Proposition 64, otherwise known as the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act,” changed the legal landscape for marijuana-related activity in California. “The Act,” which became law on November 8, 2016, is required reading for those practicing in adult and juvenile courts. Most criminal provisions for possession, transportation, and cultivation of marijuana “Proposition 64: Bountiful Harvest of Relief to Many Convicted of Marijuana Offenses”
A recent article published by the news website BuzzFeed prompted my curiosity as to whether the government is using cell tower spoofing devices attached to aircraft in the skies over San Diego. A derivative article in the Union Tribune failed to sate my curiosity. On Linkedin, I posted an in “Government Planes Harvesting Cell Phone Communications over San Diego?”
This article is published on my Linkedin profile relating to “misinformation” promulgated under Penal Code section 1000.4 that indicates that “successful completion of deferred entry of judgment shall not be used in any way that could result in a denial of employment, benefit, license, or certificate.” We know that non-citizen defendants “Collateral Consequence Relief from Drug Diversion for Licensed Professionals”
The case was dismissed for the unlawful detention of my client, the driver. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the prosecutor failed to establish a constitutionally sufficient basis to uphold the stop based upon the radio report and simple math disproved the officer’s claim of speeding.
As of January 1, 2016, California law provides that the deferred entry of judgment statute (Penal Code section 1000, et.seq.) misinformed defendants, including all non-citizens, about the consequences of the guilty plea. Consequently, these convictions are deemed legally “invalid.” This change will benefit non-citizens because federal immigration law does not recognize “New Law Allows Drug Convictions to be Invalidated for Some Defendants”
This matter involves an arrest for alleged sexual violence alleging sexual assault, forced oral copulation, and false imprisonment. An intensive investigation by the defense lead to no criminal charges, and then we successfully litigated against the University that threatened to discipline the defendant. This case is among the first successful “Recent Successful Case Result: High Profile Arrest to High Profile Exoneration”
In a complex recent matter involving allegations of vehicular manslaughter and felony DUI, charges were dismissed after intensive litigation over 3.5 years.
The California Supreme Court decided to uphold sex offender registration for a simple misdemeanor assault conviction where the jury acquitted the defendant of the greater felony charge alleging a lewd act on a child under the age of 14, pursuant to Penal Code section 288.
The United States Supreme Court pronounced yet another opinion safeguarding a person’s expectation of privacy, this time with respect to detentions occurring after a motor vehicle stop. The Court ruled that the police may not prolong traffic stops to allow a drug sniffing dog access to the vehicle. In California, “Supreme Court Continues to Protect the Fourth Amendment”
A student has procedural rights enshrined in the state and federal constitutions, Title IX and Department of Education regulations, and the Civil Code, to challenge the evidence supporting allegations of misconduct and to present relevant evidence to the Title IX investigator before the university concludes its investigation and decides on “California Student Disciplinary and Title IX Proceedings”