Collect Call with Lawstache: Recent Episodes
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
Every week, host Anton Vialtsin (California attorney and YouTuber) discusses a legal case from the Supreme Court, 9th Circuit, and California State Courts. We focus on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. We make predictions and scrutinize the law. Anton Vialtsin handled over a hundred federal criminal cases from initial client interviews through sentencing. He has an in-depth knowledge of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Federal Criminal Codes and Rules, mandatory-minimum sentences, the death penalty, and too many state laws to list.
Can police point a thermal camera at your house and use it as evidence — without a warrant? That's exactly what happened in Kyllo v. United States, one of the most important Fourth Amendment cases of the modern era. In this video, we break down the facts, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision, and why this 2001 case still shapes how courts handle GPS trackers, cell phone data, and other surveillance tech today.
📌 CASE CITATION: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
In this video you'll learn:
✅ What thermal imaging is and how the DEA used it to investigate a marijuana grow house
✅ The Fourth Amendment "search" standard and how Kyllo changed it
✅ Justice Scalia's majority opinion and the "sense-enhancing technology" rule
✅ Justice Stevens' dissent and the "off-the-wall vs. through-the-wall" argument
✅ How Kyllo connects to later cases like United States v. Jones (GPS tracking) and Carpenter v. United States (cell-site location data)
🎓 Lawstache breaks down landmark Supreme Court cases, constitutional law, and legal concepts in plain English — no law degree required. New videos every Wednesday.
👍 If this helped you understand the Fourth Amendment better, like this video and subscribe for more case breakdowns.
💬 Got a case you want covered next? Drop it in the comments.
🔗 RELATED VIDEOS
Katz v. United States
https://youtu.be/oDIdFrwtv1U
Carpenter v. United States
https://youtu.be/Wa5kkivcXM0
United States v. Jones
https://youtu.be/_cYYRZjC2BQ
KylloVUnitedStates #FourthAmendment #SupremeCourt #ConstitutionalLaw #ThermalImaging #CriminalLaw #Lawstache #LawSchool #SearchAndSeizure #LegalEducation
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
A man flees a traffic stop, runs into a stranger's house, and hides a gun in an 8-year-old's bedroom — then claims the police violated his 4th Amendment rights. Can he? In this video, we break down United States v. Gatkuoth (8th Cir. 2026), a brand-new federal appeals decision on 4th Amendment standing, the overnight guest doctrine, and felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
You'll learn what "standing" means under the Fourth Amendment, why you must prove a legitimate expectation of privacy to file a motion to suppress evidence, how Minnesota v. Olson protects overnight guests (and who doesn't qualify), and why witness credibility can make or break a suppression hearing.
📚 CASES MENTIONED
United States v. Gatkuoth, No. 24-2536 (8th Cir. June 8, 2026)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) – overnight guest doctrine
United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980) – burden of proving standing
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) – felon in possession of a firearm
Police Peer Through a Gap in Closed Blinds — Do Social Guests Have 4th Amendment Protection?
https://youtu.be/fIk7q3mxUpA
Unlawful Police Home Entry: Violating Fourth Amendment Rights of House Guests | Girlfriend Apartment
https://youtu.be/ZgGhIppjMP8
Can police search a backpack left at the hotel room? Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?
https://youtu.be/QDkMqCIeVzg
Can FBI record citizens in a hotel room with a secret hidden camera without a warrant? Nerber (2000)
https://youtu.be/txO6CPt7JKk
SUBSCRIBE to LAWSTACHE for weekly breakdowns of real criminal cases, 4th Amendment law, search and seizure rights, and what to do if police want to search your home or car.
4thAmendment #CriminalDefense #KnowYourRights #FourthAmendment #SearchAndSeizure #LAWSTACHE
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
FBI agents raid a man's home with over 80 officers, an armored vehicle, and a sealed federal warrant — then local police make arrests without ever producing the warrant in court. Florida's Third District Court of Appeal said that's not good enough. All evidence suppressed. Case reversed.
In Cabrera v. State (2026), the court tackled a critical Fourth Amendment question: can the State rely on a federal search warrant it refuses to produce? The answer is no — and the reasoning matters for anyone facing charges stemming from a joint federal-state investigation.
What this video covers:
- How the FBI and Miami-Dade Police coordinated the raid
- Why the "good faith exception" failed without the warrant in the record
- How the burden of proof shifts to the State once an illegal search is alleged
- The "fellow officer rule" and its limits
- Fruit of the poisonous tree — why the statements were suppressed too
🔍 Keywords: Fourth Amendment, illegal search and seizure, motion to suppress, good faith exception, fellow officer rule, federal search warrant, fruit of the poisonous tree, Florida criminal appeals, evidence suppression, cockfighting charges, Cabrera v State 2026
Facing criminal charges after a search you think was illegal? If law enforcement searched your home or property in San Diego or anywhere in California, you need an attorney who understands Fourth Amendment suppression law. The attorneys at Lawstache have helped clients fight unlawful searches and get evidence thrown out.
📞 Call Lawstache today for a free consultation. 🌐 Visit us at youtube.com/lawstache
Cabrera v. State, --- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 1321018 | Florida Third District Court of Appeal | Opinion Filed May 13, 2026
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
An ICE supervisor caught in a sting, nearly 100 text messages, and a 135-month sentence.
Today, we dive into the Ninth Circuit’s April 2026 decision in United States v. Williams. When Koby Williams was arrested during an undercover "child enticement" operation, he claimed he was actually the one doing the investigating. But the court had the receipts—including a text message where he admitted, "I am a cop... I'm not afraid."
In this video, we analyze:
The Digital Trap: How Detective Martinez used a "Warning in Moses" Craigslist post to lure targets.
The "Enticement" Standard: Why the 9th Circuit rejected the defense that the government must prove a defendant "overcame the will" of a minor.
The Evidence: What police found in the car (cash, Viagra, and vodka) that sealed the jury's verdict.
Case Details: United States v. Williams, No. 24-5792 (9th Cir. 2026), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/13/24-5792.pdf
Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (Attempted Online Enticement of a Minor)., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The U.S. government seized 700,000 barrels of Iranian oil from two tankers in the Mediterranean Sea — sold it for $50 million — and a Turkish company that claimed to own it walked away with nothing. Here's how that's legal.
In today's video, we break down United States v. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Onboard the M/T Arina, a brand-new D.C. Circuit opinion decided April 21, 2026 — covering civil forfeiture, the Foreign Commerce Clause, and material support for terrorism law.
What we cover:
⚖️ How the U.S. civil forfeiture statute works
🛢️ Why the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) is at the center of this case
🚢 The ship-to-ship oil transfer that triggered a $50M seizure
📜 The relation-back doctrine — and why it's devastating for third-party buyers
🌍 How far the Foreign Commerce Clause actually reaches
💣 What "calculated to influence" government conduct really means in terrorism law
🔔 Subscribe for weekly case breakdowns | New videos every week
👍 Like if you learned something
💬 Drop your questions in the comments
Case Citation: United States v. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Onboard the M/T Arina, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1073317 (D.C. Cir. April 21, 2026)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
A police officer pulls over a driver for rolling across a sidewalk. Routine stop — until a records check reveals his license has been suspended since 1993. The cop decides to tow the car, conducts an inventory search, and finds meth, fentanyl, cash, and a digital scale. A search warrant follows for a nearby hotel room — where officers find a loaded gun and more drugs.
Open and shut case? The California Court of Appeals said no.
In People v. Perez (2026), the Sixth Appellate District reversed the convictions and threw out ALL the evidence — because the vehicle tow that started it all violated the Fourth Amendment. The reason? Towing someone's car just to stop them from driving again is not a community caretaking function.
In this video, we break down:
✅ What the community caretaking doctrine actually means
✅ Why statutory authority to tow is NOT enough under the Constitution
✅ How the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine wiped out the gun and hotel room evidence
✅ What this ruling means for drivers and law enforcement in California
📌 People v. Perez | California Court of Appeal, Sixth District | H053314 | Filed March 19, 2026
🔔 Subscribe to LAWTACHE for real case breakdowns, no fluff.
FourthAmendment #IllegalSearch #CommunityCaretaking #PeopleVPerez #CaliforniaLaw #SuppressionMotion #CriminalLaw #ConstitutionalLaw #KnowYourRights #LawTube
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Isaac Tekola ran a fentanyl distribution operation out of his apartment — and when he got caught, he argued his home was just... his home. The Ninth Circuit wasn't buying it.
In this video, we break down United States v. Tekola (9th Cir. 2026), where the court upheld a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) — the "maintained a premises" enhancement — even though Tekola's apartment was also his primary residence.
What you'll learn:
1. What the § 2D1.1(b)(12) sentencing enhancement actually is
2. Why living somewhere doesn't protect you from this enhancement
3. How the Ninth Circuit distinguished this case from United States v. Shetler
4. Why your text messages will absolutely destroy you in court
5. What "primary or principal use" really means under the Sentencing Guidelines
⚖️ United States v. Tekola, No. 24-5467 (9th Cir. March 9, 2026), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/09/24-5467.pdf
🗓️ Argued February 9, 2026 | Filed March 9, 2026
LAWSTACHE breaks down real court cases in plain English — so you actually understand what's happening in the legal system.
🔔 Subscribe for new cases every Wednesday
👍 Like if this helped you understand federal sentencing law
💬 Comment: Do you think the enhancement was applied fairly here?
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In this video, we break down United States v. Ruiz, a brand new Ninth Circuit opinion from January 2026. Alex Ruiz was convicted of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 — but the way he got caught and convicted is what makes this case fascinating.
🚔 THE TECH: Border Patrol agents driving unmarked vehicles ran a real-time records check that pulled the car's travel history, checkpoint records, and registration data — all in minutes, from the front seat of a moving car. We break down exactly what that technology can see and why it matters.
📱 THE EVIDENCE: A WhatsApp group chat with live GPS coordinates helped place Ruiz at the scene. His co-defendant — who pleaded guilty the week before trial — took the stand and testified against him. And body-worn camera footage captured everything.
⚖️ THE LEGAL ISSUE: The government introduced Ruiz's prior conviction for the same crime under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Was that legal? The Ninth Circuit said yes — and we walk you through the four-part test courts use to decide when a prior bad act can come in at trial.
If you are someone who loves true crime and courtroom drama, this case has it all — cutting-edge surveillance tech, a dramatic highway chase, a spike strip dodge, and a legal ruling that will shape 404(b) cases for years to come.
🔔 Subscribe to LAWSTACHE for weekly case breakdowns, legal analysis, and courtroom drama you won't find anywhere else.
Hashtags:
BorderPatrol #Immigration #CriminalLaw #404b #NinthCircuit #LawTube #Lawstache #TrueCrime #CourtCase #EvidenceLaw #ConstitutionalLaw #LegalAnalysis #ImigrationLaw #FederalCourt #KnowYourRights
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Federal probation officers showed up at Deanna Coleman's door while she was in her bathrobe. She asked them if they needed a warrant. They said no — and walked in anyway. What they found behind her bathroom mirror changed everything. But a federal appeals court just ruled the entire search was unconstitutional.
In this video I break down the brand new Fourth Circuit case United States v. Perez (2026) — decided February 23rd, 2026 — and explain exactly what it means for YOUR Fourth Amendment rights.
What we cover in this video:
What happened at Teal Drive, and why the search was illegal
Why owning a property doesn't give police the right to search it
The difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause
Why tenants have stronger Fourth Amendment rights than most people realize
What you should do if the police show up at YOUR door
🚨 WERE YOU OR A LOVED ONE ARRESTED? CALL MY OFFICE NOW.
If police searched your home — with or without a warrant — you need an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side immediately. Evidence obtained through an illegal search can be thrown out entirely, just like in this case.
The consultation is free. The call could change everything.
United States v. Perez, No. 23-7280, 2026 WL 492012 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2026)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
California appeals court just REVERSED a murder conviction because police went too far with an undercover interrogation. In People v. Zapata (2026), the court ruled that once a suspect invokes their right to a lawyer, police can't use undercover agents and coercive tactics to get around Miranda rights.
What happened: Jason Zapata was placed in a cell with undercover cops posing as inmates (a "Perkins operation"). After he asked for a lawyer, a deputy used a fake lineup and psychological pressure to trick him into confessing to murder. The confession got him convicted—but the Court of Appeal threw it out.
Key legal issues covered:
✅ Miranda v. Arizona - Your right to remain silent
✅ Edwards v. Arizona - Invoking your right to counsel
✅ Illinois v. Perkins - Undercover police operations
✅ Rhode Island v. Innis - What counts as "interrogation"
✅ When police tactics cross the constitutional line. This case creates a NEW LIMIT on Perkins operations: Known police officers can't actively "stimulate" undercover interrogations after a suspect invokes Miranda rights.
📚 CASE CITATION: People v. Zapata (2026) D084024, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D084024.PDF
🔔 Subscribe to LAWSTACHE for more criminal law breakdowns, Supreme Court cases, and constitutional rights explained in plain English!
💬 What do you think? Did the court get it right? Drop your opinion in the comments!
MirandaRights #CriminalLaw #TrueCrime #LawExplained #PerkinsOperation #ConstitutionalRights #LegalAnalysis #CourtCase #CriminalJustice
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
San Diego Federal Drug Defense: 2025 Sentencing Changes for Border Couriers & Minimal Role Reductions
If you've been charged with transporting drugs across the San Diego-Mexico border, the 2025 federal sentencing guideline amendments could significantly reduce your potential prison time. As a San Diego criminal defense attorney, I explain how drug couriers may qualify for minimal or minor role reductions under the new §2D1.1 and §3B1.2 guidelines.
In this video, you'll learn:
✓ How the 2025 amendments affect border drug courier cases
✓ Qualifying for a minimal role reduction (4-level decrease)
✓ Minor role adjustments (2-level decrease) explained
✓ Real scenarios: when couriers are eligible for reduced sentences
✓ How these reductions can save you YEARS in federal prison
✓ What federal judges look for in mitigating role arguments
Were you recruited to carry drugs across the border? You may qualify for a minimal role reduction.
Many people facing federal drug charges in San Diego were simply couriers — not organizers or major players in drug trafficking operations. The federal sentencing guidelines recognize this, and the 2025 amendments strengthen these protections.
📞 Facing federal drug charges in San Diego, Southern California, or Nevada? Contact my office for a case evaluation.
SanDiegoCriminalDefense #FederalDrugCharges #BorderCrimes #DrugCourier #SentencingGuidelines #SanDiegoAttorney #FederalDefense #MinimalRole #DrugTransportation #CaliforniaCriminalLaw
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Can police search a bag in your car without a warrant? The Supreme Court says yes—and this decision affects thousands of traffic stops and drug arrests every year.
In California v. Acevedo (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing police to search containers inside a vehicle if they claim probable cause—even without a warrant.
But probable cause is often overstated, misunderstood, or flat-out wrong.
I’m a criminal defense attorney, and in this video I explain:
When police can search your car or a bag inside it
When a warrant is still required
How officers misuse the automobile exception
How illegal searches can lead to suppressed evidence and dismissed cases
If you were stopped, searched, or arrested after a traffic stop, drug investigation, or vehicle search, this case may determine whether the evidence against you is constitutional—or throw-outable.
📍 Facing criminal charges?
Do not assume the police search was legal. An experienced defense attorney can challenge probable cause, stop unconstitutional searches, and protect your rights.
👉 Contact a criminal defense lawyer immediately if police searched your vehicle or personal property.
Read more here: California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/565/#tab-opinion-1958783
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Strickland v. Washington (1984) is one of the most important criminal defense cases in American history. In this final episode of Top 10 Most Important Criminal Defense Cases series, San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Anton Vialtsin breaks down the Supreme Court decision that created the modern standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
In this video, you’ll learn:
🔹 The facts of the case
🔹 Why David Washington challenged his lawyer’s performance
🔹 How the Supreme Court created the Two-Prong Strickland Test
🔹 What “deficient performance” really means
🔹 How courts decide whether a defendant was prejudiced
🔹 Why Strickland is so hard for defendants to win
🔹 How this case still controls criminal defense today, from plea bargaining to death penalty litigation
If you’ve ever wondered why “my lawyer didn’t help me” rarely works on appeal — this is the video you need to watch.
As always, if you or a loved one is facing federal or state charges, contact:
Anton Vialtsin, San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney
📍 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
🌐 Lawstache.com
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 4: Stop-and-Frisk & the Fourth Amendment Explained
https://youtu.be/4UmVp5ORo3A
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 5: Can Police Search Your Car Without a Warrant?
https://youtu.be/zQlePewa5XU
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 6: Can we get evidence excluded from trial & case dismiss
https://youtu.be/rVhkHDscXOc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 7: Privacy rights in the digital age. Cell Phone GEO data
https://youtu.be/Wa5kkivcXM0
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 8: Prosecution can't hide evidence favorable to accused
https://youtu.be/S-4K7FF_0es
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 9: Everything you need to know about your SENTENCING.
https://youtu.be/Y-5g_HrBYjw
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In United States v. Booker (2005), the Supreme Court transformed federal sentencing forever. Before Booker, federal judges were required to follow strict sentencing guidelines — even when they led to unfair results. But the Court ruled that mandatory guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
This landmark decision made the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory, restoring judicial discretion and reshaping how sentences are determined in every federal courtroom.
In this video, we break down:
United States v. Booker
How the Supreme Court’s decision changed sentencing law
What it means for defendants, prosecutors, and judges today
How the Statutory Mandatory Minimum and Maximums differ from the Sentencing Guideline Range and 3553(a) factors.
📚 Part 9 of the Top 10 Most Important Supreme Court Criminal Law Decisions series.
SupremeCourt #CriminalLaw #UnitedStatesvBooker #FederalSentencing #SixthAmendment #SentencingGuidelines #LegalEducation #LawStudent #CriminalDefense #JusticeSystem
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 4: Stop-and-Frisk & the Fourth Amendment Explained
https://youtu.be/4UmVp5ORo3A
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 5: Can Police Search Your Car Without a Warrant?
https://youtu.be/zQlePewa5XU
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 6: Can we get evidence excluded from trial & case dismiss
https://youtu.be/rVhkHDscXOc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 7: Privacy rights in the digital age. Cell Phone GEO data
https://youtu.be/Wa5kkivcXM0
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 8: Prosecution can't hide evidence favorable to accused
https://youtu.be/S-4K7FF_0es
🔔 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss Part 10 of this series on the most important criminal law cases!
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
What really happened in Brady v. Maryland (1963) — and what does a Brady violation actually mean?
In this video, we break down one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in criminal law history. You’ll learn how Brady v. Maryland changed the way prosecutors must handle evidence, why the case still matters today, and the biggest misconceptions the public often gets wrong about Brady disclosures.
This episode will make you rethink what “fair trial” really means!
🧠 Topics covered:
The real story behind Brady v. Maryland
What counts as a Brady violation
Common misunderstandings about evidence disclosure
Why intent doesn’t matter under Brady
How Brady affects trials and sentencing
⚖️ Part 8 of our “Top 10 Criminal Defense Cases” series
BradyvMaryland #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt #BradyViolation #DueProcess #CriminalDefense #LawExplained #LegalEducation #JusticeSystem
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 4: Stop-and-Frisk & the Fourth Amendment Explained
https://youtu.be/4UmVp5ORo3A
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 5: Can Police Search Your Car Without a Warrant?
https://youtu.be/zQlePewa5XU
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 6: Can we get evidence excluded from trial & case dismiss
https://youtu.be/rVhkHDscXOc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 7: Privacy rights in the digital age. Cell Phone GEO data
https://youtu.be/Wa5kkivcXM0
🔔 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss Part 8 of this series on the most important criminal law cases!
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court faced a modern privacy dilemma: can the government track your cell phone’s location without a warrant?
This landmark Fourth Amendment case reshaped digital privacy law and limited the “third-party doctrine” that had ruled for decades.
Join us in Part 7 of our Top 10 Supreme Court Criminal Law Cases as we break down:
What really happened in Carpenter’s case
Why the FBI’s use of cell-site location data raised constitutional red flags
The biggest myths and misunderstandings about this decision
And what Carpenter means for your privacy in today’s digital world
👩⚖️ This is one case you need to understand in the age of smartphones and surveillance.
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 4: Stop-and-Frisk & the Fourth Amendment Explained
https://youtu.be/4UmVp5ORo3A
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 5: Can Police Search Your Car Without a Warrant?
https://youtu.be/zQlePewa5XU
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 6: Can we get evidence excluded from trial & case dismiss
https://youtu.be/rVhkHDscXOc
🔔 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss Part 8 of this series on the most important criminal law cases!
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In Part 6 of our Top 10 Criminal Supreme Court Cases series, we break down the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio (1961) — the decision that applied the exclusionary rule to the states. This case is one of the most misunderstood in criminal law. How is Don King connected to this case? Was it really about obscenity? Did it create new rights for defendants? And what myths about illegal searches still confuse lawyers and the public today?
We’ll cover:
✅ The facts of Mapp v. Ohio
✅ Why the Supreme Court’s ruling changed criminal defense forever
✅ The truth about the exclusionary rule
✅ Common myths and misconceptions (and why they’re wrong)
✅ How this case still affects your rights today
In that case, this video will give you a clear and practical explanation of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history.
📌 Watch the full Top 10 Criminal Defense Supreme Court Cases playlist.
MappvOhio #SupremeCourt #CriminalDefense #ExclusionaryRule #Top10Cases
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 4: Stop-and-Frisk & the Fourth Amendment Explained
https://youtu.be/4UmVp5ORo3A
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 5: Can Police Search Your Car Without a Warrant?
https://youtu.be/zQlePewa5XU
🔔 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss Part 7 of this series on the most important criminal law cases!
FourthAmendment #KnowYourRights #CarSearch #CriminalLaw
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
🚔 Can police search your car without a warrant? This episode of our Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths series dives into the history of the “automobile exception” under the Fourth Amendment.
In this video, we’ll cover:
✅ The facts behind the Supreme Court’s landmark decision during Prohibition
✅ Why cars are treated differently from homes under the Constitution
✅ The biggest myths about car searches and your rights
✅ What “probable cause” really means for traffic stops
✅ How this case still shapes police encounters almost 100 years later
📌 Myth vs. Reality: Many believe police can search your car for any reason—but that’s not true. Learn what the law actually says and how to protect your rights.
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 4: Stop-and-Frisk & the Fourth Amendment Explained
https://youtu.be/4UmVp5ORo3A
🔔 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss Part 6 of this series on the most important criminal law cases!
FourthAmendment #KnowYourRights #CarSearch #CriminalLaw
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Welcome to Part 4 of our series on the Top 10 Supreme Court Criminal Law Cases and the Myths Surrounding Them! In this episode, we break down Terry v. Ohio (1968) — the landmark case that created the legal foundation for stop-and-frisk.
🚔 What really happened in Terry v. Ohio?
⚖️ What did the Supreme Court actually hold?
❌ And what are the biggest myths people still believe about stop-and-frisk?
We’ll cover the facts, the holding, and the lasting impact on the Fourth Amendment — separating truth from fiction so you understand your rights.
I'll give you a clear understanding of one of the most controversial cases in American criminal law.
📺 Missed earlier episodes? Start the series here:
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 3: Katz – The Case That Changed Privacy Forever.
https://youtu.be/tw8a9fjUkaI
Revisiting the SCOPE of Terry v. Ohio frisk/search. 9th Circuit says illegal search!
https://youtu.be/jPnyMxYKnSI
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Think you know the story of Katz v. United States (1967)? Most people believe this landmark Supreme Court case gave everyone a guaranteed right to privacy—but that’s not the full truth. In this video, we break down the biggest myths and misunderstandings about Katz, from whether the Fourth Amendment protects all conversations, to what counts as a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” to how this case changed surveillance law forever.
This is Part 3 of our Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths series. If you thought Gideon was misunderstood, wait until you hear the surprising facts about Katz.
You’ll learn:
✅ What Katz v. United States actually decided
✅ Why privacy isn’t absolute under the Fourth Amendment
✅ The truth about “reasonable expectations of privacy”
✅ How this case transformed the law on electronic surveillance
✅ Why Katz didn’t end wiretapping without a warrant
✅ How this case affects your privacy rights today—even on your phone
⚖️ Subscribe to LAWSTACHE for more breakdowns of the most important criminal law cases and the myths that surround them.
If you’re looking for legal insights or guidance from a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego, this video is a must-watch.
KatzvUS #PrivacyRights #FourthAmendment #CriminalLaw #Lawstache
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 2: Gideon – Do You Really Get to Choose a Free Lawyer?
https://youtu.be/bpkYko9WwFc
🤫 Little secret just between us… I tucked a giveaway down here in the description. If you happen to be the first person to spot this, you get a free sticker pack! 🎉
If someone already beat you to it, don’t worry—there will be more surprises in the future.
Thanks so much for watching and subscribing—it really means a lot! 🙌
https://shop.lawstache.com/gifts/gft_VV71YK-MRR2d6PP1YMCfdQ
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Think you know the story of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)? Most people believe this landmark Supreme Court case guaranteed everyone a free lawyer—but that’s not the full truth. In this video, we break down the biggest myths and misunderstandings about Gideon, from whether lawyers are really “free,” to the limits of the right to counsel, to what happened when Clarence Gideon was retried.
This is Part 2 of our Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths series. If you thought Miranda was misunderstood, wait until you hear the surprising facts about Gideon.
You’ll learn:
✅ What Gideon v. Wainwright actually decided
✅ Why the right to counsel wasn’t new in 1963
✅ The truth about paying for your “free” public defender
Public Defenders: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4&ab_channel=LastWeekTonight
✅ How this case overruled Betts v. Brady
✅ Why Gideon was acquitted at his retrial
✅ Whether the promise of Gideon has really been fulfilled today
⚖️ Subscribe to LAWSTACHE for more breakdowns of the most important criminal law cases and the myths that surround them.
GideonVWainwright #RightToCounsel #SupremeCourtCases #CriminalLaw #Lawstache
Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths | PART 1: Think You Know Your Miranda Rights?
https://youtu.be/RCQQbPSa0hs
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
We’ve all heard it on TV: “You have the right to remain silent…” But most people misunderstand entirely what Miranda rights actually mean. In this video, I break down the Top Miranda Rights Myths that could cost you in the real world.
🚨 Learn the truth about:
~Do police always have to read Miranda at arrest?
