Southern California Defense Blog

To provide a 21st Century update to an 1872 law that criminalized impersonating another, Penal Code 528.5 was enacted after the legislature and the governor passed the bill in September 2010. The law will go into effect starting January 2011.

The new law was enacted to punish the act of intentionally impersonating someone else online for the purpose of fraud, intimidation, or to exact some sort of harm upon another. A person would be in violation of this new statute by using the name or personal information of another to open an email account or to create a profile on a social network like Facebook. Among the primary goals of the new law is to deter people from falsely creating accounts to post or send inflammatory photos or comments that would cause harm or embarrassment to the individual impersonated.

Impersonating another individual online is punishable as a misdemeanor offense that may bring with it a sentence of up to 1 year in county jail and a maximum fine of $1,000. The new law also permits victims to pursue civil claims against the impersonator for monetary relief.

To find more helpful information on the subject of online impersonations, click "Internet Crimes" under "Practice Areas" at www.wklaw.com.

If you find yourself being charged of this new crime, it is essential that you seek the legal assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney who is current on the latest changes in the law. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been keeping up with changes in the law for over 30 years and can help you raise the best possible defense in your case. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

With the versatility and common usage of computers, California has enacted laws to punish crimes associated with the Internet and computers. Internet crime, or cybercrime, is very broad and can include offenses ranging from criminal threats, to child molestation, to theft or fraud. Prosecutors and investigators at both the state and federal level work in conjunction in internet crime investigations to prosecute the full gamut of computer crimes. Some common crimes include:

• Child Pornography – Any act of knowingly producing, possessing, or distributing images depicting minors under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activities is illegal in California. See California Penal Code Section 311.1.

• Crimes Against a Child – It is illegal in California for an adult to contact or attempt to contact a minor under the age of 18 on the internet for the purposes of luring them from their home without parental consent to commit lewd acts with the minor for sexual gratification.

• Identity Theft/ Cyber Fraud – Fraudulently obtaining personal information of another for illegal purposes is prosecuted in California as a theft crime. See California Penal Code Section 530.5.

1. Spoofing: This is a fraudulent activity in which websites or emails attempt to gain an illegitimate advantage by passing themselves off as coming from a legitimate company or website.
2. Phishing: This is the process of attempting to acquire personal information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card information through fraudulent, misleading methods such as spoofing.
3. Credit Card/Bank Account Fraud: This type of fraud occurs when a person uses another person’s credit card or bank account information to make unauthorized purchases online.
4. Computer Hacking: This crime occurs when a person gains access to computer programs or secured websites through unlawful tactics. See California Penal Code Section 502.

• Cyber Stalking – Stalking another person through the computer is punishable in California as stalking. See California Penal Code Section 646.9. Sending threatening, unwanted emails to the victim to the point where they begin to fear for their safety will qualify as cyber stalking. This crime also applies to posts or messages on social website profiles like Facebook or Twitter.

• Illegal Downloading – This crime occurs in situations where copyrighted materials (e.g., movies, music, etc.) are shared or illegally downloaded through file-sharing software without authorization.

Child Pornography
Under California Penal Code Section 311.1, it is a crime in California to produce, distribute, or even possess materials depicting minors engaged in sexual activity.

To be convicted under this statute, the prosecution must show that the defendant produced, possessed, or distributed pornographic materials and that the defendant knew or should have known that the persons depicted were minors under the age of 18.

Although typically charged as a felony, child pornography can also be charged as a misdemeanor offense. Punishment can range from up to 1 year in county jail, to a 3 year sentence in state prison.

Crimes Against a Child
Under California Penal Code Section 288 a crime is committed when an adult touches the body of a child for sexual gratification. The nature of the touching often involves inappropriate touching or fondling of the child’s sexual organs, or other acts of molestation. This crime is often referred to as “lewd acts on a minor under 14” or “acts of lewd or lascivious conduct.”

To convict a defendant of this crime, the prosecution must prove that the defendant willfully touched the body of a child (even if it is over their clothes) with the intent of arousing or gratifying their lust, passion, or sexual desires.

This crime is punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor conviction may bring with it a sentence of up to 1 year in county jail and/or a maximum fine of $1,000. A felony conviction, however, may subject you to 8 years in state prison and/or a fine of $10,000.

Identity Theft/Fraud
Under California Penal Code Section 530.5, it is a punishable crime to use other people’s personal information for unlawful purposes.

