Southern California Defense Blog

A judge issued a warrant for the arrest of actress Lindsay Lohan after she failed to show up at a mandatory court hearing regarding her probation. Lohan was in Paris, France for the Cannes Film Festival. Her attorney told the judge at the hearing that Lohan had her passport stolen and still tried to board a flight back to Los Angeles, albeit unsuccessfully. Lohan has since retained a temporary passport and will fly back to Los Angeles by the end of the week. Once she learned of the warrant, Lindsay paid $10,000 to secure bail and the judge recalled the warrant. Lohan will not be arrested when she returns to Los Angeles.

Lohan’s hearing stemmed from at 2007 no contest plea to two counts each of driving under the influence and being under the influence of cocaine, along with a reckless driving charge. Under her plea deal, she was placed on 36 months probation, required to serve a 24-hour jail sentence, complete an 18-month alcohol education program, and perform 10 days of community service. In October 2009, her probation was extended for a year after she missed her mandatory alcohol education classes while she filmed a movie in Texas. She was also told that she must notify the court and get permission before leaving the jurisdiction again.

A good DUI attorney would carefully watch over a client’s progress through court hearings, rehabilitation, and even some personal matters. In Lohan’s case, there was definitely a lack of oversight in how the actress and her lawyer handled the terms of her probation. Any competent advisor would not condone the actress flying to Paris (where she was seen allegedly partying on a yacht) mere days before a court hearing. The actress’s best interests were not being accounted for.

If you or a loved one is facing drunk driving charges, you need to speak with an experienced DUI attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of DUI cases. Our attorneys are highly knowledgeable and will keep you fully informed of your case. We will fight to get you the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839. We will be there when you call.

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) implemented a policy seeking to prevent people from using government benefits if they are fleeing from arrest. However, rather than trying to seek out individuals who were actually fleeing from prosecution, SSA used a computer matching system that matched names in warrant databases to those at SSA. Unfortunately, many of these suspensions involved false or unproven allegations, minor infractions or long-dormant arrest warrants. Despite the fact that regulations provide for an appeal process, individuals were inaccurately informed that they could not appeal.

Under the new law, the Social Security Administration has stopped suspending or denying benefits due to the mere existence of a warrant. Now, it can suspend or deny benefits based on outstanding felony arrest warrants only for the crimes of (1) flight to avoid prosecution or confinement, (2) escape from custody, or (3) flight-escape.

However, the law does not apply to persons whose benefits were denied or stopped because of an arrest warrant due to a parole or probation violation.

In addition, if your Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Special Veterans Benefits (SVB) were suspended due to a felony arrest warrant, the new law may offer you financial compensation. The Social Security Administration agreed to repay more than $500 million in benefits that were unlawfully withheld from 80,000 people whose benefits have been suspended or denied since January 1, 2007.
http://www.wklaw.comhttp://www.wklaw.com

Continue reading "Denial of Social Security Benefits Due to Arrest Warrant" »

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" »

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

The emergency exception contains three elements, as follows:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US Supreme Court has announced recently that it will hear the case of a man who was arrested in his home by officers who did not have a warrant. In the case, the man, Afton Callahan, of Utah, was being investigated by police for allegedly selling meth-amphetamine out of his home. The police sent an undercover informant into Callahan’s home to purchase illegal drugs. When the informant, who was wearing a wire, purchased the drugs, he signaled police, who, without the benefit of a warrant, entered Callahan’s home and arrested him. Criminal charges were subsequently dropped against Callahan when the criminal court ruled that the conduct by the officers violated Mr. Callahan’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

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

Wallin & Klarich gets calls from across the country on arrest warrants. One situation that comes up is Social Security checks a person for warrants. They may find a warrant that is decades old. They will threaten to cut off Social Security because of the warrant. Naturally that’s a high problem if you are outside San Diego. An attorney may be able to get the warrant recalled and the case handled without you ever appearing. Social Security is satisfied if the warrant is recalled. It’s simply cost effective to hire the lawyer and start the ball rolling. That’s one of the things we do, and do right, at Wallin & Klarich.

Call Wallin & Klarich and we can answer any legal questions you may have. You can also check out our website at www.wklaw.com.

Think you have an arrest warrant in San Diego County? It’s easy to find out. You can search by name on the San Diego County Sheriff’s web site. You have a warrant for your arrest? If you do, you need a lawyer. Recently persons with warrants have been arrested and thrown in jail when they came to court on their own. They have gone to the court clerk and asked to see the judge. The clerk sees the warrant and calls the sheriff. You’re arrested at the court!

In San Diego you need a competent lawyer to handle the matter. The lawyer goes to court for you. If the warrant is for a misdemeanor, you may never have to appear! If you have a felony warrant in San Diego County, the lawyer will get the case before a judge. You don’t get arrested at the clerk’s window!

Do you need a warrant recalled? Then you need a competent and aggressive lawyer from Wallin & Klarich. Give us a call at 888.280.6839.