~Does your case get thrown out if they don’t?
~Can silence alone protect you?
~What happens if you talk before the warning?
~Do Miranda rights apply everywhere?
By the end, you’ll know what Miranda really protects — and what it doesn’t.
👨⚖️ Welcome to LAWSTACHE — where we make criminal law clear, simple, and even a little entertaining. Subscribe for more breakdowns of famous cases, courtroom myths, and criminal defense strategies.
Read the full opinion here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In this video, we break down the California Court of Appeal’s August 2025 decision in People v. Harlow, a case that redefines how courts handle mental health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36.
🔎 What you’ll learn in this video:
~The story behind People v. Harlow and why the trial court denied diversion
~How the 2022 amendment to Penal Code 1001.36 changed the rules
~The difference between eligibility vs. suitability for diversion
~Why the Court of Appeal said a diagnosis made three years after the crime still counts
What this ruling means for defendants, lawyers, and the future of mental health in California criminal courts
⚖️ This case is a major win for those fighting for treatment over punishment. It shows how California law is shifting to prioritize rehabilitation instead of incarceration when mental illness plays a role in criminal behavior.
👉 Question for you: Do you think a late diagnosis should still qualify someone for diversion? Drop your thoughts in the comments!
💡 Subscribe to LAWSTACHE for more real case breakdowns in criminal law, California appeals, and courtroom strategies.
MentalHealthDiversion #CaliforniaLaw #PeoplevHarlow #PenalCode100136 #EligibilityVsSuitability #lawstache
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The California Court of Appeal just delivered a major decision in Muñoz v. Regents (Aug. 5, 2025) — ruling that the University of California’s policy banning undocumented students without federal work permits from campus jobs violates California law.
In this video, I break down:
~What this case is about
~Why UC’s “risk management” defense failed
~How California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects workers based on immigration status
~The potential impact on universities and undocumented students statewide
Whether you’re a law student, an attorney, or just someone interested in immigration and employment rights, this case could set a powerful precedent for how institutions must treat undocumented students under California law.
📜 Full Opinion (PDF): Munoz v. Regents (Cal. Ct. App. - Aug. 5, 2025), https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A171410.PDF
👍 If you find this breakdown helpful, hit the like button and subscribe for more legal case explanations every week.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Can an honest—but unreasonable—mistake erase criminal intent?
In People v. Hendrix (2022), the California Supreme Court tackled this exact question after a man was convicted of burglary for walking into a home he thought belonged to his cousin.
⚖️ This video breaks down the Supreme Court’s ruling that a mistake of fact doesn’t have to be reasonable to negate specific intent crimes like burglary.
The justices reversed the conviction because the jury was incorrectly told that Hendrix’s mistake had to be “reasonable” — a legal misstep that could have statewide consequences.
Read the full case here: People v. Hendrix, 13 Cal.5th 933 (2022), https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S265668.PDF
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In this video, attorney Anton Vialtsin breaks down the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 ruling in United States v. Robert Louis Carver — a major case on how California expungements under Penal Code §1203.4 are treated in federal court. Spoiler: they still count! If you thought your old convictions were wiped clean, this case might change your mind. Learn what this means for criminal history scores, sentencing, and anyone with a “dismissed” state record.
📚 Full Opinion: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/02/23-4105.pdf
FederalSentencing #Expungement #NinthCircuit #CriminalLaw #Lawstache #LegalNews #RobertCarverCase #USAvCarver #CaliforniaExpungement #SentencingGuidelines #FederalCourt #CriminalDefense #Section1203.4 #FederalAppeal #CriminalRecord #CourtRuling #LegalAnalysis #LawYouCanUse
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
🚨 USA v. Bejar-Guizar (2025) – Border Patrol Stop & 9th Circuit Immigration Ruling Explained 🚨
In this video, we break down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Bejar-Guizar, a key 2025 immigration case involving a border patrol stop near San Diego, California. The court upheld the legality of the stop based on reasonable suspicion as it related to immigration charge under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1).
👮♂️ Was the Border Patrol stop constitutional?
📍 What evidence is needed to prove illegal detention?
⚖️ How does this case impact immigration and 4th Amendment law?
👉 Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and hit the 🔔 for more updates on immigration law, federal court rulings, and border-related cases.
BejarGuizar #ImmigrationLaw #BorderPatrol #FourthAmendment #9thCircuit #IllegalEntry #Section1325 #LawExplained #FederalAppeals #LAWSTACHE
Read the full case here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/07/09/23-3201.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Can a misdemeanor conviction really strip you of your Second Amendment rights? In this video, we break down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' major decision in United States v. Michael Blake DeFrance (No. 23-2409), where the court reversed a federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) — the law that prohibits firearm possession after a domestic violence misdemeanor.
You’ll learn:
~What § 922(g)(9) actually says
~Why the court ruled Montana’s DV statute was overbroad
~How this decision could impact future gun rights and domestic violence cases
~What this means for Second Amendment law post-Bruen
Whether you're a gun owner or just curious about federal firearms law, this case is one to watch.
gunrights #secondamendment #2ndamendment #criminaldefense #sandiego
🔔 Subscribe for more breakdowns of federal cases, constitutional rights, and criminal defense insights.
👍 Like the video if you found it helpful
💬 Comment below — Should misdemeanors affect gun ownership?
Read the case here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/30/23-2409.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fifth Amendment’s privilege against selfincrimination generally applies only to those who “claim it.” Saechao, 418 F.3d at 1077 (quotation omitted). However, this general rule does not apply when an individual is “denied the free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” Id. This can occur when the government creates a situation where “an individual’s refusal to answer incriminating questions subjects him to a penalty.” Id. In a “penalty situation,” the Fifth Amendment becomes selfexecuting. Murphy, 465 U.S. at 435–36. In other words, “if the state, either expressly or by implication, asserts that invocation of the privilege would lead to revocation of probation . . . the failure to assert the privilege would be excused, and the probationer’s answer would be deemed compelled and inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 435.
In the probationary [or parole] context, this means that although the state is permitted to require a probationer to “appear and discuss matters affecting his probationary status,” the probationer may not be required under threat of revocation of probation to respond to “questions put to [him], however relevant to his probationary status, [that] call for answers that would incriminate him in a pending or later criminal proceeding.”
Read the full case here: USA v. Watson, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/23/24-1865.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
While “knock and talks”—as defined by the United States Supreme Court—are
considered constitutional, “knock and talks”—as defined and executed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)—are not. Considering the policies and practices governing how ICE conducts its “knock and talks,” the more accurate title for certain law enforcement operations would be “knock and arrests.” This Order serves to vacate those unlawful policies and practices.
Read more here: https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/kidd_msj_order.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
“The automobile exception provides ‘police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’” (People v. McGee(2020) 53Cal.App.5th 796, 801, quoting People v. Evans(2011) 200Cal.App.4th 735, 753.) The scope of a warrantless search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (United States v. Ross(1982) 456 U.S. 798, 824 (Ross).)
Here, the searching police officer received information via a radio broadcast from another officer that a juvenile on probation with a firearm restriction likely placed a firearm under the front passenger seat in defendant Hilario Leal, Jr.’s car before the defendant got into his car and drove away. Defendant’s car was under constant surveillance from the time of the alleged firearm placement until the searching officer conducted the search. When search the passenger compartment of defendant’s car yielded no firearm, the searching officer decided to search the trunk, where he discovered a firearm. Defendant was charged with several offenses and filed a motion to suppress the firearm; the trial court denied the motion. Defendant ultimately pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The question presented is whether the search of the defendant’s trunk was justified under the automobile exception. We conclude it was not.
Read full case here: California v. Leal, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/c096463.html
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The panel affirmed the district court’s revocation of Jackson Daniel Bowers’ supervised release in a case in which Bowers argued that Article III, section 2 of the Constitution affords supervisees the right to a jury trial in revocation proceedings held under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). In Bowers’ view, Article III and the Sixth Amendment are independent from each other and the Sixth Amendment trial-by-jury rights are more limited than those rights under Article III. Joining the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that Article III’s jury provision and the Sixth Amendment are equivalent in scope. Although there are textual differences between Article III’s “all Crimes” and the Sixth Amendment’s “all criminal prosecutions,” Bowers’ reading of this difference is not supported by the history of Article III and the Sixth Amendment. History and precedent make clear that the Sixth Amendment was meant to complement Article III, section 2, not to supersede or compete with it. It follows that a right not triggered by the Sixth Amendment cannot be independently triggered by Article III.
Read the full case here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/04/23-902.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The latest government case-by-case records reveal that as of March 31, 2025, federal efforts to prosecute white-collar crimes have continued to decline – down more than 10 percent from FY 2024 in the last full year of the Biden administration.
The FBI is the lead investigative agency in many of these investigations. Thus, this decline is likely to grow even larger given a series of recent federal moves impacting cuts to the FBI and directing how FBI agents should spend their time. News coverage reports: “white-collar cases...will be deprioritized for at least the remaining of 2025.” Going forward, “FBI agents were told by their field offices they would need to start devoting about one-third of their time to helping the Trump administration crack down on illegal immigration.”
U.S. Attorney offices filed 4,332 prosecutions for white-collar crimes in FY 2024, less than half of the 10,269 prosecutions filed in FY 1994 three decades earlier. And FY 2025 is projected to fall even further to just 3,862. All prosecution rates except for immigration dropped substantially in the first half of FY 2025. In addition, compared with other program categories, prosecutors file prosecutions on criminal referrals at lower rates for white-collar offenses than almost all other program categories.
Most crimes the Department of Justice (DOJ) classifies as white-collar crime cover a wide range of frauds. These include corporate and consumer frauds, bankruptcy fraud, federal program fraud, financial institution fraud, health care fraud, tax fraud, identity theft, security fraud and many others. Antitrust crimes are also included in this category.
Read more here: https://tracreports.org/reports/760/
In codefendant brothers Joshua and Jamie Yafa’s appeals from their convictions and sentences for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud for their involvement in a “pump-and-dump” stock manipulation scheme, the panel affirmed the district court’s reliance on Application Note 3(B) in the commentary to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, which, at the time the Yafas were sentenced, instructed courts to use the gain that resulted from the defendant’s offense as an alternative measure for calculating loss where loss cannot reasonably be determined.
Read more here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/15/23-4108.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
What Officer Hill reasonably suspected, namely that Lopez–Soto had not affixed a registration sticker to his rear window, simply was not a violation of Baja California law. This cannot justify the stop under the Fourth Amendment. Nor is it possible to justify the stop objectively, as did the court in Sanders, with the facts available to Officer Hill when he made the stop: in his mistaken belief that Baja California law required the registration sticker to be visible from behind, Officer Hill did not check the windshield for the sticker. The information that he did gather—that there was no sticker on the rear or left windows—did not make it any less likely that Lopez–Soto was operating his car in conformity with the law.
We have no doubt that Officer Hill held his mistaken view of the law in good faith, but there is no good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police who do not act in accordance with governing law. See United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th Cir.1999). To create an exception here would defeat the purpose of the exclusionary rule, for it would remove the incentive for police to make certain that they properly understand the law that they are entrusted to enforce and obey.
Read the full case here: United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/205/1101/559308/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The government argues that we should credit Jankowski's testimony because of his nineteen years of experience as a police officer and thousands of hours of "stash house" surveillance. But while courts analyze the facts leading to an investigatory stop in light of a trained officer's experience, these facts must be "more than the mere subjective impressions of a particular officer." Hernandez-Alvarado, 891 F.2d at 1416. Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than an officer's "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).
Here, Jankowski testified that the dropping of marijuana packages -onto what surface he did not specify -made "a flat-sounding kind of thump" that, to him was "pretty" distinctive "at times." He could not describe the sound in any more detail, and he did not explain how it differed from thumps made by other kinds of packages.
Marijuana has a distinctive appearance, taste, and odor, and perhaps even a feel, but it does not have a distinctive sound. This is true regardless of how it is packaged.
A hunch may provide the basis for solid police work; it may trigger an investigation that uncovers facts that establish reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or even grounds for a conviction. A hunch, however, is not a substitute for the necessary specific, articulable facts required to justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion.
Because the investigatory stop of Thomas violated the Fourth Amendment, the district court was required to suppress the evidence that resulted from the stop as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963). This evidence includes the marijuana, the shotgun, and Thomas's incriminating statements. It also includes the packages of marijuana found in the bathroom adjoining the garage at the residence under surveillance. As the district court found, " [t]he evidence obtained in the Thomas stop led Officers back to [the house at ] 5825 East 23rd." Because there is at least a reasonable possibility that the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful stop contributed to Thomas's convictions, we reverse those convictions and remand for further proceedings.
Read the full case here: United States of America v. Andrew Charles Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2000), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/211/1186/582645/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
On November 12, 1999, at approximately 2:05 a.m., Sergeant Thomas Carmichael observed a blue Honda traveling at 70 m.p.h. northbound in the right lane on Interstate 15. Carmichael first observed the Honda from his patrol car, which was positioned 75 yards behind it. He observed the car drift onto the solid white fog line on the far side of the right lane and watched the car's wheels travel along the fog line for approximately ten seconds. The Honda then drifted to the left side of the right lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the left lane. Carmichael next observed the car drift to the left side of the left lane where its left wheels traveled along the solid yellow line for approximately ten seconds. The car then returned to the center of the left lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the right lane. Carmichael pulled the car over for possible violations of California Vehicle Code § 21658(a) (lane straddling) and California Vehicle Code § 23152(a) (driving under the influence).
Appellant Efrain Estrada-Nava ("Estrada-Nava") was the driver of the car and appellant Eric Colin ("Colin") was his passenger. When Carmichael advised Estrada-Nava of the reasons for stopping him and asked for his license and registration, he noticed that both Estrada-Nava and Colin were nervous and shaking. He also noticed that the glove compartment contained a bottle of air freshener and a radar detector, that there were only three keys on Estrada-Nava's key ring, and that neither Estrada-Nava nor Colin owned the Honda. Suspecting that the car might have been stolen, Carmichael separately questioned Estrada-Nava and Colin about the ownership of the vehicle. On the basis of their slightly conflicting stories, their nervous appearances, and his own training and experience, Carmichael concluded they might be involved in drug trafficking. Estrada-Nava and Colin separately consented to a search of the Honda, which revealed marijuana and methamphetamine.3
Colin filed a motion to suppress the narcotics evidence, in which Estrada-Nava joined, arguing that Carmichael illegally stopped the Honda and illegally detained the two of them thereafter. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding that Carmichael had reasonable suspicion to stop the car and that the evidence therefore was legally obtained. Estrada-Nava and Colin appealed.
Read the full case here: United States of America v. Eric Col
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Few statements in the law are as often repeated: "[A]n investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith." ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957].) The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures dictates that traffic stops must be supported by articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the driver or a passenger has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law. ( People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 926 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785].) In this case, the police officer who conducted the traffic stop did so on a mere hunch that the defendant and his passenger were involved in criminal activity. In other words, the facts known to the officer were insufficient to support the objectively reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a detention under the Fourth Amendment.
Read the full case here: PEOPLE v. DURAZO, 124 Cal.App.4th 728 (2004), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59147616add7b049343bbde7
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The starting point for our analysis of whether the INS had reasonable suspicion to stop Serrano is United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment prohibits INS roving patrols from stopping vehicles in areas near but not at the Mexican border or its functional equivalent and from questioning a vehicle's occupants as to citizenship absent a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains illegal aliens.
Id. at 882, 95 S.Ct. at 2580. Such a reasonable suspicion must be supported by “specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the vehicle contains illegal aliens. Id. at 884, 95 S.Ct. at 2582. Factors that may properly be considered include (1) characteristics of the area where the vehicle is encountered, such as proximity to the border, usual traffic patterns, and previous experience with alien traffic; (2) information about recent illegal border crossings; (3) erratic or evasive driving; (4) characteristics of the vehicle itself—whether it is among those types frequently used to transport aliens, whether it appears heavily loaded or has an unusually large number of passengers or its passengers are observed trying to hide; and (5), although not sufficient standing alone, the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants.
Id. at 884–85, 887. The officer making the decision whether to stop is entitled to assess these factors in “light of his experience detecting illegal entry and smuggling.” Id. at 885, 95 S.Ct. at 2582 (citation omitted). Whether the INS had a reasonable suspicion requires a case-by-case analysis turning on the totality of the particular circumstances. Id. at 884 n. 10, 95 S.Ct. at 2582 n. 10.
Read the full case here: United States v. Ortega-Serrano, 788 F.2d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 1986)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.
Full Opinion here: CANIGLIA v. STROM, 593 US ___ (2021) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The panel reversed the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless searches of his cell phone by Customs and Border Protection officials, and vacated his conviction for importing cocaine.
Applying United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9thCir. 2013) (en banc), the panel held that manual cell phone searches maybe conducted by border officials without reasonable suspicion but that forensic cell phone searches require reasonable suspicion. The panel clarified Cotterman by holding that “reasonable suspicion” in this context means that officials must reasonably suspect that the cell phone contains digital contraband. The panel further concluded that cell phone searches at the border, whether manual or forensic, must be limited in scope to whether the phone contains digital contraband; and that a broader search for evidence of a crime cannot be justified by the purposes of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The panel held that to the extent that a Border Patrol agent’s search of the defendant’s phone – which included the recording of phone numbers and text messages for further processing– went beyond a verification that the phone lacked digital contraband, the search exceeded the proper scope of aborder search and was unreasonable as a border search under the Fourth Amendment.
The panel held that although the agents had reason to suspect the defendant’s phone would contain evidence leading to additional drugs, the record does not give rise to an objectively reasonable suspicion that the digital data in the phone contained contraband, and the border search exception therefore did not authorize the agents to conduct a warrantless forensic search of the defendant’s phone. The panel held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply because the border officials did not rely on binding appellate precedent specifically authorizing the cell phone searches at issue here.
Read the full case here: United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002 (2019), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-50151/17-50151-2019-08-16.html
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during January 2025 the government reported 3196 new immigration prosecutions. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 2.5 percent over the previous month.
See the full reports here: https://tracreports.org/tracreports/bulletins/immigration/monthlyjan25/fil/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Jesus Munguia Mendoza appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mendoza contends that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked legal authority under the Sentencing Guidelines to depart downward on the ground that Mendoza had no control over, or knowledge of, the purity of the methamphetamine that he delivered. We agree that, under the sentencing principles set forth in Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)—a decision of which the district court did not have the benefit at the time of sentencing—the district court erred in concluding that it lacked power to depart on the ground urged by Mendoza. We accordingly *512 vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Read the Fulle Case Here: US v. Mendoza, 121 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 1997), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mendoza-4/
Federal Sentencing Guidelines can be found here: https://www.ussc.gov
Primer on Departures and Variances can be found here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2023_Primer_Departure_Variance.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Respondent Mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises they occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises for, inter alia, deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. Mena sued the officers under 42 U. S. C. §1983, and the District Court found in her favor. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the use of handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during the detention constituted an independent Fourth Amendment violation.
HELD:
1. Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. That detention is consistent with Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 705, in which the Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” The Court there noted that minimizing the risk of harm to officers is a substantial justification for detaining an occupant during a search, id., at 702–703, and ruled that an officer’s authority to detain incident to a search is categorical and does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure,” id., at 705, n. 19. Because a warrant existed to search the premises and Mena was an occupant of the premises at the time of the search, her detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers. Inherent in Summers’ authorization to detain is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396. The use of force in the form of handcuffs to detain Mena was reasonable because the governmental interest in minimizing the risk of harm to both officers and occupants, at its maximum when a warrant authorizes a search for weapons and a wanted gang member resides on the premises, outweighs the marginal intrusion. See id., at 396–397. Moreover, the need to detain multiple occupants made the use of handcuffs all the more reasonable. Cf. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 414. Although the duration of a detention can affect the balance of interests, the 2- to 3-hour detention in handcuffs in this case does not outweigh the government’s continuing safety interests. Pp. 4–7.
- The officers’ questioning of Mena about her imm
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a warrant to include a description of the “place to be searched.” The police officers here—at first—complied with that requirement, obtaining a warrant that listed a motel room suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking. The officers then decided to search the suspect’s home as well, and asked the judge over the phone to expand the scope of the warrant to include the home. The judge agreed, but the officers did not physically amend the warrant.
We agree with the district court that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was facially defective. While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched.
Full case here: Manriquez v. Ensley, --- F.4th ---- (2022), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/30/20-16917.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Respondents' private residence was damaged by an early morning fire while they were out of town. Firefighters extinguished the blaze at 7:04 a.m., at which time all fire officials and police left the premises. Five hours later, a team of arson investigators arrived at the residence for the first time to investigate the cause of the blaze. They found a work crew on the scene boarding up the house and pumping water out of the basement. The investigators learned that respondents had been notified of the fire and had instructed their insurance agent to send the crew to secure the house. Nevertheless, the investigators entered the residence and conducted an extensive search without obtaining either consent or an administrative warrant. Their search began in the basement where they found two Coleman fuel cans and a crock pot attached to an electrical timer. The investigators determined that the fire had been caused by the crock pot and timer and had been set deliberately. After seizing and marking the evidence found in the basement, the investigators extended their search to the upper portions of the house where they found additional evidence of arson. Respondents were charged with arson and moved to suppress all the evidence seized in the warrantless search on the ground that it was obtained in violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Michigan trial court denied the motion on the ground that exigent circumstances justified the search. On interlocutory appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that no exigent circumstances existed and reversed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Justice POWELL, joined by Justice BRENNAN, Justice WHITE, and Justice MARSHALL, concluded that where reasonable expectations of privacy remain in fire-damaged premises, administrative searches into the cause and origin of a fire are **644 subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment absent consent or exigent circumstances. There are especially strong expectations of privacy in a private residence and respondents here retained significant privacy interests in their fire-damaged home. Because the warrantless search of the basement and upper areas of respondents' home was authorized neither by consent nor exigent circumstances, the evidence seized in that search was obtained in violation of respondents' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and must be suppressed.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
This case presents the question whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by initiating an investigative traffic stop after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked driver’s license.
Under this Court’s precedents, the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417–418 (1981); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22 (1968). “Although a mere ‘hunch’ does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause.” Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014) (quotation altered); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989).
Because it is a “less demanding” standard, “reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). The standard “depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Navarette, supra, at 402 (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 (1996) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts “cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty . . . where none exists.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000). Rather, they must permit officers to make “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” Ibid.; see also Navarette, supra, at 403 (noting that an officer “ ‘need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct’ ”).
Before initiating the stop, Deputy Mehrer observed an individual operating a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck with Kansas plate 295ATJ. He also knew that the registered owner of the truck had a revoked license and that the model of the truck matched the observed vehicle. From these three facts, Deputy Mehrer drew the commonsense inference that Glover was likely the driver of the vehicle, which provided more than reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop.
The fact that the registered owner of a vehicle is not always the driver of the vehicle does not negate the reason- ableness of Deputy Mehrer’s in
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
During the investigation of two traffic incidents involving an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame, Officer David Rhodes learned that the motorcycle likely was stolen and in the possession of petitioner Ryan Collins. Officer Rhodes discovered photographs on Collins' Facebook profile of an orange and black motorcycle parked in the driveway of a house, drove to the house, and parked on the street. From there, he could see what appeared to be the motorcycle under a white tarp parked in the same location as the motorcycle in the photograph. Without a search warrant, Office Rhodes walked to the top of the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed that the motorcycle was stolen by running the license plate and vehicle identification numbers, took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, replaced the tarp, and returned to his car to wait for Collins. When Collins returned, Officer Rhodes arrested him. The trial court denied Collins' motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that Officer Rhodes violated the Fourth Amendment when he trespassed on the house's curtilage to conduct a search, and Collins was convicted of receiving stolen property. The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed. The State Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the warrantless search was justified under the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception.
Like the automobile exception, the Fourth Amendment's protection of curtilage has long been black letter law. “[W]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). “At the Amendment's ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961)). To give full practical effect to that right, the Court considers curtilage—“the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home’ ”—to be “ ‘part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.’ ” Jardines, 569 U.S., at 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984)). “The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to *593 the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Before Officer Nichols could pull over petitioner, petitioner parked and got out of his car. Nichols then parked, accosted petitioner, and arrested him after finding drugs in his pocket. Incident to the arrest, Nichols searched petitioner’s car and found a handgun under the driver’s seat. Petitioner was charged with federal drug and firearms violations. In denying his motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unconstitutional search, the District Court found, inter alia, the automobile search valid under New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, in which this Court held that, when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile’s occupant, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to search the vehicle’s passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest, id., at 460. Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing that Belton was limited to situations where the officer initiated contact with an arrestee while he was still in the car. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Belton governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has left the vehicle. In Belton, the Court placed no reliance on the fact that the officer ordered the occupants out of the vehicle, or initiated contact with them while they remained within it. And here, there is simply no basis to conclude that the span of the area generally within the arrestee’s immediate control is determined by whether the arrestee exited the vehicle at the officer’s direction, or whether the officer initiated contact with him while he was in the car. In all relevant aspects, the arrest of a suspect who is next to a vehicle presents identical concerns regarding officer safety and evidence destruction as one who is inside. Under petitioner’s proposed “contact initiation” rule, officers who decide that it may be safer and more effective to conceal their presence until a suspect has left his car would be unable to search the passenger compartment in the event of a custodial arrest, potentially compromising their safety and placing incriminating evidence at risk of concealment or destruction. The Fourth Amendment does not require such a gamble. Belton allows police to search a car’s passenger compartment incident to a lawful arrest of both “occupants” and “recent occupants.” Ibid. While an arrestee’s status as a “recent occupant” may turn on his temporal or spatial relationship to the car at the time of the arrest and search, it certain
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), is a Supreme Court case addressing the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.
Facts:
Marc Doggett was indicted in 1980 for drug-related charges. Shortly after the indictment, he left the United States. While authorities knew he was in Colombia and later Panama, they failed to apprehend him due to logistical issues. In 1982, Doggett returned to the U.S. unnoticed and lived openly for the next six years. He was arrested in 1988, but during this time, he had no knowledge of the indictment.
Issue:
Does an 8½-year delay between the indictment and arrest, largely due to government negligence, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial?
Holding:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Doggett, holding that the delay violated his right to a speedy trial.
Reasoning:
The Court applied the Barker v. Wingo (1972) balancing test, which considers:
- Length of delay: The 8½-year delay was presumptively prejudicial.