To be convicted of this crime, the prosecution must prove that the defendant willfully obtained someone else’s personal identifying information; that the defendant willfully used that information for an unlawful purpose; and that the defendant used that information without consent. An unlawful purpose includes attempts to obtain credit, goods, or services while using the identity of another.

If charged as a misdemeanor, a conviction may bring with it a jail sentence of up to 1 year in county jail and/or a maximum fine of $1,000. A felony conviction may bring with it a sentence of up to 3 years in state prison and/or a fine of $10,000. In addition to criminal penalties, you may also be subject to civil liabilities; the California legislature recently passed phishing crime law that allows victims to recover $5,000 to $500,000 for each violation.

Cyber Stalking
Under California Penal Code section 616.9, any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety is guilty of the crime of stalking – even if it was committed solely with the use of a computer.

To be convicted the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed any of the above-mentioned acts with the intent to cause the victim to fear for his/her own safety. Harassment is defined as an intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously annoys, alarms, torments, or terrorizes without any legitimate purpose to justify it.

Illegal Downloading
It is a federal crime, rather than a state crime, for any person to willfully violate a copyright. The penalties include a prison sentence that can range from 5 to 10 years as well as heavy fines, depending on the retail value of the copyrighted works (18 U.S.C.S. §2319).

For more information, go to www.wklaw.com and read our Internet Crimes section. You will find invaluable information on the charges that you or a loved one may be facing, as well as the possible defenses.

The consequences of being convicted of an internet crime involves lengthy jail sentence. With so much at stake it is essential that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney before taking any action on your case. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience defending the rights of our clients. Call us at (888) 749-0034 to learn more about your legal rights. We will be there when you call.

Tips from a Criminal Defense Attorney

It’s a question that you may ask yourself after hearing about men being arrested for having sexual relationships with underage girls that they met online.

In one case, a man in his 50s portrayed himself as being in his early 20s, met a 14 year old girl online and began having an online relationship with her. The girl would perform live sex acts on video for him and he later had sex with the girl. In another case, a man in his 40s met a 16 year old girl online and began an online relationship with her, and eventually set up a meeting to have sex with her. However, when he showed up for the meeting, he was greeted by an undercover cop and later learned that the undercover cop had posed as the 16 year old girl.

With networking websites such as Myspace, Facebook, Craigslist, and the latest Twitter, cases such as the two mentioned above, are becoming more and more common.

The best advice is of course to be sure you know exactly who you’re speaking to online. However, if you find yourself in a situation such as the two mentioned above, or any other situation that involves an underage girl or boy, you can be charged with a sex crime and if convicted, be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life. And your photo will be posted on the Megan’s Law website which will allow anyone looking on that website to know your exact whereabouts and to also know the exact sex crimes you were convicted of.

Continue reading "Do I Really Know Who I am Talking to Online? " »

Recently a well known 18 year old actor decided to "get back" at his 16 year old girlfriend by sending naked photos via text message of the minor to several people, an act known as “Sexting”. The 16 year old became upset and told her parents. Her parents told local police.

The 18 year old will likely regret this decision for the remainder of his life. He was arrested by the police and prosecuted for sending child pornography through the internet. He later entered a guilty plea to this charge. The result is he will be required to register as a sex offender as well as face other serious consequences.

It is critical that before you use the internet to send any photographs you realize that if the photographs are of a minor and they are "lewd in nature" you can be facing serious criminal sanctions.

If you are facing the possibility of being arrested or prosecuted for an internet crime in California, you should contact Wallin and Klarich. We have been helping persons facing California internet sex offenses for many years. We will be there when you call. Contact us at wklaw.com or contact us at 888.280.6839.

“Personal Possession” of Child Pornography Can Be Supported By Many Different Forms of Circumstantial Evidence

In Tecklenburg v. Superior Court, child pornography was found in the defendant’s home on the family computer. The defendant argued that the child pornography was not his and that it may have been the result of accidental internet use or involuntary computer pop-ups.

The prosecution set forth evidence that the size and format of the child pornography images did not match that of a pop-up, some images were found multiple times, and various word searches included terms commonly connected with child pornography. In addition, similar evidence was found on the defendant’s work computer.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show the defendant personally possessed the child pornography on the family computer.

Get the competent representation you will need for your defense in court. Wallin & Klarich has had over 30 years of experience as child pornography defense attorneys. Contact the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich to represent you in this difficult and stressful time in your life. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Simultaneous Possession of Multiple Child Pornography Materials in Multiple Computers at the Same Location is Chargeable, But As One Violation of State Law

In People v. Manfredi, the defendant was found with multiple images of child pornography in his home on multiple computers, hard drives, discs and tapes. As a result, the prosecutor filed several counts of possession of child pornography under Penal Code section 311.11.

