The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable search and seizure. A search or seizure is presumed unreasonable unless it is done pursuant to a warrant authorized by a magistrate. However, in California, law enforcement officers may seize a person's cellphone if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of crime. At that point, because they are merely seizing, as opposed to searching, such seizure will oftentimes be deemed Constitutional. However, should the police wish to search the phone, ie., open it up and peruse its contents, such search will require a search warrant. Courts have indicated that because the seizure is less intrusive than a search, the seizure of the cellphone is acceptable assuming the officer does indeed have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of crime. Thus, even if the officer waits for a period of time to obtain a search warrant, the seizure will not later affect the officer's ability to search. The longer the officer waits to obtain the warrant to search, the greater the likelihood the seizure and subsequent search are tainted. If your cellphone has been seized by the police, contact our office today to discuss your plan of attack.

Oftentimes we are asked whether a privately-retained lawyer is necessary in a DUI case. Predictably, our answer is "It depends." For one, budgetary restrictions may make it difficult for a person accused of DUI to retain a private lawyer. With respect to the criminal case that arises out of a DUI arrest, the defendant is entitled to the appointment of a lawyer on their behalf if they cannot afford one. The appointed lawyer will represent the defendant throughout the case from arraignment through trial. The problem for many people in that scenario, however, is that a DUI case is broken down into two portions: the administrative portion and the criminal portion. The Court-appointed attorney will not assist the DUI recipient with the administrative portion of the case and will be limited to the criminal case. For many, having a lawyer represent the accused for the administrative hearing with the DMV is the greatest advantage to retaining private counsel. Because these matters are complex, you need someone who speaks the language necessary to defend you. Losing the APS hearing with the DMV comes with serious consequences including suspension of the person's drivers license. If you are unsure whether you need a private attorney for your DUI case, contact our office at  213-668-7569  to discuss whether our office is right for your situation.

When a person is arrested, the arresting officer must identify the law violation justifying the arrest. Once the officer has identified the law violation, bail is usually set according to the county's Bail Schedule. The Bail Schedule lists the provisions of the Penal Code and identifies a set bail for the offense. By cross-referencing the bail schedule, one can estimate what the arrestee's bail will be. If the arrestee cannot make bail according to the bail schedule, in California, bail is subject to judicial review at or near the time in which the arrestee is arraigned for the offenses. Thus, even if the bail schedule provides some guidance, the judge reviewing bail is not beholden to that amount; he or she can set whatever bail they feel appropriate. When faced with a bail decision, the judge will consider several factors, such as: -the defendant's prior criminal history; -the seriousness of the charges alleged; and -whether the defendant has any prior failures to appear for prior court cases. Arguments must be made by a skilled a skilled defense attorney highlighting the good facts for the defendant notwithstanding the criminal charges. If you or someone you know is in custody, contact our office at  213-668-7569  to schedule a bail hearing.

California Penal Code section 245(a)(2), commonly known as "Assault with a Firearm", is a felony that is punishable by two, three, or four years in state prison. The statute defines a firearm as a: -pistol; -rifle; -shotgun; -semiautomatic firearm; -machine gun; -.50 B

Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 provides that if a minor is 16 years or older during the commission of an offense listed in subsection (b) of section 707, the district attorney or other prosecutor may make a motion to have the juvenile transferred to an adult court for criminal prosecution. The offenses listed in subsection (b) of section 707 are of the most serious crimes in the Penal Code. Thus, should the prosecutor succeed in having the minor transferred to adult court, the consequences are not to be taken lightly. Upon the motion of the prosecutor to transfer the minor out of the juvenile delinquency court and into the criminal court, the probation department of the County is to prepare a report detailing the following: 1. The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor; 2. Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction; 3. The minor's previous delinquent history; 4. Success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and 5. The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor. Irrespective of whether the probation department's report is favorable or unfavorable to the minor, it is absolutely imperative that a trained juvenile defense attorney examine the case to prepare a defense and opposition to the motion for transfer. If you have a child facing a transfer hearing and motion, contact our office at  213-668-7569  to discuss your child's future.