- Reason for delay: The government was negligent in pursuing Doggett, as they could have located him with reasonable effort.
- Defendant’s assertion of the right: Doggett could not assert his right earlier because he was unaware of the indictment.
- Prejudice to the defendant: The Court presumed prejudice due to the excessive delay caused by government negligence, even without specific proof of harm to Doggett's defense.
Outcome:
The Court reversed Doggett’s conviction, emphasizing that a lengthy, negligent delay by the government undermines the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right, even if the defendant cannot show concrete prejudice.
This case underscores the importance of timely prosecution and holds the government accountable for unnecessary delays in pursuing charges.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
A police officer looked in an apartment window through a gap in the closed blind and observed respondents Carter and Johns and the apartment's lessee bagging cocaine. After respondents were arrested, they moved to suppress, inter alia, cocaine and other evidence obtained from the apartment and their car, arguing that the officer's initial observation was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Respondents were convicted of state drug offenses. The Minnesota trial court held that since they were not overnight social guests, they were not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, and that the officer's observation was not a search under the Amendment. The State Court of Appeals held that Carter did not have “standing” to object to the officer's actions because the evidence indicated that he used the apartment for a business purpose—to package drugs—and, separately, affirmed Johns' conviction without addressing the “standing” issue. In reversing, the State Supreme Court held that respondents had “standing” to claim Fourth Amendment protection because they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place, and that the officer's observation constituted an unreasonable search.
Held: Any search that may have occurred did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. The state courts' analysis of respondents' expectation of privacy under the rubric of “standing” doctrine was expressly rejected in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387. Rather, to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable. Id., at 143–144, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421. The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of “their persons [and] houses,” and thus indicates that it is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual. But the extent to which the Amendment protects people may depend upon where those people are. While an overnight guest may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in someone else's home, see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98–99, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85, one *471 who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not, see Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 259, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. And an expectation 84 of privacy in commercial property is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause/Vehicular Tows
The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the City of Portland in an action brought by Andrew Grimm alleging that the City’s procedures for notifying him that his car would be towed were deficient under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Grimm parked a car on the side of a downtown street, paid for an hour and 19 minutes of parking through a mobile app, and then left the car on the street for seven days. During that time, City parking enforcement officers issued multiple parking citations, which they placed on the car’s windshield. After the car sat on the street for five days, a parking enforcement officer added a red slip warning that the car would be towed.
Grimm did not move the car, and, two days after the warning slip was placed on the windshield, the car was towed.
The panel held that the City conformed with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment by providing notice reasonably calculated to alert Grimm of the impending tow. The warning slip placed on the car’s windshield five days after Grimm had parked the car and two days before the car was towed, which explicitly stated that the car would be towed if it were not moved, was reasonably calculated to inform Grimm of the impending tow.
The panel further held that Grimm’s failure to remove the citations and warning slip from the windshield did not provide the City with actual knowledge that its attempt to provide notice had failed.
Read the full case here: Grimm v. City of Portland, No. 23-35235, 2025 WL 22134 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2025), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/03/23-35235.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Thank you all for an incredible year! I experienced the biggest surge in viewership, and it’s all because of your amazing support in sharing my videos. A special thank you to everyone who purchased my Do Not Arrest This Person t-shirts—you’ve made this journey even more rewarding! ~ Anton V. aka LAWSTACHE
- NOT a crime for citizen to refuse entry to her home to police who do not have an appropriate warrant
https://youtu.be/IazZorTNtA8
Read the full case here: United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1978), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-prescott-5
- Police set up RUSE drug CHECKPOINTS on highway, motorists pulled over if take the next exit.
https://youtu.be/TBLW21FAknI
Read full case here: United States v. Neff, 681 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2012), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-neff-9?
- Can Police Assume a Container Has a Gun And Open It Without a Warrant Under Single-Purpose Exception
https://youtu.be/PzN4qET0XLw
Full case here: US v. Gust, 405 F. 3d 797 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2005, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13976317218493731054&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p807
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Ultimately, the Court is presented with two facts: (1) Mr. Russell consumed marijuana at least two hours before the stop; and (2) Mr. Russell may have had bloodshot, watery eyes and/or droopy eyelids. These facts put this matter on all fours with Patzer, where the driver was observed only to have “bloodshot and glassy eyes” and admitted to smoking marijuana. 277 F.3d at 1082. Under the Idaho law at issue in that case, the government was required to show that the defendant was under the influence “to a degree which impairs the driver's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.” Id. at 1084 (quoting Idaho Code § 18-8004(5)). The Ninth Circuit concluded that the defendant's “driving and comportment did not evidence any impairment.” Id. Here, too, the Court concludes that Mr. Russell's driving and comportment do not evidence any impairment such that his ability to drive was “lessened to an appreciable degree.” WPIC 92.10. Notably, the Government has never addressed the relevance of Patzer, either in its briefing or in oral argument at the evidentiary hearing. While the officers were justified in investigating the possibility of marijuana DUI, they should have investigated further (e.g., conducted sobriety tests) or released Mr. Russell instead of arresting him when they did. Therefore, the arrest was unlawful, and all evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed.
Finally, because the Court finds that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. Russell and suppresses evidence on this basis, it need not reach Mr. Russell's additional arguments regarding the search warrants and his request for a Franks hearing.
There is, of course, an elephant in the room (or vehicle): a gun-stolen, loaded with ammunition, and apparently fully functional (see Dkt. No. 45 at 9)-was recovered as a result of the traffic stop. And today's ruling excludes from trial this crucial evidence against Mr. Russell. But “while it is true that applying the exclusionary rule in this case will mean that a guilty defendant goes free, that is true of applying the exclusionary rule in essentially every case,” and “[n]othing about this case calls for a remedy other than ‘[t]he typical remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation,' which ‘is the exclusion of evidence discovered as a result of that violation from criminal proceedings against the defendant.'” United States v. Ngumezi, 980 F.3d 1285, 1291 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Garci
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
May officers, as a matter of standard procedure and in the name of "officer safety," detain and frisk a driver stopped for an equipment infraction solely on the basis that the stop occurs in a high crime area at night? Here we conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not permit such an intrusion and that any incriminating evidence flowing from the illegal contact, which may include statements made by the driver, is inadmissible.
Roman Medina appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found on his person and in his vehicle, as well as statements he made to the police at the time of his detention and search. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) After the court denied his motion, Medina pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. (Health Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) Entry of judgment was deferred, and Medina was placed on probation. He contends that the cocaine and the statements attributed to him were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
We reject the People's claim that the search was prompted by Medina's admission. Officer Lopez testified that he set out to conduct a patdown pursuant to his "standard procedure," and his act of securing Medina's hands behind his head was part and parcel of that search. We also agree with Medina that his detention was rendered unlawful when Officer Lopez grabbed his hands, and that the ensuing search was also illegal because the officer failed to offer articulable facts demonstrating a reasonable suspicion that Medina was armed and dangerous. Indeed, the officer admitted there were no such facts. The only reason for restraining Medina's hands and searching him was the time and location of the stop. Apparently, anyone observed to be driving in that area at night with a citable equipment defect would be stopped and subjected to a patdown search. The Fourth Amendment plainly prohibits the police from employing such a procedure.
Read the full case here: People v. Medina, 110 Cal.App.4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003), https://casetext.com/case/people-v-medina-299
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Most of us nowadays carry a cell phone. And our phones frequently contain information chronicling our daily lives—where we go, whom we see, what we say to our friends, and the like. When a person is suspected of a crime, his phone thus can serve as a fruitful source of evidence, especially if he committed the offense in concert with others with whom he might communicate about it. Does this mean that, whenever officers have reason to suspect a person of involvement in a crime, they have probable cause to search his home for cell phones because he might own one and it might contain relevant evidence? That, in essence, is the central issue raised by this case.
Appellant Ezra Griffith was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that police discovered it while executing an invalid warrant to search his home. The district court denied the motion, and a jury convicted Griffith at trial. Griffith now challenges the denial of his motion to suppress.
The warrant authorized officers to search for and seize all cell phones and other electronic devices in Griffith's residence. The supporting affidavit, however, offered almost no reason to suspect that Griffith in fact owned a cell phone, or that any phone or other device containing incriminating information would be found in his apartment. In our view, the fact that most people now carry a cell phone was not enough to justify an intrusive search of a place lying at the center of the Fourth Amendment's protections—a home—for any phone Griffith might own.
We therefore agree with Griffith that the warrant to search his residence was unsupported by probable cause. We also reject the government's arguments that, even if the warrant was invalid, the firearm still need not have been excluded from the evidence against him. Consequently, we vacate Griffith's conviction.
Read the full case here: United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, (D.C. Cir. 2017), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-griffith-33
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. A traffic stop is a “seizure” of “persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 251 (2007) (holding that passengers as well as the driver are seized during a traffic stop). Therefore it must be reasonable. At its inception, a traffic stop is reasonable if there was probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, regardless of the officer's subjective motivation for making the stop. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 813 (1996). However, a lawfully initiated traffic stop can become unreasonable if it exceeds the scope or duration necessary to address the traffic infraction. United States v. Whitley, 34 F.4th 522, 529 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)). “If an officer exceeds the scope or duration of a traffic stop, he must have ‘reasonable suspicion' [of criminal activity] to continue the stop on unrelated grounds.” Id. (citing Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354-55).
The Supreme Court explained the lawful parameters of a traffic stop in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015). “A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez, 575 at 350-51 (cleaned up). The mission of issuing a ticket includes incidental inquiries such as “checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance.” Id. at 355. Once “the tasks tied to the traffic infraction are-or reasonably should have been-completed,” the officer no longer has authority to continue the detention. Id. at 354.
Here, Officer Greene initially pursued the mission of the traffic stop. After executing the stop, he told Williams about the inoperable brake light, checked Williams' proof of insurance, and obtained Williams' license and registration. Officer Greene then returned to his cruiser and verified Williams' information. All of these actions are routine inquiries incident to a traffic stop.
Then, Officer Greene deviated from his mission. After verifying Williams' license and registration, Officer Greene possessed all
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. When determining whether someone’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, “the ultimate touchstone . . . is ‘reasonableness.’ ” Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)
(citations omitted). Even an initial seizure based on probable cause “can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005) (citation omitted). “[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 (2015). Specifically, whether a seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police officer’s investigation of that violation, and the duration of an officer’s inquiries “is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’– to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns.” Id. at 354 (citations omitted).
The government’s attempt to characterize the situation as an evolving one misses the mark. To the extent the situation did evolve, it was due to Sergeant Currie unlawfully prolonging what should have been a brief detention so that deputies could impound the vehicle. Otherwise, law
enforcement would be free to extend any detention long enough for probable cause to materialize for some offense, even if wholly unrelated to the offense justifying the initial intrusion.
This incident illustrates the danger in permitting law enforcement to take that approach. After the initial detention and pat down, Sergeant Currie availed himself of every opportunity to manufacture some reason to illegally prolong Davis’s detention. After the initial pat down, even though Davis was not the one approaching the Nissan’s driver side door, Sergeant Currie accused Davis of drinking.
Then, Sergeant Currie accused Davis of having dope on him after Davis
complied with his command to close his eyes. He then, for the first time, expressed that Davis was being “talkative” and “animated.” And once Davis asked for his lawyer and invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, Sergeant Currie used that as a basis to arrest Davis, claiming that his refusal to answer
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures.”U.S. Const.amend. IV. A traffic stop constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10 (1996);Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). The reasonableness of a traffic stop depends on whether the police have reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014).
A traffic stop that is constitutionally inbounds at its inception could eventually impinge on the vehicle occupant’s rights in some circumstances. If an officer executes a traffic stop unreasonably, the stop could violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the person seized. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005). “A lawful traffic stop must therefore be limited in scope and duration.” United States v. Whitley, 34 F.4th 522, 529 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)). An officer needs reasonable suspicion to prolong a traffic stop beyond what is necessary to resolve the initial reason for the stop. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354–55.
To continue detaining Taylor after the time that was necessary to complete the traffic citation, Officer Cox needed reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing (other than speeding). Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 350.
According to the government, several facts that Officer Cox learned during the indisputably permissible part of the stop gave her reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop to await the K-9 unit. Those facts include: (1) Taylor’s travel plans; (2) Taylor’s criminal history involving firearms and narcotics; (3) multiple air fresheners on Taylor’s gear shift; and (4)Taylor’s odd movements while searching for proof of insurance.
Under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government, Officer Cox did not have reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop. The reasonable-suspicion indicators are weak and subject to qualification. In fact, the district court recognized that Taylor’s travel plans, criminal history, and air fresheners may not have been enough to establish re
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Responding to a report of suspicious activity in the area, a police officer unlawfully detained a bystander who had no apparent connection to the report. The officer ran a records search and learned that the bystander, Duvanh Anthony McWilliams, was on parole and subject to warrantless, suspicionless parole searches. The officer proceeded to search McWilliams and his vehicle, where the officer found an unloaded gun, ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia.
As a general rule, evidence seized as a result of an unlawful search or seizure is inadmissible against the defendant in a subsequent prosecution. But the law permits use of the evidence when the causal connection "between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has `become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'" (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 487.) Here, the Court of Appeal held that the officer's discovery of McWilliams's parole search condition sufficiently attenuated the connection between the unlawful detention and the contraband found in McWilliams's vehicle. The Court of Appeal relied on cases allowing the admission of evidence seized incident to arrest on a valid warrant, where the warrant was discovered during an unlawful investigatory stop. (Utah v. Strieff (2016) 579 U.S. 232 (Strieff); People v. Brendlin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 262 (Brendlin).)
We now reverse. Unlike an arrest on an outstanding warrant, a parole search is not a ministerial act dictated by judicial mandate (Strieff, supra, 579 U.S. at p. 240), but a matter of discretion. We conclude the officer's discretionary decision to conduct the parole search did not sufficiently attenuate the connection between the officer's initial unlawful decision to detain McWilliams and the discovery of contraband. The evidence therefore was not admissible against him.
See full case here: People v. McWilliams, Cal: Supreme Court 2023, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2023/s268320.html
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Following denial of his suppression motion, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for sale. Defendant had approached the Needles, California plant quarantine inspection station in a vehicle bearing Michigan license plates. The quarantine officer, feeling that a more detailed inspection was necessary, identified himself and requested to look into defendant's vehicle trunk. Defendant opened the trunk for the officer's inspection. Inside were 200 to 300 pounds of marijuana wrapped in plastic. The officer reached in and took a pinch of the substance to inspect it. He discussed the substance with defendant and they agreed that it appeared to be compost, although the officer in fact suspected that it was marijuana. The officer gave defendant a clearance slip and defendant drove away. The officer then contacted the California Highway Patrol, showed them a sample of the substance, which had fallen to the ground during the inspection of the trunk, and the Highway Patrol thereafter apprehended defendant. (Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. VCR 517, Joseph A. Katz, Judge.)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding the quarantine officers may stop motorists at inspection stations and request to look into the trunks of their vehicles without a warrant or probable cause, and that if the motorist voluntarily opens the trunk, the quarantine officer may look therein and remove any plant materials in plain view for further inspection. The court rejected defendant's suggestion that a sign should be placed at inspection stations or quarantine officers should advise motorists that they may refuse to give their consent to any search. (Opinion by Gardner, P. J., with McDaniel and Morris, JJ., concurring.)
Read full case here: People v. Dickinson, 104 Cal. App. 3d 505, 163 Cal. Rptr. 575 (Ct. App. 1980), https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/104/505.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Border_Protection_Stations
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Police stopped Robert Lidster at a checkpoint set up to find information about a recent hit-and-run accident. Lidster was arrested, and later convicted, for drunk driving. Lidster successfully appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court. It relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) holding that a checkpoint is unconstitutional if its only purpose is to uncover "ordinary criminal wrongdoing." The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.
Does Indianapolis v. Edmond, which dealt with the Fourth and 14th Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seizures, prohibit checkpoints organized to question motorists about a previous offense and arrest motorists for drunk driving?
No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held 6-3 that the Illinois checkpoint did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and was constitutional. It ruled that the checkpoint was reasonable because it advanced a "grave" public interest - "investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death" - and interfered minimally with Fourth Amendment liberty. The Court distinguished Illinois's "information-seeking" checkpoint from the "crime control" checkpoint struck down in Edmond. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg - while agreeing that Edmond does not invalidate the Illinois checkpoint - dissented from the majority's decision granting constitutional approval to the checkpoint. They argued that the case should have been remanded to the Illinois courts.
Read the full case here: Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/419/#tab-opinion-1961418
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection have credible information that an individual in the Baja California border region (the “Recruiter”) has placed help wanted advertisements on Facebook seeking persons to transport currency across the border.
Credible information indicates at least some individuals who responded to the ads and drove vehicles across the border were not told they were instead smuggling aliens into the United States.
Based on the investigation, there are a few common characteristics linked to the Recruiter:
After a person responds to one of the advertisements, they typically encounter a person that identifies him- or herself as “Javier,” “Javier Alberto,” “Alberto,” “Sandra,” “Sarahi,” or “Omar.”
The Recruiter uses a few common telephone numbers, each with a 664-area code, to communicate with drivers.
The Recruiter instructs drivers to meet at a convenience store on Boulevard Padre Kino in Tijuana before the drivers cross the border.
The amount the Recruiter pays drivers varies but is often between $500 and $1000 per crossing.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
We review questions of probable cause de novo, but with "due weight to inferences drawn from [the] facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers." Ornelas v. United States,517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). We need only find that the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause. Illinois v. Gates,462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). In making this determination, a magistrate judge must assess the totality of the circumstances and make a "practical, common-sense decision." Id. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Under the totality of the circumstances test, otherwise innocent behavior may be indicative of criminality when viewed in context. See United States v. Ocampo,937 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1991). Additionally, issuing judges may rely on the training and experience of affiant police officers. United States v. Gil,58 F.3d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir. 1995).
When a magistrate judge issues a search warrant for a residence, he must find a "reasonable nexus" between the contraband sought and the residence. United States v. Rodriguez,869 F.2d 479, 484 (9th Cir. 1989). In making this determination, a magistrate judge need only find that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence there. United States v. Terry,911 F.2d 272, 275 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Knock and Announce Rule allows an officer to "break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance. . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 3109. Officers can infer constructive refusal to admit from silence, but only after a "significant amount of time." Granville,222 F.3d at 1218 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no established time that the police must wait; instead, the time lapse must be reasonable considering the particular circumstances of the situation. See United States v. Banks,282 F.3d 699, 703-05 (9th Cir. 2002); McClure v. United States,332 F.2d 19, 22 (9th Cir. 1964) (concluding that a 4 to 5 second wait was justified when police heard someone running away from door). When evaluating reasonableness, we consider such circumstances as (1) the size and layout of the residence; (2) the time of day; (3) the nature of the suspected offense; (4) the evidence demonstrating guilt; and (5) the officers' other observations that would support forced entry. See Banks,282 F.3
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Upon this evidence, and knowing that the box was at the airport in the possession of DEA agents, the magistrate issued a warrant for a search of Hendrick's residence at N. Sidney. Although the warrant states that "on the premises known as 2835 N. Sidney . . . there is now being concealed . . . a . . . cardboard box [containing cocaine]," (emphasis added) it further states "this search warrant is to be executed only upon the condition that the above described box is brought to the aforesaid premises" (emphasis added).
In making the determination as to probable cause, our role is limited to "ensuring that the magistrate had a `substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]' that probable cause existed." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)). The Supreme Court has stressed that "courts must continue to conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits in which warrants are issued," Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2332, see Leon, 104 S.Ct. 3422-23. The condition inserted into the warrant by the magistrate, that the warrant was not to be executed until the suitcase arrived at the house, is the principal source of our concern in this case.
If the suitcase had been in the house, or if probable cause existed to believe it was there, issuance of the warrant would have been proper. However, at the time the warrant was issued, the magistrate knew the suitcase was in the possession of the agents, not at the house. The agents, by calling Hendricks to come for the suitcase tried to ensure that the condition subsequent inserted into the warrant would happen. However, at the time the warrant issued and, in fact, until the suitcase was actually brought to the house, there was no certainty that it would ever be brought there.
Read the full case here: United States v. Hendricks, 743 F.2d 653, 654 (9th Cir. 1984), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hendricks-2
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed searches of homes of suspected drug dealers even where there is no direct evidence linking the homes to illegal activity, because the presence of evidence in a drug dealer's home is a reasonable inference to draw. See, e.g., United States v. Fannin, 817 F.2d 1379, 1381–82 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Angulo–Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir.1985). The government argues that this caselaw can and should be extended to drug users, especially since Inspector Lau stated in his affidavit that it is “common” for drug users to have additional drugs and paraphernalia at their residences.
Such an affidavit is available in every case. In effect, the government is looking for a bright-line rule that the police have probable cause to search the house of any person found with any amount of illegal drugs anywhere. This would be a significant extension of the case law, taking it beyond the bounds of what is permitted by the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit has held that “probable cause that a resident of the location has committed a crime is in itself insufficient to satisfy” the requirement that evidence probably will be found at the locations to be searched. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1254 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1995). Drug dealing and drug using are categorically different crimes. To extend the exception in Fannin and Angulo–Lopez is to eviscerate the rule stated in Fernandez and Gil. See United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970) (explaining that if mere probable cause to arrest a suspect also established probable cause to search the suspect's home, there would be no reason to distinguish search warrants from arrest warrants). The search warrant in this case was facially invalid.
Read the full case here: United States v. Garcia, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2011), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-garcia-335
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The general rule in the Ninth Circuit concerning knock and talk encounters is:
Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of any man's "castle" with the honest intent of asking questions of the occupant thereof-whether the questioner be a pollster, a salesman, or an officer of the law. Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303 (9th Cir. 1964). In other words, a knock and talk is a consensual encounter. Consensual encounters between police officers and citizens are not seizures. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
In Cormier the Ninth Circuit identified two sets of coercive circumstances that would transform a knock and talk into a seizure: (1) if the police compelled an occupant to open the door under the badge of authority and (2) if the police were unreasonably persistent in attempting to gain entry. Cormier, 220 F.3d at 1109 (citing United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2d 1569 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc), and United States v. Jerez, 108 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 1997)). The court further noted that a nighttime encounter weighs in favor of a seizure. Id. at 1110.
In this case, the police unreasonably persisted for approximately two and a half minutes in loud knocking rising to the level of heavy pounding on doors and windows in summoning Defendant to the door. By all indications they were not leaving until and unless Defendant came to the door. The duration and volume of the knocking was far more than necessary to announce their presence to anyone inside and greatly exceeded the knocking that, at 9:00 at night in this community, a reasonable person would take as an invitation to answer or not. As a whole, the officers' conduct was of an entirely different character than that of a neighbor or salesman on an ordinary visit. Although Detective Torres did not employ literal words of command, his announcement that the police wanted someone to come to the front door to speak with them when coupled with the unreasonably loud and persistent knocking would be taken by a reasonable person as an order, as indeed Defendant did take it. Certainly the police officers "convey[ed] a message that compliance with their requests was required." Bostick,
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
It is well established that, even when officers have probable cause to believe that contraband is present in a home, a warrantless search of the home is unlawful unless exigent circumstances exist at the time of entry. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The government bears the burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances that overcome their presumptively unreasonable entry. See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). And exigency is determined at the moment the search occurs. See United States v. Reed, 935 F.2d 641, 643 (4th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). This court has enumerated five factors that district courts should consider in determining whether an exigency existed at the time a search commenced:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) the officers' reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of danger to police guarding the site; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that police are on their trail; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband. Turner, 650 F.2d at 528.
It is well established that a search occurs for Fourth Amendment purposes "when officers gain visual or physical access to a . . . room after an occupant opens the door not voluntarily, but in response to a demand under color of authority." United States v. Conner, 127 F.3d 663, 666 (8th Cir. 1997).
The officers here likewise offered no justification for not seeking a warrant prior to knocking on the door, other than the slight delay or inconvenience that obtaining a warrant might have caused, reasons Johnson held were not sufficient. See id. Thus, although the officers had every right to knock on Mowatt's door to try to talk to him about the complaint, see United States v. Cephas, 254 F.3d 488, 494 (4th Cir. 2001), without a warrant, they could not require him to open it.
Read the full case here: U.S. v. Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2008), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mowatt
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The purpose behind the decision to impound is crucial because of the reason for condoning inventory searches of impounded cars. "In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called `community caretaking functions,' [citation], automobiles are frequently taken into police custody." ( Opperman, supra, 428 U.S. at p. 368.) "When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody, [citation]; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, [citation]; and the protection of the police from potential danger, [citation]." ( Id. at p. 369.) "[T]his Court has consistently sustained police intrusions into automobiles impounded or otherwise in lawful police custody where the process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents." ( Id. at p. 373.)
The decision to impound the vehicle must be justified by a community caretaking function "other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity" ( Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 375) because inventory searches are "conducted in the absence of probable cause" ( Whren, supra, 517 U.S. at p. 811). "
Thus, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, inventory search cases apply "the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.
Full case here: People v. Torres, 188 Cal.App.4th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010), https://casetext.com/case/people-v-torres-1078
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Petitioner city operates vehicle checkpoints on its roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs.
The District Court denied respondents a preliminary injunction, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened the Fourth Amendment.
Held: Because the checkpoint program's primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 37-48.
(a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 37-40.
(b) The latter purpose is what principally distinguishes the checkpoints at issue from those the Court has previously approved, which were designed to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Petitioners state that the Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte checkpoints had the same ultimate purpose of arresting those suspected of committing crimes. Securing the border and apprehending drunken drivers are law enforcement activities, and authorities employ arrests and criminal prosecutions to pursue these goals. But if this case were to rest at such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities' ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. The checkpoint program is also not justified by the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem. The gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, the Court must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforc
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Because the Fourth Amendment protects "people, not places," Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), Davis must first demonstrate that he personally had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched or the thing seized. Rakas v. Illinois,439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).
If the Fourth Amendment does not protect Davis' expectation of privacy in the contents of his bag, stored under the bed in an apartment where he sleeps and keeps his belongings, we find it difficult to imagine what the Fourth Amendment does protect.
Having determined that Davis had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his bag, we must next decide whether Smith had authority to consent to the search. The government has the burden of establishing the effectiveness of Smith's consent. See Welch,4 F.3d at 764 (citing Illinois v. Rodriguez,497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)). To meet its burden, the government must demonstrate that Smith had either actual or apparent authority to consent to the search. See Fultz,146 F.3d at 1105; Welch,4 F.3d at 764.