The defendant argued that the charging of multiple counts was improper and that he should have only been charged with one count. On the other hand, the prosecutor argued that multiple counts were proper because the child pornography was found in different locations of the house.

The trial court granted the defendant’s demurrer and found that the statute was ambiguous. The court ruled that simultaneous possession of multiple child pornography materials in multiple computers at the same location is chargeable but as one offense.

Get the competent representation you will need for your defense in court. Wallin & Klarich has had over 30 years of experience as child pornography defense attorneys. Contact the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich to represent you in this difficult and stressful time in your life. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Be careful who you chat with on the Internet

With the advent of the computer world, there is more and more legislation regarding proper and improper use of the internet. Recent California laws make it a crime to e-mail or electronically communicate with a child under 18. (288.2, 288.3, and 288.4 of the California Penal Code.) In certain situations, even mistake of age could still get you in trouble with the law if you discuss sexual related matters on line to a minor. Even if the person you are talking with electronically is a cop and represents him or herself as a minor, it is illegal to communicate anything of a sexual nature. Police throughout California have received grants from the federal government to conduct these sting operations where police pose as minors and enter chat rooms with the intent to getting an unsuspecting adult to begin to “chat” about sexual matters, catching them in the act of an Internet sex crime. Somewhere in the communication, the “police victim” will represent there age as under 18 years old. If you ever read any communication with a person represents themselves as under 18 years old, discontinue the communication immediately. Many times, these officers will ask you to meet them at a location. When you arrive, you are arrested for an attempted sex crime with a minor. The police also may send you a photo of a person who appears to be youthful in age asking to meet.

Wallin & Klarich have been successfully defending clients accused of such crimes since the enactment of the law. Dateline TV has aired many specials on television involving persons arrested for these internet crimes. If you or a loved one is being charged with improper communication with a minor, or an attempted sex crime (if you made some attempt to meet), call the California sex crime defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich anytime at 888-749-0034 and visit us at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

Sexual Internet Crimes

The internet gives us the freedom to look at anything we want. But what happens when looking is not enough? People will often look at adult content on the internet and some of it is not adult at all. This brings us to the act of looking at underage photos and/or videos on the internet. But what happens when those people who look at underage photos and/or videos, or “child porn”, are no longer happy with simply viewing the photos or videos? They will often go into chat rooms where they look for underage girls to chat with and eventually meet with.

The FBI is constantly setting up sting operations targeting men who use the Internet to lure underage girls for sex. It’s important to always know who you’re chatting with online and how old they are. It is a felony offense in California to travel to meet with a minor for lewd or lascivious behavior.

Please keep in mind that a California sex crime defense attorney from a law firm with over 30 years of experience in these types of cases can greatly benefit a person charged with these crimes. Wallin & Klarich is that law firm. Call us today and we can be the difference you need to win your case. Call us at 888-749-0034 and visit us at www.wklaw.com

Be careful on the Internet

If you find yourself in a chat room or talking to someone online, be careful of the age of that other person. California makes it a crime to discuss sexual matters online to someone who is under 18 years old, or somoene who you “think” is under 18 years old. Police throughout California have received grants from the federal government seeking to crack down on California child molestation. What they do is they go online and represent themselves as 13 years old (or any age that is under 18 years old). They trick you into talking about sexual matters and once you do, they can trace your IP address and you can soon get police at your door. Planning to actually meet these “imagined” victims is yet another more serious offense. Any sexual conversation with persons under 18 is illegal online or in person. Of course, in order for them to prove you knew how old they were, they have to tell you their age, but if they say any age that is under 18, don’t walk- run away and log off right away. You can see read statutes in the California Penal Code 288.4.

The Los Angeles sex crime defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been assisting people for as long as there has been Internet with crimes such as discussed above. We know what it takes to win your case. Please call us if you or a loved one has been arrested and charged with internet sex crimes. The stakes are just too high not to. Visit us at www.wklaw.com and give us a call at 888-749-0034.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Continue reading ""SOCK-PUPPETING" MAY LEAD TO CRIMINAL CHARGES" »

According to a recent report on Foxnews.com, this point was made clear recently to a group of teenage girls in New York, who apparently videotaped themselves confronting a younger girl, and then slapping and kicking the girl in the head and body. The girls then apparently posted the video footage of the beating on YouTube. After police discovered the video, the girls were all arrested and charged with attempted assault. It is amazing how many cases we see here at Wallin & Klarich were people would not have been prosecuted for committing crimes had they not either bragged about them on a blog or MySpace page, or posted videotape of themselves committing the crime on an Internet site such as YouTube. Of course, it is far better to not commit a crime in the first place, however, if you have done something that could expose you to arrest, posting evidence of your activities on the Internet is probably one of the worst things you can do.

A recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently addressed this issue. Warshack v. United States (6th Cir. Dkt. 06-4092, 6/18/2007).

In this case, the US government was investigating Mr. Warshack for suspected mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and other federal crimes and they wanted to obtain Mr. Warshack’s stored e-mails from his internet service provider.

Typically, before government investigators can obtain personal information from a person, they are required, by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, to obtain a search warrant from a judge. A judge is only permitted to issue a search warrant when the government can demonstrate “probable cause” to believe that what the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime. In 1986, however, Congress passed the “Stored Communications Act” (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712) (SCA). The SCA outlines how the government may go about obtaining “electronic communications” (such as e-mails) in a “remote storage service” (such as an internet service provider (ISP) e-mail account). The SCA gives the government the option of either obtaining a search warrant, or obtaining a court order for disclosure of the communications. The government does not have to demonstrate “probable cause” to obtain a court order (they can obtain a court order based on less than “probable cause”), but they must give the holder of the account notice of their intent to obtain the order and an opportunity to appear in court and oppose the disclosure of the records to the government. Like much else in the law, there is an exception to the rule requiring advance notice to the account holder. This exception allows the government to delay giving notice to the account holder where the government shows that, if notice is given, the account holder might destroy evidence, or physically harm or kill another person or flee or otherwise jeopardize the government’s investigation of the case. The SCA allows the government to delay giving notice for 90 days, with the ability to seek extensions if required.

Continue reading "HOW EASY SHOULD IT BE FOR YOUR UNCLE (YOUR UNCLE SAM THAT IS) TO SNOOP THROUGH YOUR E-MAIL ACCOUNT?" »

The rapid increase in the use of the Internet by people of all walks of life in the past decade has led to a steady increase in Internet crimes. Law enforcement agencies take Internet related crimes very seriously and go to great lengths to lure potential offenders.

Internet service providers are willing to work with law enforcement to make sure their on-line users do not facilitate crimes such as child exploitation and pornography, adult pornography, computer hacking and forms of child molesting or annoying minors. As such there are many “sting” operations within law enforcement agencies that attempt to lure curious on-line customers into chat rooms, to promote sending and downloading picture files and of course seek out potentially interested on-line users to meet persons they have spoken to over the web and carry out illegal activity.

The first crime law enforcement attempts to solicit is the passing of Obscene Material, which is found in C.P.C. § 311. This statute applies to all possessing and publishing for sale or distribution of sexual conduct by a minor. This statute was updated in 1999 to include storing images on hardware, software or any storage medium including CD-ROMS and any printing of a computer generated image.

Another popular law for law enforcement is the Sexual Exploitation of Minors found under C.P.C. § 311.3. This law is slightly different in that the defendant has to duplicate, develop, print or exchange an image or photo showing a minor engaging in an act of sexual conduct. This charge is aimed at the user rather than the distributor.

Continue reading "What Kinds of Crimes Can Be Committed On The INTERNET?" »

The popularity of the internet has grown and continues to grow among young people today as the internet can be used for a number of different resources ranging from talking with friends online to researching papers for school. A recent study found that 2 out of 3 preschoolers have already used a computer in their lives and have been on the internet. Although the internet may open new doors to many children, it may also expose them to unwanted sexual material and solicitation. Nearly 1 in 7 children ranging in age from 10-17 have received a sexual solicitation while online, and an even higher number have received unwanted sexual material while on the internet. It is important to know your rights and what is legal and illegal while on the internet.

It is against the law for any adult to send sexually explicit or obscene material to a minor while on the internet. It is also against the law for an adult to try and seduce a minor or arrange a meeting while online. Even if the adult does not show up to the arranged meeting, they can still be convicted of a misdemeanor and serve up to a year in prison. If the meeting does take place, an adult can serve up to four years in jail for online enticement.

The best way to prevent your children from being exposed to the dangers online is to monitor their activity while on the internet and make sure that they are visiting only safe, protected websites that you know about and have visited.

If you have any questions about laws regarding the internet or think we might be able to help you, please call Wallin & Klarich at 888-280-6839.