Beginning January 1, 2025, veterans charged with felonies will be eligible for what is known as military diversion. Previously, a servicemember would only qualify for such relief if charged with misdemeanors. The servicemember must suffer from mental health issues, post-traumatic stress disorder, sexual trauma, or substance abuse. The servicemember's condition must have also been a "significant factor" in the commission of the charged felony. However, there is a presumption that the condition that a nexus exists between the commission of the felony and the servicemember's condition. Unless the prosecutor can show by clear and convincing evidence that there is no connection, the judge must presume the nexus exists. Certain serious felonies are excluded from military diversion, including, but not limited to: murder; any offense requiring sex offender registration per PC 290; rape; and offenses involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction. This new expansion of military diversion will grant veterans and members of the military to have their cases dismissed and sealed at the conclusion of their term of diversion. If you are a current or former member of the military, it is imperative you contact our office at  213-668-7569  to see if you qualify.

On November 16, 2024, New York's Clean Slate Act was enacted, permitting individuals with misdemeanor and/or felony convictions to have those convictions sealed. Most misdemeanor and felony convictions are eligible for sealing after the statutorily-proscribed times lapse. Excluded from eligibility, however, are convictions for Class A felonies that are not drug-related, sex crimes, and murder. To qualify, an individual seeking sealing must not be on probation, parole, or post-release supervision. Further, the individual may not have any pending misdemeanor or felony cases. Clean Slate misdemeanor conviction sealing must occur three years from the date of sentencing or release from incarceration, whichever is later. For felony convictions, sealing may occur eight years from the date of sentencing or release from incarceration, whichever is later. The Clean Slate Act is a welcome form of postconviction relief for those who have previously suffered criminal convictions in New York State and now seek to move on with their lives for employment and housing purposes. If you have previously been convicted of a crime in New York, contact our office at  646-718-3730  to discuss having your matter sealed.

If charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in California, it is imperative that a defendant pursue and consider resolving the case prior to trial with a "wet reckless" plea. A wet reckless plea will require a Defendant changing his or her plea from Not Guilty to either Guilty or No Contest to Vehicle Code section 23103.5. This section of the Vehicle Code is an offshoot of the Reckless Driving Statute and includes the addition that the defendant consumed alcohol. There a several benefits to a wet reckless plea, including, but not limited to: a reduced probationary period; a shorter DUI class; no drivers license suspension; and reduced fines. Not every case is deemed appropriate for a wet reckless plea in the eyes of the prosecutor. The main factor influencing a prosecutor's decision to offer and resolve the case for a wet reckless plea is usually the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of driving. If you need help with your DUI case, contact our office at  213-668-7569  to get started on your wet reckless plea.

California's Implied Consent Law states that any person driving in California is deemed to have implicitly consented to submitting to a chemical test (usually blood or breath) after being arrested for driving under the influence. The driver can refuse, but any such refusal will be accompanied by a one-year suspension of the driver's license for first-time DUI. The one-year suspension is an administrative penalty that exists separate and apart from any criminal case that may also be initiated against the driver. To preserve their license to drive, an administrative per se hearing must be requested within ten days of the incident. Failure to request that hearing results in the suspension of their drivers license. One of the key issues that will need to be resolved at the APS refusal hearing is whether the arresting officer appropriately advised the driver of the requirement to submit to the chemical test. If the officer did not tell the driver each and every consequence of failing to submit to chemical testing, many times it is successfully argued that the admonition was not proper, thus resulting in a "set aside" of the driver's license suspension. Whether or not the proper admonition was given is a complex question of law and fact and requires heavy research and analysis by a trained attorney. If you are dealing with a refusal issue for an upcoming APS hearing, contact our office today.