A third party has actual authority to consent to a search of a container if the owner of the container has expressly authorized the third party to give consent or if the third party has mutual use of the container and joint access to or control over the container." Fultz, 146 F.3d at 1105; Welch, 4 F.3d at 764. Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that Smith had express authorization from Davis to consent to a search of the bag, the government must prevail on a mutual use and joint access or control theory in order to demonstrate actual authority.
"Under the apparent authority doctrine, a search is valid if the government proves that the officers who conducted it reasonably believed that the person from whom they obtained consent had the actual authority to grant that consent." Welch, 4 F.3d at 764; Fultz, 146 F.3d at 1105. The government contends that the officers reasonably believed that Smith had authority to consent to a search of the entire apartment. Again, however, we stress that the relevant question is whether the officers reasonably believed that Smith had authority to consent to a search of Davis' bag.
Given the circumstances, to the extent that the officers believed that Smith's consent to search the apartment legally authorized them to search Davis' bag, th
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
As a general matter, “police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supportedby articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.”
At the outset, we note that the Supreme Court has held “actual” roadside drug checkpoints are unconstitutional. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond,531 U.S. 32, 48, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000), the Court held that a narcotics checkpoint whose primary purpose “is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control” violates the Fourth Amendment. In that case, Indianapolis police had established vehicle checkpoints in an effort to interdict illegal drugs.
In United States v. Yousif, the Eighth Circuit held unconstitutional a scheme involving “signs ... placed along the highway warning travelers that they were approaching a drug checkpoint further down the highway, yet the checkpoint was actually located on the ramp which exited the highway a short distance past the signs.” 308 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir.2002). The officers were instructed to stop every vehicle that took the exit after the ruse checkpoint signs. Id. The court was unable to distinguish this ramp drug checkpoint program from the roadside drug checkpoint program held unconstitutional in Edmond because “its primary purpose was the interdiction of drug trafficking” in the absence of any basis for individualized suspicion. Id. at 827. The court recognized that while the modified program differed from the practice in Edmond, the same constitutional problems persisted.
We join the Eighth Circuit in holding that a driver's decision to use a rural highway exit after passing drug checkpoint signs may be considered as one factor in an officer's reasonable suspicion analysis, “although it is not a sufficient basis standing alone to justify a seizure.” Carpenter, 462 F.3d at 987;see also Prokupek, 632 F.3d at 462 (“[R]easonable suspicion for a traffic stop cannot be based solely on the fact that a driver exits an interstate after seeing a sign indicating that a drug checkpoint lies ahead.”).
A Fourth Amendment seizure that relies solely on a driver's decision to use a rural or “dead exit” following checkpoint signs falls short of the requirement of individualized, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. See United States v. Wright, 512 F.3d 466, 471 (8th Cir.2008) (“[T]roopers
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
As an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "police may, without a warrant, impound and search a motor vehicle so long as they do so in conformance with the standardized procedures of the local police department and in furtherance of a community caretaking purpose, such as promoting public safety or the efficient flow of traffic." United States v. Torres , 828 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2016). The purpose of such a search is to "produce an inventory" of the items in the car, in order "to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger." Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the purpose of the search must be non-investigative; it must be "conducted on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity." Torres , 828 F.3d at 1118 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The search cannot be "a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence." Wells , 495 U.S. at 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632.
Thus, an administrative search may be invalid where the officer's "subjective purpose was to find evidence of crime."
Specifically, Johnson challenges the officers' decision not to arrest him as he exited the residence they were staking out, but instead to wait and to stop his car in the street—and to do so by physically boxing him in. He adds that the officers then approached his car with guns drawn, making it even more unlikely that he would feel free to move his car to the side of the road.
Johnson also argues that, even if the stop and impoundment of the car were valid, the officers improperly searched the car in an effort to find evidence of criminal activity.
Johnson raises a number of points in support of his argument, including that the officers' improper motivations are evidenced by their purported failure to comply with various provisions of PPB's inventory policy (for example by failing to list items in an appropriate manner and by failing to provide property receipts for all items seized). However, we need not consider the merits of those arguments—or whether any such violations of PPB policy would require suppression of the evidence found—because the officers themselves explicitly admitted that th
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
This court recognized the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in United States v. Cervantes,219 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 2000). In Cervantes, this court held that the emergency exception doctrine justified an officer's entry into an apartment to investigate a chemical smell associated with methamphetamine production. Id. at 891. We applied the doctrine in Cervantes because (1) the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and that there was an immediate need for their assistance, (2) the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and (3) the police had a reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area to be searched. Id. at 888-91. We held that if any of these three requirements is not satisfied, the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment is not applicable and the search is unconstitutional. Id. at 890 (holding that this three-part test is a "clear and soundly-crafted formulation of the emergency doctrine's requirements"). Evidence seized in an illegal search is inadmissible and must be suppressed. United States v. Reid,226 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000).
Read the full case here: U.S. v. Deemer, 354 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th Cir. 2004), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-deemer
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Around midday on December 7, 2004, three uniformed police officers entered the fenced-in backyard of a private home in a residential neighborhood of Portland. Guns drawn, but without a warrant, one scaled the fence and another kicked open a padlocked gate leading into the backyard. The only information the officers had at that time was (1) a call from a neighbor reporting that the owners were at work and that a white male wearing a black jacket, age unknown, had thrown a red backpack over the fence and climbed into the backyard; and (2) their visual confirmation that a fed backpack was lying against a porch in the backyard and that the person they saw in the yard, who turned out to be the appellant, Rian Struckman, was a white male wearing a black jacket, which he allowed to fall to the ground after being confronted by the officers. The officers' first statements to Struckman were to order him to get down on the ground. Struckman's first statement to the officers was that he lived at the house. As it turned out, he did, but the officers only found that out after Struckman was arrested and after they had searched the backpack, finding an un-loaded handgun. By that point, the officers had also learned that Struckman was a former felon, however, and arrested him as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was ultimately found guilty in a jury trial of that crime and sentenced to 17 years in prison.
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . ." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "At [its] very core stands the right of a [person] to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). For that reason, "searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The presumptive protection accorded people at home extends to outdoor areas traditionally known as "curtilage" — areas that, like the inside of a house, "harbor[] the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a [person's] home and the privacies of life." United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987) (quotations omitted).
The "exigency" exception allows them to e
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
https://youtu.be/dKtN0rEI-rs
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const., amend. IV. “[H]ouses,” for Fourth Amendment purposes, include a home's curtilage, and a home's “front porch is the classic exemplar” of curtilage. Florida v. Jardines, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1415, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). Carloss contends that the search of his home pursuant to the warrant was illegal because the officers got the warrant based on information that they obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they trespassed onto the curtilage of his home—the front porch—to knock on the front door, seeking to speak with him.
This court has held, prior to Jardines, that police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by going to the front door of a home and knocking, seeking to speak with the occupants. Specifically addressing an investigative knock-and-talk—during which police officers knock on the door of a home seeking to speak with the occupants, see United States v. Carter,360 F.3d 1235, 1238 (10th Cir.2004)—this court has held that, “[a]s commonly understood, a ‘knock and talk’ is a consensual encounter and therefore does not contravene the Fourth Amendment, even absent reasonable suspicion.”
The home's occupant remains free to terminate the conversation or even to avoid it altogether by not opening the door. See King, 131 S.Ct. at 1862 (“[W]hether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak.”).
As an initial matter, just the presence of a “No Trespassing” sign is not alone sufficient to convey to an objective officer, or member of the public, that he cannot go to the front door and knock. Such signs, by themselves, do not have the talismanic quality Carloss attributes to them. See Davis v. City of Milwaukee,No. 13–CV–982–JPS, 2015 WL 5010459, at 13 (E.D.Wis. Aug. 21, 2015) (indicating, post-Jardines, that “signs stating ‘Private Property’ or ‘No Trespassing’ do not, by themselves, create an impenetrable privacy zone”); United States v. Jones,No. 4:13CR00011–003, 2013 WL 4678229, at 5 (W.D.Va. Aug. 30, 2013) (stating, post-Jardines, that “No Trespassing” “signs do not, in and of themselves, create a right to privacy
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The knock-and-talk exception permits police “to encroach upon the curtilage of a home, for the purpose of asking questions of the occupants.” United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1158,1158 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The exception is based on the theory of implied consent: a resident's consent is implied from the custom of treating the “knocker on the front door” as an invitation (i.e., license) to approach the home and knock. Id. (quoting Fla. v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013)). “The constitutionality of such entries ... hinges on whether the officer's actions are consistent with an attempt to initiate consensual contact with the occupants.” United States v. Perea–Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1188 (9th Cir. 2012).
The officers’ actions here are not consistent with a knock and talk. The body cam footage showed that six officers approached the Cormacks’ apartment and positioned themselves around the front entrance of the apartment, three of the officers with their guns drawn and pointed at the front window and door. One of the officers positioned by the door knocked as a second officer yelled, “Open the door!” The officer in front of the door kept his gun pointed at the door until the door opened and he saw Ms. Cormack. The officer then lowered his gun, but he did not put it in the holster. An officer asked if Martin was in the apartment. When Ms. Cormack answered that he was, another officer told her, “We are going to need you to come out.” See United States v. Chan-Jiminez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that consent was not voluntary when officer's request for permission to search was made “with one hand resting on [the officer's] gun”); United States v. Marshall, 488 F.2d 1169, 1189 (9th Cir. 1973) (concluding that any consent to search was “in response to an overwhelming display of authority under the compulsion of the badge and the guns” and not voluntary).
Read the Full case here: United States v. Martin, No. 21-10128, 2022 WL 1577807 (9th Cir. May 19, 2022)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Around 4:00 a.m. on April 23, 2013, three northern California law enforcement officers approached Defendant Eric Lundin's home without either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. They came onto his front porch and knocked on his door *1155 with the intent of arresting him. From the front porch where they were standing, the officers heard crashing noises coming from the back of the house. They ran to the back, ordered Lundin to come out of the fenced-in backyard, and arrested him. After putting Lundin in a patrol car, several officers briefly searched Lundin's home, including the back patio where they found two handguns in open view. The district court suppressed the handguns as the result of an illegal search. The United States appeals. We hold that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they knocked on the door at 4:00 a.m. without a warrant with the intent of arresting Lundin, and that the immediately ensuing search was illegal.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, W. Fletcher, Circuit Judge, held that:
1. law enforcement officers exceeded the scope of customary license to approach suspect's home and knock when they stood on suspect's porch and knocked on his door at 4:00 a.m. without warrant and with intent of making arrest, and thus “knock and talk” exception to warrant requirement did not apply;
2. exigent circumstances did not justify officers' warrantless search of suspect's home after they heard crashing noises coming from suspect's backyard;
3. officers lacked reasonable ground for believing that danger justified warrantless sweep of suspect's home, and thus sweep was not authorized under protective sweep doctrine; and
4. handguns seized as result of officers' warrantless search of suspect's patio and home were not admissible under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.
Read full case here: United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2016), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-lundin-2
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
On March 8, 2008, Fuentes reported a domestic disturbance at his residence. The officers searched the residence and found a Nagant bolt-action rifle, ammunition, methamphetamine, a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue, and a metal pipe with marijuana residue. The officers believed the Nagant rifle was the same one that a third party had previously reported stolen. The officers arrested Fuentes, and later released him.
On April 21, 2008, Warm Springs Police Department detectives Sam Williams, John Webb, and Casey Lockey drove to Fuentes' residence to interview him about the Nagant rifle. The detectives did not suspect Fuentes of stealing the gun. Instead, they believed the father of Fuentes' girlfriend had stolen it. At the evidentiary hearing, the detectives testified that the purpose of the visit was to “simply interview” Fuentes about the stolen rifle.
Detective Williams walked up the front steps and stood on the porch slightly to the left of the front door. Detective Webb stood on the gravel parking area to the left of the front porch, and Detective Lockey stood to the right of the porch. The detectives did not announce their presence as police officers, and none of them were in uniform.
Detective Williams knocked on the front door, waited a few moments, and then knocked again. There was no response. After the second knock, however, Detective Webb heard “someone moving inside,” just to the left of the front door. Tr. 30, 179, 214. Detective Webb then walked several feet from his initial position, across the grass strip separating the residence from the gravel parking area, and up to the large front window to look inside.
Fuentes, who had been sitting on his couch, got up and looked out of his living room window when he heard the detectives talking about a search warrant. When Fuentes looked out, he saw Detective Lockey peering in. Detective Lockey was startled to see Fuentes “pop up” and immediately drew his duty weapon, pointed it at Fuentes, and ordered him to put his hands in the air and come to the front door.
After escorting Fuentes and Sahme around the house to the detective's police vehicle, the detectives conducted a “protective sweep” of the residence.
The protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment extend to unreasonable searches of the curtilage of a home, which is the area immediately surrounding the dwelling and harbors “the intimate activity associated with t
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In New York, auditors discovered that the controversial gunshot-detection system ShotSpotter wasted officers’ time with false alerts, identifying gunshots correctly only 13% of the time. The city has spent more than $45 million on the technology, and must now decide whether to renew its contract.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/nypd-shotspotter-guns.html
Mail fraught. Postal inspectors need warrants to search inside of Americans’ mail, but gathering information from the outside of packages and envelopes is fair game. Turns out, law enforcement has used this loophole hundreds of thousands of times in the last decade, postal officials told Congress. The IRS, FBI and Department of Homeland Security routinely ask for days or weeks’ worth of information, like names and addresses, from the mail of people they’re investigating. Postal inspectors say they provide the information only in limited circumstances, but in practice, the numbers show, they rarely say no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/24/post-office-mail-surveillance-law-enforcement
Finally, a conclusion to the Wikileaks case. On Monday, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, agreed to plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security information. Refusing extradition to the U.S. mainland, he will appear in court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory.
Former Honduras president sentenced on drug charges.
A US court has handed down a 45-year sentence to Juan Orlando Hernández on drug smuggling charges. The prosecution accused him of running Honduras like a “narco-state” and paving a “cocaine superhighway to the United States”. He maintains his innocence.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ee4j1e0g6o
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Adrick Ruckes ("Ruckes") was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing cocaine base with the intent to distribute following a search of his automobile. He moved to suppress the evidence discovered during that search: a 9mm handgun and over six grams of crack cocaine. After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Franklin D. Burgess of the Western District of Washington denied his motion.
Ruckes entered a conditional guilty plea and filed this timely appeal. He maintains that Washington State Trooper Kenyon Wiley's search was not valid incident to his arrest because he was not arrested until after contraband was located within the vehicle. Following the district court's analysis, the government proffers two alternative theories for upholding the conviction. First, it argues that the search was proper because, under New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), when officers have probable cause to effect a full custodial arrest of a vehicle's recent occupant, a search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle is warranted. Second, to the extent the search was not incident to Ruckes's arrest, the firearm and cocaine would have been discovered during a routine inventory search of the vehicle after impound. The district court relied on both grounds to uphold the search.
After this case was submitted for decision, the Supreme Court handed down Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1719, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), which limits the applicability of Belton to situations where (1) "the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search," or (2) it is "reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because we find that Trooper Wiley's search of Ruckes's vehicle does not fit within either of these two narrow situations to satisfy the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, we hold that this search cannot be sustained on this theory under the Fourth Amendment. However, because the district court did not err in alternatively holding that the drugs and firearm would have been uncovered during a routine inventory search of the vehicle upon impound, we affirm its denial of the motion to suppress under the doctrine of inevitable discovery.
Read full case here: U.S. v. Ruckes, 586 F.3d 713, 714-15 (9th
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment, of course, provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that this text “establishes a simple baseline”—namely, “[w]hen the Government obtains information by physically intruding on persons, houses, papers, or effects, a search within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has undoubtedly occurred.” Jardines,133 S.Ct. at 1414 (citing United States v. Jones, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 950–51, 950 n. 3, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this “traditional property-based understanding of the Fourth Amendment,” id. at 1417, the Jardines Court held that “using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” id. at 1413. The Court explained that by going onto the home's front porch, the officers had undoubtedly entered the home's curtilage—that is, the “area immediately surrounding and associated with the home” that is treated “as part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Id. at 1414 (internal quotation marks omitted). And because “the officers' investigation took place in a constitutionally protected area,” it was a search implicating the Fourth Amendment unless the officers had license, either explicit or implicit, to gather information there. Id. at 1415. The Court concluded that the officers lacked such permission because “the background social norms that invite a visitor to the front door do not invite him there to conduct a search.” Id. at 1416.
The test used to determine the boundaries of a home's curtilage is not “a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a ‘correct’ answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions.” United States v. Dunn,480 U.S. 294, 301, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987). In Dunn, the Supreme Court instructed “that curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: [1] the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, [2] whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, [3] the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and [4] the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.” Id.
Because the police did not physi
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.
Held: An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30. Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White, 496 U. S. 325, 327. The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justif
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Justin Wells Grigg appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress an unregistered automatic firearm that police officers discovered while conducting an investigative stop of Grigg pursuant to a citizen's complaint that Grigg had been playing his car stereo at an excessive volume earlier in the day.
Most of the constitutional principles at play in this appeal are well established. The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Under Terry and its progeny, police may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, stop persons in the absence of probable cause under limited circumstances. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 207-11, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). In particular, law enforcement officers may briefly stop a moving automobile to investigate a reasonable suspicion that its occupants are involved in criminal activity.
Acknowledging the differences between investigating past criminal conduct and detecting ongoing or imminent crime, the Supreme Court recognized that the exigencies involved in crime prevention are attenuated in the context of completed past crimes: A stop to investigate an already completed crime does not necessarily promote the interest of crime prevention as directly as a stop to investigate suspected ongoing criminal activity.
We decline to adopt a per se standard that police may not conduct a Terry stop to investigate a person in connection with a past completed misdemeanor simply because of the formal classification of the offense. We think it depends on the nature of the misdemeanor.
We adopt the rule that a reviewing court must consider the nature of the misdemeanor offense in question, with particular attention to the potential for ongoing or repeated danger (e.g., drunken and/or reckless driving), and any risk of escalation (e.g., disorderly conduct, assault, domestic violence). An assessment of the "public safety" factor should be considered within the totality of the circumstances, when balancing the privacy interests at stake against the efficacy of a Terry stop, along with the possibility that the police may have alternative means to identify the suspect or achieve the investigative purpose of the stop.
Read full case here: US v. Grigg, 498 F. 3d 1070 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2007, https://scholar.g
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
After Corban Elmore’s teenage son suffered a drug overdose at Elmore’s home, law-enforcement officers secured the scene and prohibited anyone from entering the house. The officers then continued to investigate and allowed almost eight hours to elapse before applying for a search warrant. Once they had a warrant in hand, the officers searched Elmore’s home and discovered two firearms in his bedroom. Elmore entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. Because the eight-hour seizure of Elmore’s home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and because the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the firearms, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment,” as the text makes clear, “is ‘reasonableness.’” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 381–82 (2014) (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)). And reasonableness “generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant” before law-enforcement officers may search or seize a home. Id. at 382 (quoting Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995)). But not always—there are “a number of exceptions” to the warrant requirement. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 456 (2016). One such exception is for “exigent circumstances.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011). This exception applies “when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.” Birchfield, 579 U.S. at 456. For example, “a police officer armed with probable cause to believe a home contains evidence of a serious crime that might otherwise be destroyed may lawfully secure the home and restrict entry while waiting for an assisting officer to diligently procure a search warrant.” United States v. Shrum, 908 F.3d 1219, 1231 (10th Cir. 2018). But even “a seizure reasonable at its inception” based on probable cause and exigency “may become unreasonable as a result of its duration or for other reasons.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 812 (1984).
In McArthur, the Court pointed to four “circumstances” supporting reasonableness. Id. at 331–32. The initial seizure was reasonable because the officers (1) “had probable cause to believe that .
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Justice Department Publishes Proposed Rule to Reclassify Cannabis, Begins Accepting Public Comments
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) proposes to transfer marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to schedule III of the CSA. If marijuana is transferred into schedule III, the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA.
Even if marijuana is rescheduled, it would still be a controlled substance that's subject to federal rules and regulations. More importantly, rescheduling does not decriminalize marijuana or make it legal for recreational use on the federal level.
Instead, the DEA’s proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. Becoming a Schedule III drug would make it easier for research to be done on marijuana as well.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/21/2024-11137/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-marijuana
_________________________________
May 23, 2024 BROWN v. UNITED STATES
The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates a 15-year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm if the defendant has been previously convicted of three violent felonies or "serious drug offenses," and the case dealt with when that mandatory minimum sentence should be applied when it comes to drug crimes.
The parties propose three different answers to the question whether the federal and state definitions of a drug must match when the state crime is committed or at some later point in time.
The Government argues that a prior state drug conviction qualifies if the federal and state definitions of the relevant drug matched when the defendant committed the state crime.
Jackson argues instead that the definitions must match when the defendant violates the federal felon in-possession statute.
Finally, Brown contends that the definitions must match when the defendant is sentenced for the federal felon-in possession offense.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices held that some state drug convictions can trigger a federal sentencing enhancement even if the drug involved is later reclassified under the Controlled Substances Act.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-6389_6537.pdf
__________
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
During the evening hours of January 5, 2019, officers were dispatched to Dane Arredondo's ("Dane") house on a neighbor's report of a woman screaming and crying inside the residence. When the officers arrived, they entered the home without consent to check on the woman. They found her downstairs, extremely intoxicated but apparently unharmed. While inside the house questioning Dane's brother, David Arredondo ("David"), about the disturbance, the officers discovered small glass medicine vials. Dane was charged with (1) health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 ; (2) acquiring controlled substances by fraud, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3) ; and (3) possession of controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. The government appeals the district court's order granting Dane's motion to suppress the vials.
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of persons to be free from unreasonable seizures of their papers and effects. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. A warrantless seizure of property is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673, 680 (8th Cir. 2021). The government contends exigent circumstances and the community caretaker function justified the officers’ presence upstairs and a warrantless seizure of the vials was permissible under the plain view exception.
While we have reservations about the government's claim that the officers were lawfully present upstairs, the exigent circumstances and community caretaker function having dissipated and the issue of consent being questionable, it is unnecessary to resolve this issue because the plain view exception does not apply. The plain view exception authorizes an officer to seize an object without a warrant if (1) the officer lawfully arrived at the location from which he or she views the object, (2) the object's "incriminating character" is "immediately apparent," and (3) "the officer has a lawful right of access to the object itself." United States v. Lewis, 864 F.3d 937, 943 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Here, even assuming the first and third prongs are satisfied, the second prong is not because the record does not establish the "incriminating character" of the vials was "immediately apparent."
For an item's "incriminating character" to be "immediately apparent," the officer must have probable cause to associate it with criminal activity. Id. a
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Ninth Circuit Holds Felon-in-Possession Unconstitutional as to Non-Violent Offenders After Bruen
May 9th 2024, in United States v. Duarte, No. 22-50048 (9th Cir. May 9, 2024), a split panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. The opinion, written by Judge Bea and joined by Judge VanDyke, begins:
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Steven Duarte, who has five prior non-violent state criminal convictions—all punishable for more than a year— was charged and convicted under § 922(g)(1) after police saw him toss a handgun out of the window of a moving car. Duarte now challenges the constitutionality of his conviction. He argues that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society. We agree.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/05/09/22-50048.pdf
________________________
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., sentenced an antiabortion activist to five years in prison for illegally blockading a reproductive health clinic. Lauren Handy is the first person sentenced for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
“Americans have been protesting in favor of and against abortion access for the better part of a century, and there may be nothing more American than these protests” over conflicting views of fundamental rights, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in handing down the penalty.
“But the law does not protect violence or obstructive conduct — nor should it,” Kollar-Kotelly continued. “That’s what you’re being punished for, not your views on abortion nor your very-American commitment to peaceful protest.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/14/lauren-handy-abortion-clinic-blockade-sentence/
________________________________________
Southern District of New York: Authorities have charged two brothers with allegedly stealing $25M wor
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures, but it permits a warrantless search to which the suspect consents. “When conducting a warrantless search of a vehicle based on consent, officers have no more authority to search than it appears was given by the consent.” Thus, it is “important to take account of any express or implied limitations or qualifications attending that consent which establish the permissible scope of the search in terms of such matters as time, duration, area, or intensity.” The Supreme Court's standard, under Florida v. Jimeno, is “that of ‘objective’ reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?”
The government's argument rests on faulty understandings of both law and fact. True, if Cotton properly limited his consent to a search of his luggage, that consent would permit Viator to enter the car and search those items. It is also true that if, during such a limited entry into the vehicle, Viator were to discover evidence of a hidden compartment, that discovery might provide probable cause to search the suspected compartment. The video evidence and Viator's own testimony, however, reveal that he discovered the loose screws and tool markings on the driver's-side rear door panel not as he was trying to locate Cotton's luggage and not as he was examining the contents of such luggage. Rather, after locating and searching the luggage in the backseat area of the car, Viator expanded his search for evidence of contraband to the vehicle itself by proceeding to examine, inter alia, the driver's-side rear door. Authority to enter and search the car for Cotton's luggage was not authority to search discrete locations within the car where luggage could not reasonably be expected to be found. Neither was it justification for lingering in and around the vehicle for 40 minutes—much longer than a search for and of Cotton's luggage should or could conceivably last.
Read full case here: United States v. Cotton, 722 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2013), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-cotton-13/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
When Andres Lopez–Cruz (“Lopez”) gave a border patrol agent permission to “look in” or “search” the two cell phones he had with him, the agent did not ask him whether he would also consent to the agent's answering any incoming calls. Nonetheless, when one of the phones rang while the agent was conducting his search, he answered it, passing himself off as Lopez. By answering the call, the agent obtained information leading to Lopez's arrest and felony charges of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(I). Lopez moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the phone calls. The district court granted the motion to suppress and denied the government's motion for reconsideration. The government appeals.
The scope of consent is determined by asking “what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?” Florida v. Jimeno,500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). The test is an objective one. The district court explained that a reasonable person would not “believe that a consent to look at or search a cell phone would include consent to answer incoming calls.” It held that Lopez's “consent in this case was limited to an examination of the phone itself and that further legal justification was required before the agents answered it.”
