I Do? - California Penal Code Section 273a" »

Most felonies could be charged as lesser offenses. In other words, the lesser offenses are a part of the felony because they include the same elements. Typically, the jury must be instructed on the lesser included offense.

For example, the crime of felony assault includes the lesser offense of simple assault. Simple assault requires that the prosecution prove the following elements:

• The defendant willfully attempted to inflict injury upon another, or the defendant willfully attempted to threaten to inflict injury upon another; and


• The defendant had an apparent present ability to carry out such injury or threat; and


• This injury or threat causes the victim to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

Felony assault requires that the prosecution prove the elements of simple assault plus the fact that the defendant used a deadly weapon. Thus, all the elements of simple assault are required to prove felony assault. The jury would be given instructions to convict the defendant of either felony or simple assault, rather than only be given instructions to convict the defendant of felony assault.

An instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted if

1. "the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, and


2. the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [the defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit [him/her] of the greater." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716 (1989); Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208 (1973)).

Continue reading "Lesser Included Offenses: How An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Could Save you From a Felony Conviction" »

James Tyrell Harris, a South Los Angeles anti-gang activist, was arrested for allegedly misappropriating $85,000 in city funds. While serving as chairman and treasurer of the Empowerment Congress Southwest Area Neighborhood Development Council, Harris is said to have made unauthorized withdrawals and purchases for travel expenses and hiring his daughter for administrative work.

Harris already has two prior felony convictions for robbery in Los Angeles during the 1980s. Although Harris could face up to 25 years to life in prison because of the two previous strikes, Los Angeles prosecutors believe this is unlikely because the nature of the crime was not violent. Harris is not the first neighborhood council member to be accused of misappropriating funds in Los Angeles; four others within the last two years have also been charged. These recent trends have alerted officials of the need for more supervision of Los Angeles neighborhood councils given city funds.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Neighborhood Councilman Facing Felony Charges for Misusing City Funds" »

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" »

In some situations, being convicted of assault with a deadly weapon may result in serious penalties. Most people are generally aware of the potential consequences associated with a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. A person convicted of assault with a deadly weapon may be unfortunate enough to get a lifetime suspension of driving privileges by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Under California law, the Department of Motor Vehicles must suspend for life the driving privilege of a person convicted of assault with a deadly weapon when a vehicle is used as the deadly weapon or instrument in that offense. The new law holds that a felony conviction will result in a lifetime revocation of the driving privileges of the person convicted.

Continue reading "A Person Who is Charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon May Be Surprised When their Driving Privilege is Suspended for Life" »

In California, there are 217 “problem-solving” courts. Many are Proposition 36 courts that treat non-violent but severely addicted drug offenders. Other courts are drug treatment courts for juvenile, parents in dependency court, and regular drug treatment court.

The idea behind these specialty courts was to “use the trauma of the moment to move individuals caught up into the system into treatment in hopes of breaking the addiction and transitioning them toward a less dangerous existence” reports California’s Daily Journal. However, such courts are not necessarily all they’re cracked out to be.

Reports indicate that money poured into these specialty courts could be used to prevent drug use and treat substance abusers before a crime is committed. Moreover, Prosecutors often offer “deals” to get drug abusers into these programs by offering the program in exchange for a guilty plea to a felony charge. However, upon completion of the program the felony often remains on the defendant’s record.

Continue reading "Are Treatment or Specialty Courts the Answer?" »

A 45-year-old Orange County man was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment for possessing homemade explosive devices with the intent to kill his former wife, her divorce attorney, the family court judge and Huntington Beach Police Department officers. The Costa Mesa resident was ultimately charged with a laundry list of offenses, 15 felony counts in all, including stalking, possession of a destructive device with intent to injure, possession of a homemade deadly weapon and possession of a loaded firearm in public.

The convicted man had been married to his wife for 14 years before they were divorced in 2007. The estranged wife then gained sole custody of the couple’s two children, ages 11 and 13, and eventually kicked him out of their home. In recent months it was reported that the man’s spousal and child support payments had substantially increased.

In April 2008, the man was placed on probation after pleading guilty to four misdemeanor violations of breaking a domestic violence restraining order. Several months later, authorities accused him of making threats against his wife and her divorce lawyer. Authorities later pulled the suspect’s car over in a traffic stop on the Garden Grove Freeway and recovered handcuffs, pepper spray, throwing knives and a stolen 9-millimeter firearm with its serial numbers removed.

Continue reading "O.C. Man Sentenced to 17 Years for Making Threats to Wife and Family Law Judge" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney is the Only Place to Turn to Avoid a Lengthy Prison Stay

Unfortunately for many people, criminal charges tend to follow after a night of drinking. Such was the case for a 24 year old man arrested on August 3, 2009. After a long night of drinking, the defendant was arrested for public intoxication; a misdemeanor charge that in California, under California Penal Code Section 647, could result in 6 months in jail, as well as fines. The arresting officer claimed that the he observed the man stumbling in the street around 3:00am. Sadly, the man’s troubles did not end there.

According to police, the man was placed in the back of the police vehicle while he was transported to the county jail. Once the police vehicle reached the jail, the man pulled his legs between his hand-cuffed wrists to get his arms in front of him. The man then broke the police vehicle’s window and climbed through. Police quickly stopped the man before he got too far. He was then charged with felony for trying to escape police custody. The new felony charge for attempting to escape carries a 20 year maximum sentence.

Continue reading "From Misdemeanor Drunk in Public to Felony Escape of Police Custody" »

Insight from a Criminal Defense Lawyer

An officer can generally arrest without a warrant for a felony in California not committed in the officer's presence. However, there must also be probable cause to believe that the felony was committed and that the suspect committed it, and the arrest must be in a public place. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003).

A ‘warrantless” arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution if the arrest is not supported by probable cause.

Continue reading "A Felony Arrest Will Be Deemed Unconstitutional in Violation of the Fourth Amendment if the Arrest is Not Supported by Probable Cause" »