Here, the agent's answering of the phone exceeded the scope of the consent that he obtained and, thus, violated Lopez's Fourth Amendment right. As a general matter, consent to search a cell phone is insufficient to allow an agent to answer that phone; rather, specific consent to answer is necessary.
Read the full case here: United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2013), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-lopez-cruz-2
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Agent Brenneman told Mr. Harrison they were there because, "our office received an anonymous phone call there were drugs and bombs at this apartment," and he asked if Mr. Harrison "would mind if we look around the apartment." Id. at 19. The government concedes the ATF had no reason to believe there were bombs in the apartment, but Agent Brenneman testified he had planned to say this to Mr. Harrison "in an effort to gain his consent to search."
It is true that not all deception or trickery will render a search invalid. For example, "an undercover agent may gain entry to a person's home by deception and purchase narcotics with no violation of the fourth amendment." Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 787, 802 (10th Cir. 1989) (citing Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966)). But the government's reliance on this line of cases is misplaced. In cases involving undercover police work, the defendant does not know he or she is permitting the government to enter the premises. Unlike the defendants in those cases, Mr. Harrison did not "unwisely repose[] trust in what later turn[ed] out to be a government agent," Pleasant, 876 F.2d at 802. Instead, Mr. Harrison knew he was opening his home to law enforcement officials who have expertise in explosives. The question is whether the Agents' deceptive tactics in these circumstances rendered his consent involuntary.
We should be especially cautious when this deception creates the impression that the defendant will be in physical danger if he or she refuses to consent to the search.
Where "the effect of the ruse is to convince the resident that he . . . has no choice but to invite the undercover officer in, the ruse may not pass constitutional muster"
In U.S. v. Harrison, 639 F.3d 1273, 1278–79 (10th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit held that "when government agents seek an individual's cooperation with a government investigation by misrepresenting the nature of that investigation, this deception is appropriately considered as part of the totality of circumstances in determining whether consent was gained by coercion or duress."
Read full case here: U.S. v. Harrison, 639 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2011), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-harrison-112/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Officer Harold Cheirs and his partner, Officer Robinson, tried to serve an arrest warrant on Phyllis Brown at 3171 Hendricks Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee. When they got to Hendricks Avenue, they could not find a house with a 3171 address. They eventually found two houses on opposite sides of the street with a 3170 address, at which point, you might say, they were getting warmer. One of the houses presumably was mislabeled, and the officers had several options at their fingertips to figure out which house was 3171 Hendricks and which was not. They could have determined which side of the street contained odd-numbered addresses and served the warrant on the “3170” address on that side of the street. They could have checked city records or for that matter Google Maps to identify which house was the right one. Or they could have gone up to one of the houses and asked an occupant which house was 3171 Hendricks and which one was 3170 Hendricks.
The officers picked the last option—in part. Noticing that one of the two houses was occupied, they proceeded to that one. Now they were getting colder. Officer Cheirs knocked, a woman answered, and she promptly shut the door. While Officer Robinson went to the back of the house, Officer Cheirs knocked again. The occupant eventually opened the door, though not for seven or eight minutes. Instead of asking the woman what the address of the house was, whether Phyllis Brown lived there or whether this was the odd-numbered side of the street, Officer Cheirs represented to the woman that he had a warrant “for this address.” False. He had a warrant for 3171 Hendricks, and this was 3170 Hendricks.
Having no reason to know that this representation was false and opting not to insist on looking at the warrant, the woman let the officers into the house—the house of Phyllis Brown's hapless neighbor, Steven Shaw. The officers performed a protective sweep of the house. Instead of finding Brown, they found a lot of cocaine. They arrested Shaw, and a grand jury charged him with a battery of drug-dealing and drug-possession offenses. The district court denied Shaw's motion to suppress the drugs found at his house. He pled guilty to distributing cocaine, see21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), all the while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The district court sentenced him to 126 months in prison.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. I
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Nora next contends that, even if the officers had probable cause to arrest him, they arrested him in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The Court held in Payton that the Fourth Amendment forbids arresting a suspect inside his home unless the police first obtain an arrest warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id. at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371. That rule is designed to protect “the privacy and the sanctity of the home,” id. at 588, 100 S.Ct. 1371, and stems from “the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic.” Id. at 601, 100 S.Ct. 1371.
The government properly concedes that the police arrested Nora “inside” his home for purposes of the Payton rule. Although officers physically took Nora into custody outside his home in the front yard, they accomplished that feat only by surrounding his house and ordering him to come out at gunpoint. We've held that forcing a suspect to exit his home in those circumstances constitutes an in-home arrest under Payton. See, e.g., Fisher v. City of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1074–75 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); United States v. Al–Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.1985). Since the officers didn't obtain an arrest warrant, Nora's arrest violated the Fourth Amendment unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.
...
Although Nora's arrest was supported by probable cause, the manner in which officers made the arrest violated Payton. Evidence obtained as a result of Nora's unlawful arrest must be suppressed, which renders the portions of the warrant authorizing a search for narcotics-related evidence and evidence of gang membership invalid. The remaining untainted evidence did not establish probable cause to search Nora's home for the broad range of firearms described in the warrant. As a consequence, the entire warrant was invalid and all evidence seized pursuant to it must be suppressed. We reverse the district court's order denying Nora's suppression motion and remand for further proceedings.
Read the full case here: United States v. Nora, 765 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2014), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-nora
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Robertson:
Robertson encounters a fundamental obstacle: standing. A defendant must show standing even if the government has not pressed the issue in the district court. United States v. Nadler,698 F.2d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 1983). Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which may not be vicariously asserted. Rakas v. Illinois,439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 99 S.Ct. 421, 425-26, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Even when officers make a blatantly pretextual arrest of one defendant that creates exigent circumstances justifying search of a second defendant's house, the second defendant may not challenge the legality of the arrest. United States v. Chase,692 F.2d 69, 70 (9th Cir. 1982). Here it is undisputed that the arrest warrant named only Johnson. Had he survived, he could have raised a challenge to the delay in execution of the warrant. Standing in for the dead man, Robertson may not invoke any rights Johnson might have had.
Steeprow - Detention and Search:
Whether an arrest has occurred depends on all the surrounding circumstances, including the extent to which liberty of movement is curtailed and the type of force or authority employed. See United States v. Patterson,648 F.2d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Harrington,636 F.2d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted)). We often confront the issue of when a legitimate " Terry stop," for which only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is required, escalates into an arrest for which probable cause is required. The differing standards for each reflect the differing degrees of intrusion characteristic to each. A Terry stop involves no more than a brief stop, interrogation and, under the proper circumstances, a brief check for weapons. Beyond such a brief and narrowly circumscribed intrusion, an arrest occurs, for which probable cause is required. See Kraus v. City of Pierce,793 F.2d 1105, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 1571, 94 L.Ed.2d 763 (1987). The ultimate question is whether, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe himself to be under arrest. Id.
We conclude that the officers' detention of Steeprow at gunpoint was an arrest which required probable cause. Steeprow was confronted by seven to ten police officers, one of whom aimed his gun at her nose, told her to freeze, and detained her for at least five and perhaps fifteen minutes. The restriction of her liberty
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The district court found inexplicable discrepancies between, on the one hand, the events as depicted in an audio recording and reports of agents nearly contemporaneous with the arrest and, on the other hand, later statements, reports and testimony of the agents. Accordingly, the district court discredited the later statements, reports and testimony, and confined its determination of probable cause to the sparse earlier evidence. The government does not challenge the adverse credibility finding on appeal, but contends that the remaining evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause.
As the district judge noted, the relevant inquiry is what the agents knew, collectively, at the time they arrested Collins. Facts uncovered after the arrest are irrelevant. See Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 236 (9th Cir. 1996) (amended opinion) (stating that facts uncovered "as a result of a stop or arrest cannot be used to support probable cause unless they were known . . . at the moment the arrest was made."). As the facts already recited indicate, the only thing the agents knew about Collins was that he had shown up (perhaps in the white Cadillac) in a public parking lot, had talked briefly to the driver of another car in that lot, and had gone into a fast-food restaurant and purchased a drink. It is true that the agents were expecting a person or persons to arrive in the lot who would be carrying stolen checks. At least one such person, Flores, did arrive and was carrying checks. Entirely missing, however, was any connection between Collins and Flores other than the fact that they appeared (from somewhere) in a public parking lot relatively contemporaneously. Equally missing is any connection between Collins and Pass.
These facts did not give rise to a fair probability that Collins was part of the conspiracy. The principal fact that tied Collins to this criminal activity was his "mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity," which "does not, without more, give rise to probable cause." Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979) (holding that officers lacked probable cause to search the defendant solely because of his presence in a tavern in which the officers suspected the bartender dealt heroin). The facts showed only that Collins was close to the wrong people at the wrong time.
The connections ended there. Collins was not associating with a suspected
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Warrantless searches by law enforcement officers “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, “[t]he police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.” California v. Acevedo,500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991). An officer will have probable cause to search if “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, ‘based on the totality of circumstances.’ ” Dawson v. City of Seattle,435 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Illinois v. Gates,462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)).
“One of the themes which runs through the decisions on the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement is that when the ultimate probable cause determination is made, whether by a magistrate when a warrant is sought or upon a motion to suppress evidence obtained without a warrant, mere conclusions will not suffice.” 2 Wayne Lafave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 3.5(e), at 297 (4th ed. 2004). See, e.g., Gates,462 U.S. at 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (noting that “wholly conclusory” statements of officers are insufficient to establish probable cause); United States v. Ventresca,380 U.S. 102, 108–09, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) (noting that “purely conclusory” statements of officers, without detailing any of the underlying circumstances, will be insufficient to establish probable cause); Nathanson v. United States,290 U.S. 41, 47, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933) (noting that an officer's “mere affirmance of suspicion or belief without disclosure of supporting facts or circumstances” is insufficient to establish probable cause).
United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012)
Read full case here: United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 2012), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-cervantes-7
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Supreme Court has held that police need no warrant to arrest a felony suspect on probable cause in a public place; United States v. Watson, 1976, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598; United States v. Santana, 1976, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300.
In Coolidge the Court stated in dicta that "the notion that the warrantless entry of a man's house in order to arrest him on probable cause is per se legitimate is in fundamental conflict with the basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a man's house without warrant are per se unreasonable in the absence of some one of a number of well defined 'exigent circumstances.'" 403 U.S. 477-78, 91 S.Ct. 2044.
Pitt said, "Every man's house [is] his castle." id., fn. 7. United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1349 (9th Cir. 1978)
We join the District of Columbia Circuit, Dorman v. United States, 1970, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 ( in banc), and the Second Circuit, United States v. Reed,572 F.2d 412, 1978, and hold that, absent exigent circumstances, police who have probable cause to arrest a felony suspect must obtain a warrant before entering a dwelling to carry out the arrest.
REFUSAL OF ADMISSION
"When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search." Bumper v. North Carolina, 1968, 391 U.S. 543, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 797. When, on the other hand, the officer demands entry but presents no warrant, there is a presumption that the officer has no right to enter, because it is only in certain carefully defined circumstances that lack of a warrant is excused. Camara v. Municipal Court, 1967, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930. An occupant can act on that presumption and refuse admission. He need not try to ascertain whether, in a particular case, the absence of a warrant is excused. He is not required to surrender his Fourth Amendment protection on the say so of the officer. The Amendment gives him a constitutional right to refuse to consent to entry and search. His asserting it cannot be a crime, Camara, supra,387 U.S. at 532-33, 87 S.Ct. 1727. Nor can it be evidence of a crime. District of Columbia v. Little, 1950, 339 U.S. 1, 7, 70 S.Ct. 468, 471, 94 L.Ed. 599
Read the full case here: United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1978), https://
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
This appeal stemmed from two individuals' cross-country car trip. Inside the car were secret compartments containing bundles of methamphetamine. But to the casual observer, the car looked like any other car.
The driver apparently knew about the secret compartments of methamphetamine, but did the passenger? It's possible, but there was no evidence that
• the driver had told the passenger about the methamphetamine or
• the passenger had detected the secret compartments.
Without such evidence, could a reasonable jury find the passenger guilty of crimes that required her knowledge of the drugs? We answer no.
Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez rode across the country in a car containing roughly 29 pounds of methamphetamine. "But mere presence, as a passenger, in a car found to be carrying drugs is insufficient to implicate the passenger in the conspiracy." United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir. 1995). The issue here is whether any other proof existed on Ms. Garcia-Rodriguez's knowledge of the methamphetamine.
Read full case at United States v. Rodriguez, No. 22-6194, 6 (10th Cir. Feb. 21, 2024), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rodriguez-3183
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Supreme Court itself has recognized that distinguishing a Terry investigative stop from a de facto arrest "may in some instances create difficult line-drawing problems." United States v. Sharpe,470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). As noted by the Court in the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), each case must be decided on its own facts. "Whether an arrest has occurred depends on all the surrounding circumstances, including the extent to which liberty of movement is curtailed and the type of force or authority employed." United States v. Robertson,833 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir. 1987). In reviewing the facts and circumstances of each case, we must be mindful of the narrow scope of the Terry exception — an exception based on a brief, street encounter between police and a suspect. To do otherwise would be to risk allowing the "exception' . . . to swallow the general rule that Fourth Amendment seizures arereasonable' only if based on probable cause." Dunaway v. New York,442 U.S. 200, 213, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2257, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); see Florida v. Royer,460 U.S. 491, 510, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1331, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (Brennan, J., concurring).
Although the movement of Ricardo to the patrol car is a significant factor in our analysis, we reiterate that each case is decided under the totality of the particular circumstances. For example, in conjunction with the place of detention, in Baron we considered the disparity in power stemming from the fact that Baron was a female detained by three male officers. Baron,860 F.2d at 916. Here, we take into account that a juvenile was confronted by several officers. To a limited extent, we also consider Officer Bork's threat of arrest for providing false information as adding to the coercive atmosphere of the detention. Thus, all the circumstances, including the facts that the suspect was sixteen, taken by the arm, told not to run, and placed in the back of the police car, indicate a degree of coercion unacceptable as part of a Terry stop, and unsupportable on anything less than probable cause. We therefore hold that the officers effectively arrested Ricardo when they detained him in the patrol car for questioning.
Having determined that Ricardo was in fact under arrest during the field questioning by Officers Bork and Emery, we next briefly address the question of probable cause. Ou
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Constitution's Fourth Amendment provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. A "state search warrant being challenged in a federal court must be judged by federal constitutional standards." United States v. McManus , 719 F.2d 1395, 1397 (6th Cir. 1983) (citing Elkins v. United States , 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) ). "Probable cause is defined as ‘reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.’ " United States v. King , 227 F.3d 732, 739 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Bennett , 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990) ). In assessing whether a warrant to search a residence passes muster under the Fourth Amendment, the "critical element ... is ... that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things' to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought." Zurcher v. Stanford Daily , 436 U.S. 547, 556, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978).
It is well established in this Circuit that drug paraphernalia recovered from a trash pull establishes probable cause to search a home when combined with other evidence of the resident's involvement in drug crimes.
The Court held that the marijuana roaches and T2-laced plastic bags Detective Particelli recovered from the trash pull here were insufficient, standing alone, to create probable cause to search Defendant's residence.
Read full case here: United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2016), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-abernathy-15
Case about trash:
California v. Greenwood, 486 US 35 (1988)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-684
https://youtu.be/mCdJhIweZtk
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment's protections extend to brief investigatory stops that fall short of a traditional arrest. Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002)). Courts must determine, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether a police-initiated stop is supported by the officer's reasonable suspicion. Id. Reasonable suspicion exists if "specific, articulable facts . . . together with objective and reasonable inferences" suggest that the persons detained by the police are engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
An officer's mere hunch is insufficient to meet the reasonable suspicion standard. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 274. However, conduct that appears innocent to untrained eyes can convey different information to an experienced and trained observer. See United States v. Bernard, 623 F.2d 551, 560 (9th Cir. 1980) ("The test is whether ordinary, reasonable men, possessed of the experience and knowledge of [the police officers] would conclude that the transaction . . . was more likely than not a criminal transaction") (citations omitted).
The government justifies the officers' initial stop based on Sergeant Justus' knowledge of Swingle and his belief that the pressure washer was likely stolen and being traded for drugs. However, this court finds that based on the totality of the circumstances, the police did not have reasonable suspicion to order defendant out of the mobile home. Defendant's conduct involving the pressure washer did not provide Sergeant Justus with a reasonable basis to "conclude that the transaction . . . was more likely than not a criminal transaction." Bernard,623 F.2d at 560. The court considered the PPB's experience with Swingle, but notes that Swingle has never been convicted of stealing property. Ad
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In sum, under the most recent cases a seizure occurs only if: (1) a reasonable person would feel, under all the circumstances, he could not disregard the police inquiries and go about his business; (2) the restraints imposed upon him result from the police conduct itself rather than the happenstance of where the encounter occurred; and (3) the person actually reacted in a manner consistent with being “seized.”
While a police request for identification does not automatically give rise to a seizure, we have stated on previous occasions that “once the identification is handed over to police and they have had a reasonable opportunity to review it, if the identification is not returned to the detainee [it is] difficult to imagine that any reasonable person would feel free to leave without it.” United States v. Battista, 876 F.2d 201, 205 (D.C.Cir.1989); cf. Royer, 460 U.S. at 501, 103 S.Ct. at 1326 (plurality opinion) (noting that a seizure occurred when, among other things, police “retain[ed the defendant's] ticket and driver's license ... without indicating in any way that he was free to depart”).
United States v. Jordan, 951 F.2d 1278, 1282 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when physical force is used to restrain movement or when a person submits to an officer’s ‘show of authority.’ " United States v. Brodie , 742 F.3d 1058, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting California v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) ). A show of authority sufficient to constitute a seizure occurs where "the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business," Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted), or, put another way, where "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave," United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980).
The officers’ conduct—pulling into the narrow parking lot at night; training the take-down light on the Jeep; and, most importantly, parking their cruiser within a few feet of the Jeep’s nose—amounted to a "show of authority" that "would have communicated to a reasonable person" in Delaney’s position "that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business."
Read full case here: United States v. Delaney, 955 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2020), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-delaney-18/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, in some way restrains the liberty of a citizen. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991). A police officer has restrained the liberty of the citizen if, "taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would `have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.'" Id. at 437 (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991)).
When a law enforcement official retains control of a person's identification papers, such as vehicle registration documents or a driver's license, longer than necessary to ascertain that everything is in order, and initiates further inquiry while holding on to the needed papers, a reasonable person would not feel free to depart.
Read full case here: U.S. v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1326 (9th Cir. 1997), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-chan-jimenez/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Kaupp was arrested within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment before the detectives began to question him. A seizure of the person within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments occurs when, "taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would 'have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.''' Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 437. This test is derived from Justice Stewart's opinion in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 554, which includes, as examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, the threatening presence of several police officers, an officer's display of a weapon, some physical touching of the person, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. This Court has never sustained the involuntary removal of a suspect from his home to a police station and his detention there for investigative purposes absent probable cause or judicial authorization. The State does not claim to have had probable cause here, and an application of the test just mentioned shows that Kaupp was arrested, there being evidence of everyone of Mendenhall's probative circumstances. A 17-year-old boy was awakened at 3 a.m. by at least three police officers, placed in handcuffs, and taken in his underwear and without shoes in a patrol car to the crime scene and then to the sheriff's offices, where he was taken into an interrogation room and questioned. The contrary reasons mentioned by the state courts-his "Okay" response, that the sheriff's office routinely handcuffed individuals when transporting them, and that Kaupp did not resist the handcuffs or act uncooperatively-are no answer to the facts here. Because Kaupp was arrested before he was questioned, and because the State does not claim that the sheriff's department had probable cause to detain him at that point, his confession must be suppressed unless the State can show that it was an act of free will sufficient to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion. The only relevant consideration supporting the State is the observance of Miranda, but such warnings alone cannot always break the causal connection between the illegality and the confession, Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 603. All other relevant considerations-the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, th
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
On Sunday December 15, 1985 at 3:30 p.m., Deputy Sheriff Hedrick was on routine patrol in a rural neighborhood. Deputy Hedrick observed Kerr by a car parked near a barn located on a residential property. The car's trunk was open, exposing cardboard boxes. Because he knew of several recent residential burglaries in the area, Deputy Hedrick made a U-turn, returning to the residence's driveway. The driveway was a one lane dirt road approximately seventy to one hundred feet long. As Deputy Hedrick pulled into the driveway, Kerr was backing his car out. When he was approximately forty to fifty feet from the patrol car, Kerr left his own car and met Deputy Hedrick on foot. Without being asked, Kerr produced his birth certificate and vehicle registration and stated that he had no driver's license. Deputy Hedrick questioned Kerr, investigated the premises and discovered a methamphetamine laboratory in the barn.
Kerr was indicted for three counts of drug offenses involving the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Kerr's motion to suppress the evidence collected as a result of his encounter with Deputy Hedrick, concluding that the encounter did not constitute a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Not every encounter between the police and the public is entitled to fourth amendment protection. "Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a `seizure' has occurred." Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Because search and seizure issues arise in a myriad of fact patterns, the Supreme Court has not defined the precise point at which a fourth amendment seizure occurs. See United States v. Ward,488 F.2d 162, 169 (9th Cir. 1973) (en banc).
Under the circumstances, Deputy Hedrick's authority and conduct provided Kerr with no reasonable alternative except an encounter with the police. Consequently, the encounter cannot be deemed voluntary. Voluntariness presupposes a freedom of choice that Kerr did not have. The district court's suggestion that Kerr could have backed around the car or ignored Deputy Hedrick defies common sense; Kerr's freedom to depart was restrained at the moment Deputy Hedrick blocked the one-lane driveway.
*I accidentally said the Supreme Court in the video. This is th
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Following the unexpected death of Defendant Walt Shrum’s common law wife at the couple’s home around 5:30 a.m. on March 11, 2015, police officers in Kingman, Kansas "secured" the home, prohibiting Defendant access. Approximately three hours later and without access to his home, Defendant signed a consent to search form permitting an investigator from the Kingman County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) to enter his home for the express purpose of retrieving his deceased wife’s medication in anticipation of an autopsy. While in the home, the investigator saw ammunition in plain view inside an open bedroom closet. After returning to headquarters, the investigator learned Defendant was a convicted felon and recalled seeing the ammunition in the closet. Several hours later, the investigator, based on what he had seen and learned, contacted a federal agent and asked him to obtain a search warrant for Defendant’s home. A federal magistrate judge issued the warrant at 10:00 p.m. A late night search of the home, which local authorities still would not permit Defendant to access, uncovered not only the ammunition but also two loaded firearms and 4.4 grams of suspected methamphetamine.
A grand jury subsequently charged Defendant with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition, again in violation of § 922(g)(1), and one count of possessing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Following the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the incriminating evidence used to charge him, Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. After receiving a sentence of time served, Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This appeal presents us with two questions: Did the initial securing of Defendant’s home constitute an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment? And if so, did such seizure taint the incriminating evidence ultimately uncovered in the warrant search of his home? We answer both questions yes, and reverse.
Read full case here: United States v. Shrum, 908 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2018), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-shrum-3
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
-
Know Your Rights: Can Cops Inquire About Probation/Parole in Routine Traffic Stops? Driver Pat-Downs https://youtu.be/98LFwrhsMHE
-
Is it Legal for Police to Enter an Attached Garage Without a Warrant to Arrest a Drug Trafficker? We can conceive of no reason to distinguish a garage, where people spend time, work, and store their possessions, from a den or a kitchen, where people spend time, work, and store their possessions. Simply put, a person's garage is as much a part of his castle as the rest of his home. https://youtu.be/DIZJHIFj7m0
-
Outrageous: Wearing a Fanny Pack Over Your Shoulder Could Land You in a Police Search!?! The circumstances surrounding this case, which encompasses the officer's expertise in retrieving firearms from fanny packs, Mr. Hagood's unconventional method of wearing the fanny pack, his nervous demeanor upon encountering the officers, and the late hour within a high-crime neighborhood, collectively established reasonable suspicion. https://youtu.be/BhdNVayyLXo
-
Police cannot enter your porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity. Curtilage. “[P]rivacy expectations are most heightened” in the curtilage, because that area is “intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). And the right to retreat into the home “would be of little practical value if the State's agents could stand in a home's porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity.” Jardines, 569 U.S. at 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409. Put even more directly, the curtilage is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Id. (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735). https://youtu.be/tXCU1kramqM
-
Airport Worker Searches Luggage in Hopes of Getting a Monetary $$$ Reward From the DEA. The Court of Appeals, J. Blaine Anderson, Circuit Judge, held that action of airline employee in opening a “Speed Pak” was that of a government agent where only reason he opened case was his suspicion that it contained illegal drugs, employee, who at one time had been a listed informant, expected a probable reward from Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA agent testified that such expectation was reasonable and that although agency had no prior knowledge of the particular search and had not directed employee to perform it, it had encouraged him to engage in such types of search and employee had pr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Supreme Court held in United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), that a Fourth Amendment "`seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." Id. at 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652. In Va Lerie, this court, en banc, applied Jacobsen in the context presented by this case-property entrusted to a third-party common carrier. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d at 701-03, 708 n. 9. Va Lerie presents similar facts, and, thus, this case turns on whether Va Lerie, in which the en banc court concluded that a seizure did not occur, id. at 708-09, is distinguishable from this case.
In Va Lerie, the en banc court determined that law enforcement's detention of property entrusted to a third-party common carrier constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure only when the detention does any of the following: (1) "delay[s] a passenger's travel or significantly impact[s] the passenger's freedom of movement," (2) "delay[s] [the checked luggage's] timely delivery," or (3) "deprive[s] the carrier of its custody of the checked luggage." Id. at 707.
Full case here: U.S. v. Alvarez-Manzo, 570 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2009), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-alvarez-manzo-3
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Local police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence. Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.
Voting 6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."
Full case here: California v. Greenwood, 486 US 35 (1988), https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-684
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. But individuals "subject to a warrantless, suspicionless search condition have ‘severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone.’ " United States v. Cervantes , 859 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Samson v. California , 547 U.S. 843, 852, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006) ). Here, a condition of Dixon's supervised release mandated that he "submit to a search of his person, residence, office, vehicle, or any property under his control ... at any time with or without suspicion."
But this authority is not limitless, and we have explained that to conduct a search of property pursuant to this condition, the individual subject to it must "exhibit[ ] a sufficiently strong connection to [the property in question] to demonstrate ‘control’ over it." Korte , 918 F.3d at 754 (quoting Grandberry , 730 F.3d at 980 ). In other words, before the police could search Dixon's blue Honda minivan without a warrant or probable cause, they had to have a sufficient basis to believe he owned or controlled that vehicle. In this case, the police crossed that knowledge threshold only when they inserted the key that Dixon had dropped into the car lock, thereby confirming that he exercised control over the minivan.
Therefore, we must determine whether inserting that key into the minivan's lock was itself permissible under the Fourth Amendment. This matters because if inserting the key into the car lock violated Dixon's Fourth Amendment rights, the officers’ resulting knowledge and authority to search that vehicle would be tainted by a Fourth Amendment violation. Given that the district court had already ruled that the officers’ search of Dixon's apartment violated the Fourth Amendment, the officers would have lacked justification for Dixon's arrest and subsequent stationhouse search. Thus, the trial court would have had to suppress the drugs found on Dixon's person, and the government would have been left with no admissible drug evidence at Dixon's trial.
...
When Officer Ochoa inserted the key into the minivan's lock, an "effect," he physically intruded onto a constitutionally protected area. This physical intrusion was done for the express purpose of obtaining information, specifically to learn whether Dixon exer
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Government obtained the civil forfeiture of a 1986 Dodge Ram Charger and $277,000 in U.S. currency found in this vehicle, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (1988). Claimant Montes appeals on the ground that evidence discovered in the search of the Dodge Ram Charger should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He contends that the police conduct in searching the leased Dodge Ram Charger, which was covered and parked in the backyard of a home, in order to discover the vehicle identification number ("VIN"), was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The $277,000 in currency was discovered in the process and was confiscated when the narcotics-detector dog alerted on the currency. The central issue of the appeal is whether the police have a right to search a parked vehicle to obtain the VIN. Execution of the judgment has been stayed pending this appeal, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 62(d).
“Removal of the cover of the vehicle having been a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence, which is the product of that search, must be excluded at trial. ”
Read the full case here: U.S. v. $277,000.00 U.S. Currency, 941 F.2d 898, 899 (9th Cir. 1991), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-27700000-us-currency
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
"The Fourth Amendment is a vital safeguard of the right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusions into any area in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 767, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985) (citations omitted). As the parties agree, Monghur, at least initially, held a reasonable expectation of privacy in the closed container that he stored in the closet in Wilson's apartment. See United States v. Davis, 332 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2003) ("A person has an expectation of privacy in his or her private, closed containers' anddoes not forfeit that expectation of privacy merely because the container is located in a place that is not controlled exclusively by the container's owner.'" (quoting United States v. Fultz, 146 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th Cir. 1998))). The only question raised by this appeal is whether Monghur relinquished, abandoned, or otherwise waived that expectation of privacy by disclosing the handgun's existence and location in jail telephone conversations that he knew were monitored by law enforcement.
When made to a law enforcement officer, an unequivocal, contemporaneous, and voluntary disclosure that a package or container contains contraband waives any reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (recognizing that "reasonableness" remains the touchstone under the Fourth Amendment).
Nothing about his jailhouse conversations with Bousley, which law enforcement later overheard, operates as a "direct and explicit" waiver of an expectation of privacy in a container hidden elsewhere. Cardona-Rivera, 904 F.2d at 1156. Monghur's efforts to conceal the subject matter based on what he said on the phone demonstrate both an objective and subjective intention to preserve privacy — not to relinquish it. We therefore reject the Government's position that Monghur waived his expectation of privacy in the closed container through his statements on the telephone.
To be clear, we think based on his admissions in the jail telephone conversations, coupled with Monghur's criminal record for violence and what officers discovered when Wilson invited them to look around, Agent McCamey had probable cause to believe Monghur had a firearm stashed inside Wilson's apartment. Exigency was not established here and is unchallenged on appeal. Therefore, we must presu
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Whether a search is reasonable will depend upon its nature and all of the circumstances surrounding it, United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985), but, as a general matter, warrantless searches are unreasonable. See Cody v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).
Searches conducted at the nation's borders, however, represent a well-established and long-standing exception to the warrant requirement. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 619, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); see also United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152-53, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004). The exception applies not only at the physical boundaries of the United States, but also at the "the functional equivalent" of a border, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-73, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), including the first port where a ship docks after arriving from a foreign country, United States v. Smith, 273 F.3d 629, 633 n. 8 (5th Cir. 2001). The search here, conducted as the Adventure of the Seas arrived in St. Thomas from St. Maarten, was therefore a border search.
In the case most clearly on point, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that "the search of private living quarters on a ship should require something more than naked suspicion." United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 738 (9th Cir. 1985).
As a passenger of a cruise liner, Whitted had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cabin: he excluded others from it, used it as his home, and slept and conducted his daily life therein.
Mindful of the "centuries-old principle of respect for the privacy of the home," we, therefore, consider a search of a individual's living quarters among the most intrusive of searches — invading as it does a place where the individual expects not to be disturbed. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 610, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999); see also Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 115, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006); United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mick, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) ("[P]hysical entry of the home is the chief evil against wh
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Sandoval's expectation of privacy was also objectively reasonable. In LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1326 n. 11, 1332 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1985), we held that a person can have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on private property. In Gooch, 6 F.3d at 677, we extended that holding to find a reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on a public campground. Here, the tent was located on BLM land, not on a public campground, and it is unclear whether Sandoval had permission to be there. However, we do not believe the reasonableness of Sandoval's expectation of privacy turns on whether he had permission to camp on public land. Such a distinction would mean that a camper who overstayed his permit in a public campground would lose his Fourth Amendment rights, while his neighbor, whose permit had not expired, would retain those rights.
Read the full case here: U.S. v. Sandoval, 200 F.3d 659, 660-61 (9th Cir. 2000), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-sandoval-73/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Gooch must have had both a subjective and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the tent. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 516, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).
SEARCH: We have already established that a person can have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on private property. LaDuke v. Nelson,762 F.2d 1318, 1326 n. 11, 1332 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1985). Accord LaDuke v. Castillo,455 F. Supp. 209 (E.D.Wash. 1978). This reasonable expectation is not destroyed when a person's tent is pitched instead on a public campground where one is legally permitted to camp. The Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places." Katz,389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. at 511; id. at 351-52, 88 S.Ct. at 511
ARREST: No warrant is required to arrest a suspected felon in a public place. United States v. Watson,423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). Absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless arrest is unconstitutional in a "non-public" place, even when that place is not one's residence.United States v. Alvarez,810 F.2d 879, 881 (9th Cir. 1987); Minnesota v. Olson,495 U.S. 91, 96 n. 5, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1688 n. 5, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990). See United States v. Ruckman,806 F.2d 1471, 1475-76 (10th Cir. 1986) (McKay, J., dissenting) (suggesting that inhabitant of cave on public property has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy therein even if the cave is not considered a house).
Though Gooch's tent was pitched on public property, we hold that the closed tent was a "non-public" place for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis. We have recognized that, despite the special status afforded a residence under the Fourth Amendment, "an individual's privacy interests may be implicated in a variety of other settings." United States v. Driver,776 F.2d 807, 809 (9th Cir. 1985). By establishing a campground, the state created a situation where campers were invited to come to set up a tent. The campers could reasonably assert a legitimate, though temporary, interest in their privacy even in this short-term "dwelling."
We hold that Gooch's warrantless arrest in his tent violated the proscription of the Fourth Amendment.
Full case here: U.S. v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 1993), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-gooch-7
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Nowhere is the protective force of the fourth amendment more powerful than it is when the sanctity of the home is involved. The sanctity of a person's home, perhaps our last real retreat in this technological age, lies at the very core of the rights which animate the amendment. Therefore, we have been adamant in our demand that absent exigent circumstances a warrant will be required before a person's home is invaded by the authorities.
We can conceive of no reason to distinguish a garage, where people spend time, work, and store their possessions, from a den or a kitchen, where people spend time, work, and store their possessions. Simply put, a person's garage is as much a part of his castle as the rest of his home.
Read full case here: U.S. v. Oaxaca, 233 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2000), https://casetext.com/case/usa-v-oaxaca
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The United States appealed from orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Donald S. Voorhees, J., granting defendants' suppression motions. The Court of Appeals, J. Blaine Anderson, Circuit Judge, held that action of airline employee in opening a “Speed Pak” was that of a government agent where only reason he opened case was his suspicion that it contained illegal drugs, employee, who at one time had been a listed informant, expected a probable reward from Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA agent testified that such expectation was reasonable and that although agency had no prior knowledge of the particular search and had not directed employee to perform it, it had encouraged him to engage in such types of search and employee had previously opened Speed Paks with no discouragement from the agency and had been rewarded for providing drug information in the past, although his informant's file had previously been closed.
United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981). Full case here: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-walther
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Mr. Luis Alfonso Leon was stopped by law enforcement after he was observed illegally driving in a passing lane. During the traffic stop, the officer began to suspect Mr. Leon was trafficking drugs. A search of his vehicle uncovered seventy-six pounds of methamphetamine, and Mr. Leon was charged with one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Following a failed motion to suppress, he pled guilty and was sentenced to seventy months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Mr. Leon challenges the denial of his suppression motion, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and investigate the suspected drug trafficking. We agree and therefore reverse.
Takeaways:
1. the fact that the defendant was coming from Phoenix when he was stopped near Denver did not provide reasonable suspicion for prolonging the traffic stop;
2. The defendant‘s travel plans of driving from Denver to pick up religious books and perhaps stay for an event were not so implausible as to provide reasonable suspicion for prolonging traffic stop;
3. The condition of the vehicle's interior did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity;
4. The defendant's alleged nervousness during the traffic stop was not extreme and bore negligible weight in determining whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion for prolonging traffic stop; and
5. The trooper's belief that the defendant was traveling in a third-party vehicle did not provide reasonable suspicion.
Full case here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110916595.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered following a traffic stop, and remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence, in a case in which Xzavione Taylor entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The panel held that the officers did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop. The panel wrote:
• An officer’s asking Taylor two questions about weapons early in the counter—once before the officer learned that Taylor was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession and once after—was a negligibly burdensome precaution that the officer could reasonably take in the name of safety.
• An officer did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop when he asked Taylor to exit the vehicle.
• The officers’ subjective motivations are irrelevant because the Fourth Amendment’s concern with reasonableness allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.
• A criminal history check and the officers’ other actions while Taylor was outside the car were within the lawful scope of the traffic stop.
• Even if, contrary to precedent, the frisk and criminal history check were beyond the original mission of the traffic stop, they were still permissible based on the officers’ reasonable suspicion of an independent offense: Taylor’s unlawful possession of a gun.
As to whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched Taylor’s car, the panel held that the district court did not err in finding that Taylor unequivocally and specifically consented to a search of the car for firearms.
Taylor conceded that precedent forecloses his constitutional challenge to a risk-notification condition of supervised release. The panel remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of conditions concerning outpatient substance abuse treatment and vocational services programs.
Full case here: UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR, 60 F.4th 1233 (2023), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/01/21-10377.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Most drivers do not know that they have a right to deny consent,and troopers are more than happy to exploit their lack of knowledge of their legal rights. Even though the law requires that consent be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, troopers don’t generally let such niceties stand in their way. For drivers who are not initially forthcoming with consent, troopers are trained to conclude the traffic stop, somehow signal that the driver is free to go, then immediately re-engage the driver in friendly, casual conversation to keep the driver at the scene and enable the trooper to develop reasonable suspicion or take another stab at getting consent . . .
The Court found that the Kansas Highway Patrol "is engaged in a pattern or practice of prolonging traffic stops by using the Kansas Two-Step to coerce drivers into answering questions when the troopers do not have reasonable suspicion and the drivers do not feel free to leave. This practice violates the Fourth Amendment by extending traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and without the knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent of the drivers."
Full case here: BLAINE FRANKLIN SHAW et al., v. HERMAN JONES, in his official capacity as the ) Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, ) et al.,
https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv1067-86
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on October 14, 2020, officers from the New York City Police Department (NYPD) encountered Defendant Michael Hagood near a housing complex managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) in the Bronx. Mr. Hagood was notably wearing a fanny pack slung across his chest while standing beside a double-parked vehicle. The officers observed that Mr. Hagood appeared visibly anxious upon spotting them, with one officer noticing an unusual protrusion in his fanny pack that resembled the shape of a handgun.
Prompted by these observations, the officers decided to stop and frisk Mr. Hagood, leading to the discovery of a loaded semi-automatic pistol in the fanny pack. Consequently, Mr. Hagood faced charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) for possessing a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction. He subsequently sought to suppress the firearm as evidence, contending that the initial stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights due to the officers lacking reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
However, the circumstances surrounding this case, which encompasses the officer's expertise in retrieving firearms from fanny packs, Mr. Hagood's unconventional method of wearing the fanny pack, his nervous demeanor upon encountering the officers, and the late hour within a high-crime neighborhood, collectively established reasonable suspicion.
Dissent:
The ordinary, reasonable person looking at this case would describe it as follows: Officer Migliaccio drove by Michael Hagood late one night from thirty feet away and had a two- or three-second window during which to observe Hagood. Migliaccio saw Hagood standing outside, calmly talking to two friends and wearing a fanny pack over his shoulder and across his chest. For whatever reason, Migliaccio had a hunch that Hagood was up to no good. Migliaccio acted on his hunch and decided to find a way to search Hagood. His hunch turned out to be right. Hagood was, indeed, a past felon improperly in possession of a gun. [...D]espite the majority’s Herculean efforts, the record, at best, merely supports that Migliaccio had a hunch that turned out right.
Read the full case here: United States v. Hagood, No. 22-588 (2d Cir. 2023), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-588/22-588-2023-08-30.html
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of valid consent or exigent circumstances, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable and violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 211, 101 S.Ct. 1642. Here, the only warrant the police possessed at the time they entered Cruz's home was an old warrant for Medina's arrest for driving a car with a suspended license. In Steagald, the Supreme Court stated that an arrest warrant for a non-resident was insufficient to authorize a search of a third party's home.Id. at 216, 101 S.Ct. 1642. Operating under the premise that the police did not have valid consent or exigent circumstances to search Cruz's home, Medina contends that the search by the HPD violated the principle stated in Steagald.
What about girlfriends consent in this case?
Consent is not voluntary if it is merely the acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. Bumper, 391 U.S. at 548-49. Moreover, "[w]here there is coercion, there cannot be consent."Id. at 550. Consent must be voluntary and courts look to several factors in order to determine whether consent was given voluntarily or through coercion. United States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546, 554-55 (1st Cir. 1993). Those factors include age, education, experience, intelligence, knowledge of the right to withhold consent and evidence of coercive means or inherently coercive circumstances. United States v. Corain, 198 F.3d 306, 309 (1st Cir. 1999). No one factor is determinative because the Court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the purported consent. Barnett, 989 F.2d at 554-55.
Read full case here: U.S. v. Medina, 451 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Mass. 2006), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-medina-10
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
"[W]hen an officer has probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found specifically in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, and no other subsequent discovery or information provides further probable cause to believe the evidence will be found in the trunk, an officer’s search of the trunk exceeds the permissible scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception."
The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is fundamental to our sense of liberty and justice. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) The general rule is that warrantless searches are unreasonable.(Katz v. United States (1967) 389U.S.347, 357.)Certain circumstances, however, create exceptions to the general ban on warrantless searches. (Ibid.) One such exception—the automobile exception—is the focus of this appeal.
“The automobile exception provides ‘police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’” (People v. McGee(2020) 53Cal.App.5th 796, 801, quoting People v. Evans(2011) 200Cal.App.4th 735, 753.) The scope of a warrantless search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (United States v. Ross(1982) 456U.S.798, 824 (Ross).)In deciding whether a warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception, the facts are determinative. That is because probable cause exists “where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” (Ornelas v. United States(1996) 517U.S.690, 696.)
Here, the searching police officer received information via a radio broadcast from another officer that a juvenile on probation with a firearm restriction likely placed a firearm under the front passenger seat in defendant Hilario Leal, Jr.’s car before the defendant got into his car and drove away. Defendant’s car was under constant surveillance from the timeof the alleged firearm placement until the searching officer conducted the search. When search the passenger compartment of defendant’s car yielded no firearm, the searching officer decided to search the trunk, where he discovered a firearm. Defendant was charged withseveraloffenses and
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
· Five thousand is the largest isogrammic numeral in the English language.
· It has been estimated that there were around forty million people worldwide by 5000 BC
· CULTURE 5000 – THE WORLDS LONGEST PAINTING
o 201.5 meters long
o And it has a bunch of fish drawn
o 5,339 to be precise.
· Things that weight 5000 pounds
o Average White Rhinos
o Whale’s tongue
o Heaviest Elephant Seal
o Mercedes Maybach S560
§ $195000 base version
§ zero to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds
· Lincoln is on the {$5} bill, Grant is on the {$50,} and McKinley is on the {$500.} The {$5000} bill was discontinued in 1969 and is no longer being printed, although it is still legal tender.
· Which U.S. President's picture is on the 5000 dollar bill? Answer: James Madison
o He was America’s smallest president.
o Following a stint in the Virginia Convention in 1776, a young James Madison lost a 1777 bid for election to the state’s House of Delegates. He would later write that the defeat was the result of his refusal to provide free liquor to the voters on Election Day, a common custom then known as “swilling the planters with bumbo.”
· States where Small Claims court accepts lawsuits under $5000:
o Arkansas
o California (for businesses)
o Connecticut
o Hawaii
o Idaho
o Louisiana
o Maryland
o Missouri
o New Jersey
o Rhode Island
o Vermont
o Virginia
· The Compaq Presario 5000
o first launched in 1998.
o Supplied with multimedia keyboard, mouse, JBL stereo speakers, integrated sound and game controller port.
o 2001 it cost $998 and had 80GB hard drive
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Alexander Hillel Treisman appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police discovered while searching his van without a warrant. But warrantless searches of vehicles carried out as part of law enforcement's community caretaking functions do not violate the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable under the circumstances. And because the record here supports the district court's conclusion that the officers acted reasonably in searching the van under their community caretaking functions, we affirm.
The Supreme Court first mentioned this concept in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). There, the Court explained,
Some [contacts between citizens and police involving automobiles] will occur because the officer may believe the operator has violated a criminal statute, but many more will not be of that nature. Local police officers [] frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions ....
Id. at 441. Elaborating, the Court described community caretaking functions as conduct "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Id. And it also clarified that the test for evaluating whether community caretaking searches violate the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Id. at 442. In other words, is the search reasonable given the totality of the circumstances?
Full case here: United States v. Treisman, No. 21-4687 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2023), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-treisman
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
What began as a lawful traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment’s shield against unreasonable seizures when the officers detoured from the traffic stop’s mission by conducting the dog sniff and inquiring into matters unrelated to the traffic violation and these detours prolonged the stop “‘beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission’ of issuing a ticket for the [traffic] violation. [Citation.]” (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at pp. 350–351.)
___
The United States Supreme Court has identified tasks that are part of an officer’s mission during a stop for a traffic violation: “Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes ‘ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.’ [Citation.] Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. [Citations.]” (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 355.) The temporary detention may also include “a criminal history check [citation], which is done by consulting an incar computer terminal or radioing dispatch. [Citations.]” (People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 363, fn. 4.) “‘And although not specifically compelled by law, certain other steps customarily taken as matters of good police practice are no less intimately related to the citation process: for example, the officer will usually discuss the violation with the motorist and listen to any explanation the latter may wish to offer.’” (People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 981.) These tasks are included within the officer’s mission during a traffic stop because they “serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. [Citations.]” (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 355.) An officer may also require a lawfully stopped driver to exit the vehicle for officer safety to complete his traffic stop mission. (Id. at p. 356.)
“On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from [the traffic stop’s] mission. So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours. [Citation.]” (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 356.) While “[a]n officer . . . may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” the officer “may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable susp
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
On September 24, 2019, shortly after witnessing Manley Johnson leave Appellant Maurice Bailey's home, Kannapolis, North Carolina police officer Jeremy Page discovered 0.1 grams of cocaine base during a search of Johnson's vehicle. Officer Page then confronted Bailey about the cocaine sale and instructed him to turn over any drugs still in his possession. In return, Officer Page assured Bailey that he was “going to take it and ․ leave,” and everything would still be “squared away.” J.A. 112. As he later testified, Officer Page expected that Bailey would assist him in future investigations. Prompted by Officer Page's offer, Bailey handed over 0.7 grams of cocaine base.
In the following weeks, Bailey helped Officer Page locate and arrest an individual for whom the police had an outstanding warrant but did not otherwise aid in Officer Page's investigations. Then, on November 7, 2019, Officer Page obtained two warrants for Bailey's arrest: one for the 0.1 grams Bailey sold to Johnson on September 24, and one for the 0.7 grams Bailey turned over that same day. In the process of executing those warrants, Kannapolis police discovered 17.8 grams of cocaine base on Bailey's person, which led to Bailey's prosecution for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
Bailey unsuccessfully moved to suppress the 17.8 grams of cocaine and was convicted of the charge. On appeal, Bailey argues that the district court should have granted his suppression motion because his arrest constituted a breach of Officer Page's September 24 promise that all would be “squared away.” Because the district court failed to make the factual findings necessary to resolve this argument, we vacate its decision denying Bailey's motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
____________________
In all such contexts, therefore, where an individual fulfills his obligations under the agreement, “settled notions of fundamental fairness” may require the government “to uphold its end of the bargain,” too. Carrillo, 709 F.2d at 37. To hold otherwise would rubberstamp a police practice that stands to undermine “the honor of the government” and “public confidence in the fair administration of justice.” Carter, 454 F.2d at 428.
__________________
Full case here: UNITED STATES v. BAILEY (2023), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-4th-circuit/114625754.html
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
In February 1980, petitioner Doggett was indicted on federal drug charges, but he left the country before the Drug Enforcement Agency could secure his arrest. The DEA knew that he was later imprisoned in Panama, but after requesting that he be expelled back to the United States, never followed up on his status. Once the DEA discovered that he had left Panama for Colombia, it made no further attempt to locate him. Thus, it was unaware that he reentered this country in 1982 and subsequently married, earned a college degree, found steady employment, lived openly under his own name, and stayed within the law. The Marshal's Service eventually located him during a simple credit check on individuals with outstanding warrants. He was arrested in September 1988, 81/2 years after his indictment. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Government's failure to prosecute him earlier violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, but the District Court denied the motion, and he entered a conditional guilty plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The delay between Doggett's indictment and arrest violated his right to a speedy trial. His claim meets the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 530, criteria for evaluating speedy trial claims. First, the extraordinary 81/2-year lag between his indictment and arrest clearly suffices to trigger the speedy trial enquiry. Second, the Government was to blame for the delay. The District Court's finding that the Government was negligent in pursuing Doggett should be viewed with considerable deference, and neither the Government nor the record provides any reason to reject that finding. Third, Doggett asserted in due course his right to a speedy trial. The courts below found that he did not know of his indictment before his arrest, and, in the factual basis supporting his guilty plea, the Government essentially conceded this point. Finally, the negligent delay between Doggett's indictment and arrest presumptively prejudiced his ability to prepare an adequate defense. The Government errs in arguing that the Speedy Trial Clause does not significantly protect a defendant's interest in fair adjudication. United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307, 320-323; United States v. MacDonald, 456 U. S. 1, 8; United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U. S. 302, 312, distinguished. Nor does Doggett's failure to cite any specifically demonstrable prejudice doom his claim, since excessive delay can compromise a
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[W]arrantless searches are typically unreasonable where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing.” Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2221 (2018) (quotation omitted).
The border search exception is a “longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained” for a search. Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 621. “[T]he border-search exception allows officers to conduct ‘routine inspections and searches of individuals or conveyances seeking to cross . . . borders’ without any particularized suspicion of wrongdoing.” United States v. Aguilar, 973 F.3d 445, 449 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 619) (emphasis added). Moreover, even “[s]o-called ‘nonroutine’ searches need only reasonable suspicion, not the higher threshold of probable cause.” United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2018). “For border searches both routine and not, no case has required a warrant.” Id
The border search exception reflects “the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country.” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616. “The Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border” and has been recognized “since the beginning of our Government.” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152–53 (2004). “Historically such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from entry.” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 619.
Accordingly, when it comes to manual cell phone searches at the border, our sister circuits have uniformly held that Riley does not require either a warrant or reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Xiang, 67 F.4th 895, 900 (8th Cir. 2023) (“No Circuit has held that the government must obtain a warrant to conduct a routine border search of elect
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Border Patrol agents watched a man climb over the Mexico-United States border fence and followed him as he took a taxi to Heriberto Perea-Rey's home. An agent watched the suspected undocumented alien walk through the gated entrance to the home and knock on the front door. The agent followed him through the front yard, around the side of the house and into the carport. He found the suspect there, standing with Perea-Rey in front of a side door entrance to the home, and detained both men until other agents arrived. Perea-Rey refused to allow the agents to enter his house. Forgetting for a moment that the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that the government obtain a warrant before it conducts a search or seizure, particularly of persons in their homes, the agents, pointing their guns at the home, ordered everyone outside. The individuals who emerged were later found to be undocumented aliens.
Indicted for harboring the aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324, Perea-Rey moved to suppress evidence of the aliens as the fruit of a warrantless search and seizure. Though the district court found that the agents entered the curtilage of Perea-Rey's home and that there were no exigent circumstances that might justify the failure to obtain a warrant, the court denied the motion. Perea-Rey entered a conditional guilty plea and filed this appeal. Because the agents physically occupied the curtilage of Perea-Rey's home without obtaining a warrant, and no exceptions to the warrant requirement otherwise justified the search or seizure, we reverse Perea-Rey's conviction and remand.
____
Where the government "physically occupie[s] private property for the purpose of obtaining information," that is a "`search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Jones, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945, 949, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). "[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Because the curtilage is part of the home, searches and seizures in the curtilage without a warrant are also presumptively unreasonable. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984).
Although a warrant is not required to observe readily visible items within the curtilage, and "officers [need not] shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares," California v. Ciraolo, 476
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The issue before this court is whether Captain Walsh was justified in making entry into the Defendant's residence without first obtaining a search warrant. The United States Supreme Court has held that a warrant is not required to enter a person's home when "the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless [entry] is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). "One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury." Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). Under this "emergency aid" exception, "officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury." Id. Officers do not need "ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the emergency aid exception[.]" Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
...
It is worth noting that all cases where a court has found that an exigent circumstance existed appear to share two common factors. First, in all of the cases in which courts found exigency, officers observed events obviously occurring within the residence or building. For example, cries for help, screams, loud noises, or an observation of a struggle or fight within the structure by looking through a window. Second, courts have found exigent circumstances exist when officers observed events or evidence leading directly to a structure. For example, a blood trail leading to a closed door.
There was no evidence leading directly into the home, such as a trail of blood, and there were no noises, voices or screams leading officers to believe someone inside may be in immediate distress or in need of protection. Here, nothing at the accident scene caused Captain Walsh to believe that the driver was seriously injured. By the time Captain Walsh arrived at the residence, the Defendant had already managed to walk back to his house and fall asleep in his bedroom upstairs. Captain Walsh did not see or hear anything to cause one to think that someone was in the home, much less that someone was in need of immediate assistance.
Full case here: State v. Gibson, No. M2012-02363-CCA-R3-CD, 12 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2013), https://casetext.co
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
“To invoke the Fourth Amendment protections, a person must show that [they] had a legitimate expectation of privacy.” U.S. v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)). An expectation of privacy is legitimate if it is one that society accepts as objectively reasonable. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 95-96 (1990); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 3940 (1988).
“The Fourth Amendment shields not only actual owners, but also anyone with sufficient possessory rights over the property searched.” Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] defendant who lacks an ownership interest may still have standing to challenge a search, upon a showing of ‘joint control' or ‘common authority' over the property searched.” United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “Common authority rests ‘on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.'” Id. For example, “a defendant may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in another's car if the defendant is in possession of the car, has the permission of the owner, holds a key to the car, and has the right and ability to exclude others, except the owner, from the car.” Id. at 1198 (9th Cir. 2006).
...
Rubin does not challenge the validity of the search warrant but rather challenges the continued placement and monitoring of the GPS tracking device as unreasonable after law enforcement became aware that Morgan was no longer driving the white pickup. (ECF No. 26 at 5-6, 10-11.) The issue here is essentially whether the continued GPS tracking was conducted within the scope of the warrant. “If the scope of [a] search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant . . ., the [search and any] subsequent seizure [are] unconstitutional without more.” Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 140 (1990). “Whether a search exceeds the scope of a search warrant is an issue [courts] determine through an objective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the warrant, the contents of the search warrant, and the circumstances of the search.” United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064, 1071 (9th Cir.), opinion amended andsuperseded on other grounds, 298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2002); see, e.g., United States v. Hurd, 499 F.3d 963, 966-69 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of the Hitchcock test)).
...
An ob
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
On August 26, 2020, at approximately 2:32 AM, Odom drove past two California Highway Patrol officers at 92 miles per hour, in violation of California law. ECF No. 1 at 5. The officers followed the vehicle and instructed Odom to stop, roll down the windows, and turn off the car. He complied immediately. Dashcam 1:04-1:12. After the car stopped, Officer Guajardo approached the passenger-side window and Officer Lee approached the driver's side. Id. at 1:32-1:42. Officer Guajardo told Odom that he was speeding and asked for his license, insurance, and registration. ECF No. 1 at 5. Odom explained that he did not have any of those items, and his license was suspended, but provided Officer Guajardo with a California Identification card. Id. According to Officer Guajardo, Odom "was shifting and moving around in the vehicle" and "appeared nervous." ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 5. Odom explained that the car belonged to his sister. Dashcam 2:22. A few seconds later, Officer Guajardo asked "How far are you from home?" Id. at 2:19, and Odom replied that it was "literally right up the street." Id. at 2:21. When asked whether he was on probation or parole, Odom said he was not. ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 5.
The officers then conducted a DMV records check and a Criminal Records Information Management System (CRIM) check. The parties dispute whether Officer Guajardo ran both checks himself or whether he requested help from dispatch. Based on the DMV records check, Officer Guajardo learned that Odom's license was withheld for failure to appear. From the CRIMS record check, Officer Guajardo learned "that Odom had affiliations with criminal gang activity and that Odom had firearms-related criminal history." Id. ¶ 7.
Because Odom did not have a valid license, Officer Guajardo "planned to have the vehicle towed after the completion of the stop." Id. ¶ 11. Officer Guajardo asked Odom to step out of the vehicle, conducted a pat-down search, and felt a firearm near Odom's waistband. Id. Officer Guajardo removed the firearm, which contained one round of ammunition in the chamber, placed Odom in handcuffs, and then recovered 19 rounds of ammunition from Odom's person. Id. Officer Guajardo then placed Odom under arrest pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Odom now moves to suppress the gun and ammunition found during the search because (1) Officer Guajardo unconstitutionally prolonged the stop by asking about Odom's probation and parole status; (2) Officer Gua
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Under the Fourth Amendment, defendant had a legitimate expectation of *320 privacy in his rented hotel room. See Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); United States v. Kitchens, 114 F.3d 29, 31 (4th Cir. 1997). Additionally, warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless the search falls within a valid exception. See Hupp v. Cook, 931 F.3d 307, 326 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)).
The government cites the so-called “community caretaker” exception as justification for the officers dispensing with the warrant requirement in entering the hotel room. Community caretaking functions include established procedures or routine activities such as impoundment of a vehicle that impedes the safe flow of traffic, entry into a car after a traffic accident to assess occupants’ medical conditions, or opening a truck compartment to identify the owner. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368–69, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 145 (4th Cir. 2005); Durney v. Doss, 106 F. App'x 166, 169 (4th Cir. 2004). The Fourth Circuit has held that the community caretaking doctrine also extends to activities “protecting the safety of persons or property.” United States v. Gillespie, 332 F. Supp. 2d 923, 929 (W.D. Va. 2004); see Phillips v. Peddle, 7 F. App'x 175, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). Courts have distinguished this doctrine from the separate, but related, exception justified by exigent or emergency circumstances. See, e.g., Hunsberger v. Wood, 570 F.3d 546, 554 (4th Cir. 2009) (“The community caretaking doctrine requires a court to look at the function performed by a police officer, while the emergency exception requires an analysis of the circumstances to determine whether an emergency requiring immediate action existed. Thus, as the district court noted, the doctrines have different intellectual underpinnings.”).
Read more here: United States v. Hewitt, 543 F.Supp.3d 317 (2021), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hewitt-19
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Court concluded that “[o]nce the entity at issue is beyond the border, the concerns animating the border search doctrine, namely the integrity of the border, diminish, and the robust Fourth Amendment requirements adhere.” This was because the installation of a GPS device “implicates a search away from the border, once the target has gained entry into the country.
The placement of a GPS device at the border necessarily implicates a search away from the border, once the target has gained entry into the country. As Justice ALito noted in his concurring opinion in Jones, the OCurt defined the search as encompassing both the installation and use of the GPS, rather than separating the procedures. Therefore, this OCurt is hesitant to mechanically apply the border search doctrine where the search stretches far beyond the conduct at the border to create a "precise comprehensive record of a person's public movement. Ultimately, the Court concludes the placement of a GPS device on a vehicle at the border, combined with the subsequent tracking of data over a prolonged period away from it, cannot be justified by the border search exception.
Read the full case here: https://www.nacdl.org/Document/United-States-v-Slavco-Ignjatov,-et-al
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Border Search Doctrine is one of the longstanding warrantless search exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
Most searches at the border do not require a warrant or probable cause because of Congress’s authority to regulate commerce and maintain sovereignty.
• Border Search can be classified as “routine” or “non-routine”.
o Pat-Down or X-Ray versus Body Cavity Search.
o Non-Routine require reasonable suspicion
• Distiction does not apply in the context of vehicles.
o United States v. Flores-Montano - suspicionless disassembly of a fuel tank at the border
Extended Border Search (Checkpoints)
• Travelers who have not crossed the border cannot be thought to have given their implied consent to warrantless searches merely by traveling near the border.
• Require Reasonable Suspicion
• Law enforcement must also have “reasonable certainty” that the vehicle or contraband crossed the border.
• The Code of Federal Regulations defines “reasonable distance” to “mean within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance that may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE.”
• 2/3 of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region.
Reasonable Suspicion, Time and Distance
• United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 728 (9th Cir. 1985). – Search ship a second time within a day and a half of arrival at port
• United States v. Rangel-Portillo, 586 F.3d 376, 376 (5th Cir. 2009) – No Reasonable Suspicion. Vehicle about 500 yards from the border.
• The Ninth Circuit upheld extended border searches in these scenarios:
o Castillo-Garcia v. United States, 424 F.2d 482, 482–84 (9th Cir. 1970) (concluding that while the search of the vehicle occurred seven hours and 105 miles from the border, the fact that there was “constant surveillance after the border crossing until the search, and there had been a change of drivers,” the possibility that the 165 pounds of marijuana being placed after the crossing was obviated and the search was thus lawful).
o Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. United States, 378 F.2d 256, 256–59 (9th Cir. 1967) (affirming the lower court’s decision that a valid border search occurred even though it was fifteen hours and twenty miles from the border, because while there was a change in drivers after crossing the border, the information pro
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures.
•Seizures can be split into two categories.
oA seizure of property is “some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.”
oA seizure of an individual occurs when an individual reasonably believes that he is not at liberty to leave a government official’s presence, given all of the circumstances surrounding the incident.
•Warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment are typically per se unreasonable.
oThe Supreme Court decided in Katz v. United States that the attachment of an eavesdropping device outside of a public phone booth constituted an unreasonable search.
REP. If an individual has a subjective expectation of privacy over the domain in question and society objectively recognizes that expectation as reasonable, then the search is unconstitutional unless law enforcement acquired a warrant or one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.
•Technology and 4th AmendmentoIn United States v. Knotts, the Supreme Court concluded that the surveillance, tracking, and following of an individual traveling on a public roadway did not constitute as a search or seizure.
Beeper
Consent from original owner
No REP on public roadways
Does not address duration of the surveillance
oIn United States v. Karo, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless use of an electronic monitor within a container was reasonable and did not infringe on Karo’s interests within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Beeper
Led to the facility and not the specific locker
No REP on public roadway
oIn United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement committed a search by attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle.
https://youtu.be/_cYYRZjC2BQ
GPS
Government “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” the encroachment and intrusion on a protected area constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Distinguished Karo, where law enforcement obtained consent of the original owner prior to the beeper being placed in the container to track the vehicle.
“The Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test [] added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.”
oCarpenter v. United States, holding that the warrantless acquisition o
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This protection is not limited to only a physical intrusion on property. It also protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy." Warrants are therefore necessary in almost all instances for a valid search to occur, unless an exception applies. The Border Search Doctrine, however, is one of the few exceptions to this general rule.
The Border Search Doctrine predates the Fourth Amendment and derives its powers from Congress’s inherent authority to regulate commerce and enforce immigration laws. No warrant is necessary at the border for most searches and seizures because of the government’s inherent power to control who or what comes within a nation’s borders. This is an intrinsic attribute of national sovereignty. The Fourth Amendment’s balance of interests thus leans heavily in favor of the government at the border. Even though courts favor government interests at the border, searches and seizures must remain “reasonable” dependent on the facts and circumstances in question.
What about GPS Searches and Tracking that is initiated at the border with a continuous surveillance within the United States?
Much of the information discussed in these videos, came from Kimberly Shi, GPS Tracking at the Border: A Mistaken Expectation or a Chilling Reality, 27 Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just. 161 (2020).
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol27/iss1/6
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Warrant. Defendant argues that the affidavit was insufficient because there is no information on the reliability of either confidential informant provided therein. Although the Court acknowledges that the affidavit lacks evidence related to the reliability of the two confidential informants, the information provided by the informants was sufficiently corroborated. First, each informant corroborates the other. See Schaefer, 87 F.3d at 566 For example, both informants stated that they had observed the same types of firearms in the Defendant's residence and said that Defendant was stockpiling firearms to "prepare for the end of the world." Both informants also similarly described the inside of the Defendant's apartment. Thus, the Court finds that the affidavit submitted by Agent McNeil sufficiently established probable cause to issue the search warrant for Defendant's apartment.
__________
Custodial Interrogation. The key to determining whether an interrogation was custodial, and therefore whether Miranda warnings should have been given prior to interrogation, is whether "a reasonable person would believe he is in custody' under the circumstances." See United States v. Pagan-Santini, 451 F.3d 258, 263 (1st Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has held "the safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as soon as a suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to adegree associated with formal arrest.'" Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983)).
___________
Van Seizure. The Supreme Court has held that moving an individual's belongings from one location to another constituted a substantial intrusion on the individual's possessory interests. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 710 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983).
("Under the automobile exception,' the only essential predicate for a valid warrantless search of a motor vehicle by law enforcement officers isprobable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or other evidence of criminal activity.'") (quoting United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267, 1271 (1st Cir.1990)). There is nothing immediately apparent about the criminality of a vehicle itself. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 462, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ("The word `automobile' is not a talisman in whose pr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
But intoxication alone does not preclude a valid waiver. See United States v. Figueroa-Serrano, 971 F.3d 806, 815 (8th Cir. 2020) (finding a valid Miranda waiver when the suspect, after using marijuana, did not appear affected by intoxication and told officers he understood his rights). Instead, the test is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the mental impairment “caused the defendant's will to be overborne.” United States v. Jones, 842 F.3d 1077, 1083 (8th Cir. 2016).
Read full case here: United States v. Harris, --- F.4th ---- (2023), https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/04/221210P.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:
Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...
Held: A state hospital's performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure. The interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 67–68, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 1283, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001)
While state hospital employees, like other citizens, may have a duty to provide the police with evidence *85 of criminal conduct that they inadvertently acquire in the course of routine treatment, when they undertake to obtain such evidence from their patients for the specific purpose of incriminating those patients, they have a special obligation to make sure that the patients are fully informed about their constitutional rights, as standards of knowing waiver require.24 Cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 84–85, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 1292, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001)
Read the full case here: Ferguson v. City of Charleston 532 U.S. 67 (2001), https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-936
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Passenger and vehicle searches have played a prominent role in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that probable cause is necessary to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 160–62, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).
In recent years, the Court has clarified that “[i]f there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity,” the search may extend to any area where evidence might be found. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1721, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820–21, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982)). In addition, when an arrest is made, a warrantless search is permitted “if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment ... or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Id. at 1723. But the Court has never sanctioned a vehicle search simply because there was probable cause to arrest a passenger or because a passenger could not provide identification. The Fourth Amendment requires more.
...
The focus of the arrest inquiry is different from that of the search inquiry. See Greene v. Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101, 1106 (6th Cir.1996). Officers have probable cause for an arrest if at the time of the arrest, “the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they [have] reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing” that the defendant committed an offense. *1029 Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)). Officers have probable cause for a search when “the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). “[T]here may be probable cause to search without probable cause to arrest, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 3.1(b) at 9 (3d ed. 1996)).
241 F.3d 638, 647–48 (9th Cir.2000).
Both the Supreme Court and this court have highlighted this distinction. See, e.g., Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978) (“The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things' to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.”); United States v. O'Connor, 658 F.2d 688, 693 n. 7 (9th Cir.1981) (“Probable
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
One might think that someone who didn't commit any crimes or even suspected of committing a crime would be afforded some protection under the Fourth Amendment, one that protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. That is not so. “In situations where the State does not seek to seize ‘persons’ but only those ‘things’ which there is probable cause to believe are located on the place to be searched, there is no apparent basis in the language of the [Fourth] Amendment for also imposing the requirements for a valid arrest—probable cause to believe that the third party is implicated in the crime.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 554 (1978) (holding that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the issuance of search warrants simply because the possessor of the property is not suspected of criminal involvement).
“Probable cause ‘is not a high bar,’ ” United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330, 337 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018)), but neither is it a nonexistent one. “[T]o establish probable cause for a search, an affidavit must show a likelihood of two things: first, that the items sought are ‘seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity’; and second, ‘that the items will be found in the place to be searched.’ ” United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243, 249 (6th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Church, 823 F.3d 351, 355 (6th Cir. 2016)); see also Zurcher, 436 U.S. at 554, 98 S.Ct. 1970 (“[V]alid warrants may be issued to search any property ... at which there is probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime will be found.” (original emphasis omitted)).
__________________________
Quincino Waide first encountered the Lexington police after a shed fire occurred on the property next to his. Although no one suspected Waide of having anything to do with the fire, the fire investigator noticed surveillance cameras attached to Waide's duplex residence and asked Waide to turn over his digital video recorder (DVR) to see what it might reveal about the shed fire. When Waide declined, the investigator sought a warrant (the DVR warrant) to enter Waide's apartment and retrieve the DVR.
The affidavit in support of the DVR warrant, however, lacked reliable evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the shed fire was due to arson or any other criminal activity. A state magistrate nevertheless issued the warrant. When the fire *332 investigator and five other officials with the Lexington Police and Fire Departments arrived at Waide's duplex to execute the DVR warrant, their threatened entry and a pointed inquiry about whether Waide had drugs on the premises caused Waide to admit that his apartment contained a small amount of mariju
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ....” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Searches and seizures conducted without a warrant are “per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Due to the diminished expectation of privacy in one's vehicle as compared to on one's person, the “automobile exception” allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).
Lastly, as a general rule, “[e]vidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, including any ‘fruit of the poisonous tree,’ may not be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.” United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135, 1143 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)).
A. Marijuana in Vehicles Following Proposition 64
Proposition 64, passed in November 2016, decriminalized the possession of 28.5 grams of marijuana or less by persons age 21 and over in the state of California. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11357(b). Furthermore, Proposition 64 provided that “[c]annibis and cannabis products ... deemed lawful by this section are not contraband nor subject to seizure, and no conduct deemed lawful by this section shall constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.” Id. § 11362.1(c) (emphasis added).
In the context of operating a motor vehicle, ....the statute in question in this case is Vehicle Code § 23222, which states that, “while driving a motor vehicle,” it is an infraction to possess “any receptacle containing any cannabis ... which has been opened or has a seal broken, or loose cannabis flower not in a container ....” Vehicle Code § 23222(b)(1).
The legality of transporting marijuana in this exact type of container—that is, a plastic “tube” which “could be opened by squeezing the sides of the tube, which flexed the top open.” *836 People v. Shumake, 259 Cal. Rptr. 3d 405, 407 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 2019).
Federal law cannot provide an alternate basis for probable cause. To hold otherwise would allow officers to disregard entirely the California legislature's directive that “no conduct deemed lawful by this section shall constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.” Id. § 11362.1(c). Indeed, it would lead to the paradoxical result of allowing state law enforcement officers to defy the state laws they are entrusted with upholding so that they might enforce federal l
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Responding to a report of suspicious activity in the area, a police officer unlawfully detained a bystander who had no apparent connection to the report. The officer ran a records search and learned that the bystander, Duvanh Anthony McWilliams, was on parole and subject to warrantless, suspicionless parole searches. The officer proceeded to search McWilliams and his vehicle, where the officer found an unloaded gun, ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia.
As a general rule, evidence seized as a result of an unlawful search or seizure is inadmissible against the defendant in a subsequent prosecution. But the law permits use of the evidence when the causal connection "between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has `become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'" (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 487.) Here, the Court of Appeal held that the officer's discovery of McWilliams's parole search condition sufficiently attenuated the connection between the unlawful detention and the contraband found in McWilliams's vehicle. The Court of Appeal relied on cases allowing the admission of evidence seized incident to arrest on a valid warrant, where the warrant was discovered during an unlawful investigatory stop. (Utah v. Strieff (2016) 579 U.S. 232 (Strieff); People v. Brendlin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 262 (Brendlin).)
We now reverse. Unlike an arrest on an outstanding warrant, a parole search is not a ministerial act dictated by judicial mandate (Strieff, supra, 579 U.S. at p. 240), but a matter of discretion. We conclude the officer's discretionary decision to conduct the parole search did not sufficiently attenuate the connection between the officer's initial unlawful decision to detain McWilliams and the discovery of contraband. The evidence therefore was not admissible against him.
See full case here: People v. McWilliams, Cal: Supreme Court 2023, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1345807109121183826&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Officers stopped defendant and appellant Vernon Evans after they observed him commit traffic violations. When Evans refused to comply with a command to exit his automobile, officers broke the vehicle's window, "Tased" and pepper sprayed him, forcibly removed him from the car, and arrested him for interfering with a police investigation. A warrantless search of the vehicle at the scene revealed 11 empty sandwich baggies and $65 in cash, but no contraband.
A second warrantless search of the car at an impound yard revealed cocaine hidden in an air vent. After the trial court denied Evans's motion to suppress the baggies, cash, and cocaine, Evans pleaded no contest to violating Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a).
Because the searches of his vehicle were not authorized under either the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 [173 L.Ed.2d 485, 129 S.Ct. 1710] (Gant)) or the automobile exception, they violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse.
Search Incident to Arrest: two-part rule under which an automobile search incident to a recent occupant's arrest is constitutional (1) if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle during the search, or (2) if the police have reason to believe that the vehicle contains `evidence relevant to the crime of arrest.' [Citation.]" (Davis, supra, 564 U.S. at p. ___ [131 S.Ct. at p. 2425]; see Gant, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 343 [129 S.Ct. at p. 1719].)
Automobile Exception: Under the automobile exception, police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. at pp. 346-347 [129 S.Ct. at p. 1721]; Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at pp. 820-821; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 469 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790]; People v. Superior Court (Nasmeh), supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at pp. 100-102.) Such a search "is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained." (Ross, supra, at p. 809.) Ross "allows searches for evidence relevant to offenses other than the offense of arrest, and the scope of the search authorized is broader." (Gant, supra, at p. 347 [129 S.Ct. at p. 1721].) "If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search." (Ross, supra, at p. 825; see Gant, supra, at p. 347 [129 S.Ct. at p. 1721]; People v. Hunter (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 371, 379-382 [34 Cal.Rptr.3d 818].) The automobile exception is rooted in the reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle,
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. A “search” involves governmental infringement on “an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable,” while a “seizure” of property involves “some meaningful interference [by the government] with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights that “may not be vicariously asserted.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). To establish standing to challenge governmental intrusions under the Fourth Amendment, an individual must demonstrate their reasonable expectation of privacy in a place searched, or meaningful interference with their possessory interest in property seized. See United States v. Singleton, 987 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 95, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980)); Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1027–29 (9th Cir. 2012).1 “Because warrantless searches or seizures of abandoned property do not violate the [F]fourth [A]mendment, persons who voluntarily abandon property lack standing to complain of its search or seizure.” *1117 United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986).
We begin with the bedrock principle that warrantless searches and seizures “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 372, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) (quoting Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 19–20, 105 S.Ct. 409, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984)). One of these exceptions is the Terry stop, which permits an officer with reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in a crime to briefly detain the individual and make “ ‘reasonable inquiries’ aimed at confirming or dispelling [the officer's] suspicions.” Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 373, 113 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). If the officer has reasonable suspicion that the detained individual is “armed and presently dangerous,” the officer may conduct a frisk, a protective patdown search of the individual for weapons. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868.
Full case here: United States v. Baker, 58 F.4th 1109 (2023), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/01/30/20-50314.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
"An individual asserting Fourth Amendment rights must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable." United States v. Russell , 847 F.3d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). "The defendant moving to suppress bears the burden of proving he had a legitimate expectation of privacy that was violated by the challenged search." Id. (citation omitted).
The main issue in this appeal is whether Sierra made an initial showing of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Ford. He would have a privacy interest if he owned it, since "[o]ne who owns and possesses a car, like one who owns and possesses a house, almost always has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it." Byrd v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 1527, 200 L.Ed.2d 805 (2018).
But Sierra didn't prove he owned the Ford. He had no title, no bill of sale, and no registration. The only evidence he provided, proof of a tire change supposedly done as part of a trade for the Ford, was dated February 19. The search of the Ford took place on February 17. So even if the tire change was enough to prove that Sierra owned the Ford, that wouldn't prove he owned it at the time of the search.
In a similar situation, the Fourth Circuit held that a defendant did not have standing to challenge a search of a car entrusted to a car hauler. United States v. Castellanos , 716 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 2013). Despite the defendant claiming that he owned the car, he had no title, no bill of sale, no DMV registration, and no other indication that he was the owner. Id. at 834. His claim that he owned the car was "not substantiated in any way by the record." Id. And even if he did eventually own the car, there was no evidence that "he did so prior to the search." Id. The same goes for Sierra.
Even if he wasn't the owner, Sierra might have shown a reasonable privacy interest in the Ford if he proved he was its sender or intended recipient. See United States v. Jacobsen , 683 F.2d 296, 298 n.2 (8th Cir. 1982) (noting "[t]he sender and intended recipient of a package clearly have ‘an adequate possessory or proprietary interest in the ... object searched’ to give them standing to question the propriety of its search or seizure"), rev'd on other grounds , 466 U.S. 109,
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
In April 2021 the Springfield, Illinois police saw a Snapchat post of Jeremy Banks barbequing on his front porch with a gun sitting on the grill's side shelf. Because Banks was a convicted felon, the officers needed nothing more to request a warrant to arrest him for unlawful gun possession. But they skipped this step and instead proceeded to Banks's home, walked onto his porch, and, after a tussle, arrested him in his family room. The Fourth Amendment did not permit the shortcut, as the Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that a front porch—part of a home's so-called curtilage—receives the same protection as the home itself. And no exception to the warrant requirement saves the officers' actions here.
By its terms, the Fourth Amendment protected Jeremy Banks's right “to be secure” in his “hous[e]” from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. At the “very core” of that protection, the Supreme Court has emphasized, stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). Indeed, when measuring the strength of the Fourth Amendment, “the home is first among equals.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). This principle finds deep roots in the common law backdrop against which the Fourth Amendment entered the U.S. Constitution in 1791. See, e.g., Semayne's Case (1604) 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195; 5 Co. Rep. 91 a, 91 b (KB) (“[T]he house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defen[s]e against injury and violence, as for his repose.”).
By 1984 the Supreme Court made plain that the Fourth Amendment provides equal protection to a home's curtilage, the area immediately surrounding the home itself. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). “[P]rivacy expectations are most heightened” in the curtilage, because that area is “intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). And the right to retreat into the home “would be of little practical value if the State's agents could stand in a home's porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity.” Jardines, 569 U.S. at 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409. Put even more directly, the curtilage is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Id. (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735).
United States v. Banks, No. 22-1312, 2023 WL 1956605, at *2 (7th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023)
Full case here: United States v. Banks, No. 22-1312 (7th Cir. 2023), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/22-1312/22-1312-2023-02-13.html
See: Can police have their K9 sniff
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Synopsis
Background: Lessee of motorized electric scooters brought action challenging constitutionality of city program requiring companies that leased such scooters to obtain permits from the city department of transportation, which, among other conditions, mandated that companies provide real-time location data directly to city for all leased scooters. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Dolly M. Gee, J., 2021 WL 1220690, dismissed the action. Lessee appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Hawkins, Senior Circuit Judge, held that:
1 city's collection of real-time location data on scooters amounted to injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing;
2 lessee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in real-time location data; and
3 city's collection of data did not amount to a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
Affirmed.
Sanchez v. Los Angeles Dep't of Transportation, 39 F.4th 548 (9th Cir. 2022)
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The initial issue for decision is whether LADOT's collection of MDS location data is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.5 Only if collection of the data is a search do we need to address the separate question of whether that search is unreasonable. See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991).
For much of our Nation's history, the definition of a search under the Fourth Amendment was “tied to common-law trespass,” focusing on whether government actors had obtained “information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area.” United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 405, 406 n.3, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). In Olmstead v. United States, for example, the Supreme Court found that wiretaps attached to telephone wires on public streets did not constitute a search because “[t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants.” 277 U.S. 438, 464, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928).
The Court significantly expanded the doctrinal scope of the analysis in Katz v. United States, finding that the attachment of an eavesdropping device to a public 555 telephone booth was a search, memorably stating that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Its subsequent decisions have framed the inquiry as whether the challenged government action violates a person's “reasonable expectation of privacy,” citing Justice Harlan's seminal Katz concurrence. Id.* at 360, 88 S.Ct. 507. Thus, when an individual “seeks to preserve something as private,” and that expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,” government
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
A search typically requires a warrant based on probable cause. SeeUnited States v. Dalton , 918 F.3d 1117, 1127 (10th Cir. 2019). "Searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few ‘specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’ " Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson , 328 F.3d 1230, 1248 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) ). Although "the defendant bears the burden of proving whether and when the Fourth Amendment was implicated," Hernandez , 847 F.3d at 1263 (quotations omitted), "[t]he government then bears the burden of proving that its warrantless actions were justified [by an exception]," United States v. Carhee , 27 F.3d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1994). If the government establishes that an exception to the warrant requirement applies, the search is constitutional. SeeUnited States v. Maestas , 2 F.3d 1485, 1491-92 (10th Cir. 1993). The Government relies on the community-caretaking exception here.
The community-caretaking exception allows the government to introduce evidence obtained through searches that are "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). "Noninvestigatory searches of automobiles pursuant to this function ... do not offend Fourth Amendment principles so long as such activities are warranted in terms of state law or sound police procedure, and are justified by concern for the safety of the general public ...." United States v. Lugo , 978 F.2d 631, 635 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted).
The government must also point to "specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant an intrusion into the individual's liberty," and must show that "the government's interest ... outweigh[s] the individual's interest in being free from arbitrary governmental interference."
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
In People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853 [253 Cal.Rptr.3d 512], the court held a defendant's possession of a small amount of marijuana could not justify a probable cause search. (Id. at p. 856.) After initiating a traffic stop, officers discovered a small amount of marijuana on the defendant during a patsearch. (Id. at p. 857.) Officers then searched the vehicle and uncovered cocaine and a firearm. (Id. at pp. 858-859.) Finding the lawful amount of marijuana seized 803*803 from defendant's person could not establish probable cause to search the vehicle, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress. (Id. at p. 860.) Reasoning "[t]he recent legalization of marijuana in California means we can now attach fairly minimal significance to the presence of a legal amount of the drug," the appellate court affirmed the trial court's granting of the motion to suppress. (Id. at p. 861.) The presence of a legal amount of marijuana, however, "does not foreclose the possibility that defendant possesses a larger (illegal) amount." (Id. at p. 862.) Therefore, pursuant to Lee, there must be additional evidence, beyond mere possession of a legal amount of marijuana, to support a reasonable belief the defendant has an illegal amount or is violating some other statutory provision. (Ibid.)
The relevant question is whether there was probable cause to search the passenger's purse pursuant to the automobile exception. We conclude there was.
Defendant argues pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23222, subdivision (b), a passenger's possession of a lawful amount of marijuana while in a car is not unlawful. In making this argument, defendant fails to acknowledge the passenger's violation of section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4), which states that while the possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana is now lawful pursuant to section 11362.1, it remains unlawful to "[p]ossess an open container or open package of cannabis or cannabis products while driving, operating, or riding in the passenger seat or compartment of a motor vehicle." (Italics added.) As such, defendant's reliance on Vehicle Code section 23222, subdivision (b) is unavailing.
Full case here: THE PEOPLE v. TYRONE BRENDON McGEE. 53 Cal.App.5th 796 (2020), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1798599621763946534&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The familiar Mirandawarnings are required for the “in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966) (emphasis added). And without those Miranda warnings, any statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief. United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1108 (4th Cir. 1995). But so long as a defendant is not “in custody,”then statements made during an interrogation remain admissible, even if the defendant were not given Miranda warnings. The district court found that Leggette was not “in custody” when he made incriminating statements at the park. So Miranda warnings were not required and the statements were admissible. We agree and affirm
“An individual is in custody for Mirandapurposes when, under the totality of the circumstances, ‘a suspect’s freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.’” United States v. Parker, 262 F.3d 415, 419 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984)). This is an objective inquiry. J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 270–71 (2011); seealso Parker, 262 F.3d at 419 (“Custody determinations do not depend on the subjective views of either the interrogating law enforcement officers or of the person being questioned, but depend instead [on] the objective circumstances of the interrogation.”).
A court asks two questions when determining whether a suspect’s “freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest.” See Parker, 262 F.3d at 19. “[T]he initial step,” Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499, 509 (2012), is to ask “whether a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” United States v. Pressley, 990 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Hashime, 734 F.3d 278, 282–83 (4th Cir. 2013)); Keohane, 516 U.S. at 112(describing as “essential” to a custody determination the question of “would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave”). But this is just the first step. SeeMaryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 (2010) (“Our cases make clear . . . that the freedom-of-movement test identifies only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Mirandacustody.”). If a reasonable person would not have felt at liberty to leave, then a court must still ask “the additional question [of] whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.” Howes, 565 U.S. at 509;see alsoUnited States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793, 801 (4th Cir. 2016) (rejecting custody because the
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Response to "Error to allow juror to participate in criminal trial remotely by Zoom?" at https://youtu.be/4YrIOHuMZMM
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.
In 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States formulated a new test in Crawford v. Washington to determine whether the Confrontation Clause applies in a criminal case.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Court of Appeals, Lasnik, District Judge, sitting by designation, held that:
district court's alleged error in permitting juror to participate in criminal trial remotely did not fall within limited class of structural errors that could not be waived, and defendant's waiver of his right to insist that all jurors be present in courtroom during his trial was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
The panel affirmed Edward Knight’s robbery convictions in a case in which a juror participated remotely in the first two days of trial.
Knight asserted that permitting a juror to participate remotely via Zoom violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, that the error was structural and could not be waived, and that he is therefore entitled to a new trial without having to show prejudice. The panel assumed without deciding that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to the in-person participation of jurors during their trial. Knight asserted that the alleged error is akin to depriving him of his right to a jury trial, depriving him of his right to a fair and impartial jury, depriving him of a representative jury, and/or depriving him of his right to confront witnesses. The panel wrote that none of these comparisons is apt, as there is no indication in the record—and no reason to suppose—that the remote participation of a duly empaneled juror interfered with the functioning of the jury, somehow made that juror partial or unrepresentative, or impacted the procedures used for the presentation of witnesses. The panel wrote that allowing remote juror participation does not impact the entire framework of the trial in ways that cannot be accurately measured on review. Rather, it merely creates room for the types of problems and errors identified by Knight, such as difficulties in seeing exhibits, hearing testimony, and/or viewing witnesses. But none of those errors will necessarily arise simply because a juror is participating remotely. The panel wrote that there is no case law or record evidence to support a presumption that the remote participation of a juror will always render a trial unfair and the judgment unreliable; the alleged error simply does not fall within the limited class of structural errors that cannot be waived and which require automatic reversal.
Noting that non-structural errors can be waived, the panel wrote that the procedure the district court used to confirm that Knight’s waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent was sufficient. Knight conceded that he consented to remote juror participation, but argued that the district court did not obtain a valid waiver because it did not inform him of the constitutional nature and implications of waiver. The panel wrote that this argument fails in light of Knight’s knowing, intentional, and voluntary abandonment of the cl
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The following are the top 5 videos from LAWSTACHE in 2022 based on the number of views.
0:00 Introduction to top videos and cases
1:50 1. Is carrying a concealed knife or box cutter legal in California? Does the length of blade matter? 1:50 https://youtu.be/fzbfePRmpyQ
A] morally blameless person carrying a concealed box cutter for innocent purposes, such as a grocery store worker, carpenter or car mechanic, cannot be convicted of violating Penal Code section 21310. Defendant was convicted of violating section 21310 because he inflicted a deep, bloody wound on the victim and yelled at the victim as he sat slumped against a wall that defendant would kill him (and the eyewitness, too), leaving the victim in hysterical fear of death. This defendant was not morally blameless, and our holding does not invite prosecutors to prosecute morally blameless people.
Full case here: People v. Hester, 58 Cal.App.5th 630, 272 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020), https://casetext.com/case/people-v-hester-68
4:50 2. Part 1: Introduction to Conspiracy Law. Multi-part series exploring criminal conspiracy cases. https://youtu.be/NwN_FQa1j-E
This is the first video in a multi-part series on criminal conspiracy law. In the next dozen videos, I will dive deeper into conspiracy law and discuss relevant cases in detail.
Generally speaking, a conspiracy has three elements. 1. Agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act; 2. Knowledge of the agreement and voluntary participation; and 3. Overt act.
6:00 3. Impermissibly prolonged traffic stop in violation of 4th Amendment. Drugs found in car - suppressed https://youtu.be/S1SqtpTv-c8
In Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), the Supreme Court explained that an officer’s authority to seize the occupants of a vehicle ends when “tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Id. at 354.
8:42 4. Pretextual inventory search conducted as a ruse for a criminal investigation. People v. Torres 2010 https://youtu.be/FDYF6uQlhZ4
The decision to impound the vehicle must be justified by a community caretaking function "other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity" ( Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 375) because inventory searches are "conducted in the absence of probable cause" ( Whren, supra, 517 U.S. at p. 811). "
9:52 5. How police should NOT conduct a knock-and-talk at your door step. Illegal conduct & tainted warrant. https://youtu.be/nl5ZXxlgJyg
The knock-and-talk exception permits police “to encroach upon the curtilage of a home, for the purpose of asking questions of the occupants.” United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1158,1158 (9th Cir. 2016)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Appellant-Defendant Paulo Lara appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g (1). At the time of his arrest, Lara was subject to a term of probation that required him to submit his "person and property, including any residence, premises, container or vehicle" to search and seizure "without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion." Lara contends that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when probation officers conducted two warrantless, suspicionless searches of his cell phone. He contends that the exclusionary rule requires the suppression of images, text messages, and GPS data found on his cell phone, as well as a gun and ammunition, as fruits of the illegal searches. We agree.
...
First, because Lara is on probation, his reasonable expectation of privacy is lower than someone who has completed probation or who has never been convicted of a crime. Knights, 534 U.S. at 120, 122 S.Ct. 587. But while the privacy interest of a probationer has been "significantly diminished," id., it is still substantial. The Supreme Court has recognized that a probationer's privacy interest is greater than a parolee's. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). Furthermore, Lara's reasonable expectation of privacy is greater than that of probationers such as King because he was not convicted of a particularly "serious and intimate" offense. King, 736 F.3d at 809.
...
Second, the cell-phone search condition of Lara's probation was not clear. The Supreme Court in Knights explained that a probationer's reasonable expectation of privacy is "significantly diminished" when the defendant's probation order "clearly expressed the search condition" of which the probationer "was unambiguously informed." 534 U.S. at 119-20, 122 S.Ct. 587. But the search term in Knights expressly authorized searches of the probationer's "place of residence," which was precisely what the officers searched. See id. at 114-15, 122 S.Ct. 587. That is not true here.
...
Lara agreed to "submit [his] person and property, including any residence, premises, container or vehicle under [his] control to search and seizure." None of these terms — in particular, neither "container" nor "property" — clearly or unambiguously encompasses his cell phone and the information contained therein. Lara's cell phone was not a "container." The Supreme Court wrote in Riley that "[t]reating a cell phone as a container whose contents may be searched incident to an arrest" was, at best, "strained." Riley, 134 S.Ct. at 2491. Indeed, the analogy between cell phones and containers "crumbles entirely when a cell phone is used to access data located elsewhere, at the tap of a screen."
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Holding that "because the hotel did not actually evict [the defendant], he maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his hotel room," and explaining that "[b]eing arrested is different from being evicted, and being arrested does not automatically destroy person's reasonable expectation of privacy in his hotel room."
Full case here: U.S. v. Young 573 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2009), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-young-313
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
This is a response video to a comment left by JO BR on "Can FBI record citizens in a hotel room with a secret hidden camera without a warrant? Nerber (2000)" video found at https://youtu.be/txO6CPt7JKk [Published on 12/14/2022]
The Fourth Amendment protects you against government intrusions and does not restrict private citizens. Under the private search doctrine, when a private actor finds evidence of criminal conduct after searching someone without a warrant, the government can use the evidence in criminal proceedings. (United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)). As long as the private actor is not acting at an officer’s invitation or direction. When a private party informs the police about the incriminating evidence, an officer may conduct a search strictly limited to the scope of the private party’s search.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Evidence derived from video surveillance of a hotel room was suppressed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, J., and the United States appealed. The Court of Appeals, James R. Browning, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from secret video surveillance in another person's hotel room without a warrant or the consent of a participant in the monitored activity, and (2) thus, though defendants were invited to a hotel room, rented by government agents, by informants who had consented to video surveillance, once the informants left the room, defendants had reasonable expectation to be free from hidden video surveillance.
Full case here: UNITED STATES v. NERBER, 222 F.3d 597 (2000), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9997732378699863410&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Second Amendment is not a “second class right.” No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right. After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden. Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n)—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional
Full case here: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE GOMEZ QUIROZ, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328.82.0.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Every week, host Anton Vialtsin (California attorney and YouTuber) discusses legal cases from the Supreme Court, 9th Circuit, and California State Courts. We focus on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. We make predictions and scrutinize the law. Anton Vialtsin handled hundreds of federal and state criminal cases. He has an in-depth knowledge of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Federal Criminal Codes and Rules, mandatory-minimum sentences, the death penalty, and too many state laws to list.
Dozens of federal cases Anton Vialtsin managed involved individuals charged with the importation and distribution of controlled substances, all punishable by ten-year minimum mandatory sentence (21 USC §§ 952, 960, 963). Considering that the Southern District of California is a border district and one of the busiest in the country, he defended many individuals charged with transportation and harboring of illegal aliens (8 USC §1324), misuse of a passport, and illegal entry into the United States (8 USC §1326). Further, he worked on several transportation-of-illegal-aliens cases where the transportation resulted in death, triggering the possibility of the death penalty. Additionally, he worked on a number of cases involving individuals charged with complex wire and mail fraud violations, aggravated identity theft, and theft of public property.
While handling federal cases, Anton Vialtsin also runs a successful California state practice. He handled misdemeanor and serious felony cases ranging from DUIs to gang-related violent assaults and attempted murder. Through motion practice, he recently negotiated a one-year jail term on an attempted murder charge. [People of California v. K.M.] Mr. Vialtsin also defended the chief marketing officer of a bank facing a twenty-two count fraud indictment with losses of nearly one million dollars. The government’s offer and the probation department’s recommendation was over eight years in prison. Anton Vialtsin prepared a convincing sentencing memorandum outlining alternative dispositions to the Court, which later imposed a probationary sentence without any custody. People of California v. K.P.
Anton Vialtsin also recently convinced an AUSA to dismiss the case against a client charged with possessing with intent to distribute approximately 34.5 pounds of methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21 USC Sec. 841(a)(1). USA v. J.A.
BUSINESS LITIGATION:
In his most prominent case, the bank filed suit in California seeking enforcement of a $30 million judgment from Russia under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of his client because the bank failed to establish sufficient service for the Russian lawsuit as required by California law. OAO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Until recently, federal courts uniformly applied at least intermediate scrutiny to firearms laws and conducted a means-end analysis to determine whether the state’s interest in the regulation was sufficient to overcome whatever burden the law placed on one’s Second Amendment right. See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 669 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2012). In Bruen, however, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that all of the lower courts had been incorrect in applying means-end scrutiny. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Rather than
balancing any government interest, no matter how important the interest may be in our modern society, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what it said in Heller: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Id. (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634–35 (2008)) (emphasis in original). Because the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, only those regulations that would have been considered constitutional then can be constitutional now.
Supreme Court provided the following mandate:
To justify its regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Section 922(k) criminalizes the mere possession of a firearm after a serial number is removed, obliterated, or altered in any way, whether or not the firearm is then placed into commerce.
Any modern regulation that does not comport with the historical understanding of the right is to be deemed unconstitutional, regardless of how desirable or important that regulation may be in our modern society.
It is undisputed that serial numbers were not required, or even in common use, in 1791. Rather, serial numbers arose only with the advent of the mass production of firearms. The first legal requirement for serial numbers did not appear until 1934 when Congress passed the National Firearms Act. That requirement only applied to certain firearms, such as machine guns and short-barreled rifles. The first precursor to Section 922(k) appeared in the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and made it unlawful “for any person to transport, ship, or knowingly receive in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm from which the manufacturer’s serial number has been removed, obliterated, or altered.” Pub. L. No. 75-785, § 2(i), 52 Stat. 1250, 1251 (1938).
Serial numbers were not broadly required for all firearms manufactured and imported in the United States until the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Notably, these prohibitions were only on transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms—that is to say, when the firearms were in the stream of commerce. Even in 1968 there was no prohibition on mere possession
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Coupon: thanks2022 for 10% off during December 2022
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Federal law prohibits certain people from possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g). Among them are convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and—relevant here—anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” Id. As the parties agree, Florida’s medical marijuana users are “unlawful user[s] of . . . [a] controlled substance,” so this law makes it a crime for them to possess firearms. The primary issue in this case is whether the Second Amendment allows this result.
In 2016, Florida stopped criminalizing the medical use of marijuana. Many people refer to this change as Florida’s “legalizing” medical marijuana, but Florida did no such thing. It couldn’t. “Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits,” United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1179 n.5 (9th Cir. 2016), and federal law still prohibits possession of marijuana—for medical purposes or otherwise, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. § 812, Sch. I(c)(10), § 812(b)(1)(B). Indeed, federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose” and “prohibit[s] entirely [its] possession.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 24, 27 (2005).
So while Florida (like many states) has decided it will no longer criminalize medical marijuana, the simple fact is that “[a]nyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes . . . is committing a federal crime.” McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1179.
As anyone driving by Florida’s many marijuana dispensaries can see, though, federal law is not always enforced. Congress has precluded the Department of Justice (for now) from prosecuting crimes that Congress (for now) chooses to maintain on the books.
Three Plaintiffs want to participate in Florida’s medical marijuana system while possessing guns. But as things stand, their use of medical marijuana—their “unlawful use[] . . . of a controlled substance”—makes any gun possession a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8). That is the situation Plaintiffs challenge. They contend that this violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And they contend a federal firearms prosecution would violate the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment.
...
The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess firearms. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Judges, scholars, and others have long debated the extent of this right, and many questions remain unresolved. But the Supreme Court recently clarified that the government cannot restrict the Second Amendment right unless “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). It is not enough to “simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.” Id
Put differently, if there is a tradition of regulation that is relevantly similar to the challenged laws, Plaintiffs have not stated a plausible Second Amendment claim.
The government offers two historical analogues. ECF No. 14 at 31-32. It contends that laws have traditionally kept guns from those engaged in criminal activity and from “those whose status or behavior would make it dangerous for them to possess firearms.” Id. The government offers a second historical analogue: the tradition of keeping firearms from “those whose possession of firearms the government deems dangerous.”
At bottom, the historical tradition of keeping guns from those the government fairly views as dangerous—like alcoholics and the mentally ill—is sufficiently analogous to modern laws keeping guns from habitual users of controlled substances.
The challenged laws are consistent with the history and tradition of this Nations’ firearm regulation.
Full case here: Frie
The "single-purpose container" exception to the warrant requirement originated in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991). The central question in Sanders was "whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, police are required to obtain a warrant before searching luggage taken from an automobile properly stopped and searched for contraband." Id. at 754, 99 S.Ct. 2586. The Court answered this question in the affirmative, but declared:
Not all containers and packages found by police during the course of a search will deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some containers (for example a kit of burglar tools or a gun case) by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance.
Id. at 764 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2586.
In Robbins v. California, a plurality of four justices elaborated on the "single-purpose container" exception, explaining that the exception is:
little more than another variation of the "plain view" exception,[7] since, if the distinctive configuration of a container proclaims its contents, the contents cannot fairly be said to have been removed from a searching officer's view. The same would be true, of course, if the container were transparent, or otherwise clearly revealed its contents. In short, the negative implication of footnote 13 of the Sanders opinion is that, unless the container is such that its contents may be said to be in plain view, those contents are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment.
453 U.S. 420, 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (plurality opinion), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 801*801 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).
Full case here: US v. Gust, 405 F. 3d 797 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2005, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13976317218493731054&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p807
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Although parents may choose to grant their minor children joint access and mutual use of the home, parents normally retain control of the home as well as the power to rescind the authority they have given. "It does not startle us that a parent's consent to a search of the living room in the absence of his minor child is given effect; but we should not allow the police to rely on the consent of the child to bind the parent. The common sense of the matter is that the ... parent has not surrendered his privacy of place in the living room to the discretion of the ... child; rather, the latter [has] privacy of place there in the discretion of the former." (Weinreb, supra, 42 U.Chi.L.Rev. at p. 60; see People v. Jennings, supra, 142 Cal.App.2d at p. 168.)
Other courts that have considered the authority, or capacity, of a minor child to consent to a police entry of the family home generally have refused to uphold the admissibility of evidence found therein in a criminal action against the parent. The reasoning of these cases is sound: a child cannot waive the privacy rights of her parents.
Full case here: People v. Jacobs (1987) 43 Cal.3d 472, https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-jacobs-23503
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Yuen contends, inter alia, that Officer Kline's opening the rear cargo door without his permission violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, therefore, all evidence the government obtained through exploitation of that illegality must be suppressed as “ ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). We assume, without deciding, that the officers' conduct up until the time that Officer Kline opened the rear cargo door without permission did not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, Officer Kline's opening of the rear cargo door constituted a search for purposes of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2d 1569, 1572-73 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc ) (police conducted “search” of hotel room for Fourth Amendment purposes when they gained visual entry into room through door that was opened at their command and while they stood in hotel corridor). Accordingly, in order for the search to be justified under the Fourth Amendment, at least one of the following two circumstances must have existed: (1) probable cause to believe the rear cargo area contained contraband or evidence of a crime, United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 491 (9th Cir.1985) (“[P]robable cause alone suffices to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle lawfully parked in a public place, as long as the scope of the search is reasonable.”), or (2) the officers had an objectively reasonable fear of an immediate threat for their safety, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (during investigatory stop of automobile pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), police officer may search for weapons in passenger compartment, “limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, ... if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither of these circumstances existed in the present case. There was absolutely nothing specific about the tip the officers received, nor about the circumstances in which they came upon the truck, that provided any grounds for a reasonable fear that they were in danger. Also, the officers identified the sound they heard coming from the cargo area as “drilling.” Coming, as it did, from an individual in the parking lot of a home improvement store, such activity would not render a “reasonably prudent man in such circumstances [to] be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.” Id. at 1050, 103 S.Ct. 3469. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's partial denial of Yuen's motion to suppress, vacate the judgment, and remand to permit Yuen to withdraw his guilty plea. See *745 United States v. Bautista, 362 F.3d 584, 593 (9th Cir.2004) (similar disposition).
Full case here: United States v. Yuen, 113 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2004)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Defendant Hall was arrested at approximately 2:30 p.m. on May 14, 2008 after he exited a house trailer at 2233 East 8th Street, Lot 340, Pueblo, Colorado. Agents had an active arrest warrant and there is no dispute the arrest itself was legal. Immediately before the arrest, agents had observed Hall and a female companion leave another residence and travel on Hall's motorcycle to the house trailer. One officer, situated approximately 75 yards away, saw Hall near the saddle bag hanging over the rear tire of the motorcycle. At that distance he could not discern whether Hall opened the saddlebag, put something in or took something out. No officer in closer proximity testified to this saddlebag event. The officers watched the couple enter the house trailer. The couple remained inside for a period of time that has been estimated by various witnesses to range from five minutes to half an hour. The time spent inside is not critical to the issue presented on this Motion to Suppress.
Officers saw the couple leave the house trailer and as Hall was approaching the motorcycle he was placed under arrest. From a conflict in the testimony, I find that Hall was much more than an arm's length distance from the motorcycle. Following the arrest and placing Hall in custody, the officers conducted a search of the motorcycle. The saddlebag was closed and fastened with a strap. The saddlebag was opened and in it was found approximately 100 grams of methamphetamine in three baggies, a 22 caliber Lorcin handgun and $6,000 cash. The question presented is whether the search of the motorcycle and saddlebag was incident to the arrest and thus did not require a warrant. I find it was not, and therefore the search was unreasonable as a matter of law.
In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763-64, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), for example, the Court established an exception to allow the contemporaneous search of a lawfully arrested person and the immediately surrounding area without a warrant in order to promote safety and prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.
Supreme Court in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), established a bright-line rule specific to automobile searches incident to arrest. "When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile" and "examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment." Id. at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860. See also United States v. Franco, 981 F.2d 470, 472 (10th Cir.1992). The rule from Belton is based on the "generalization that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or [evidence]." Belton at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860. Under this same rationale, the Court expressly noted the passenger compartment did not encompass the trunk of the automobile, leaving it beyond the scope of a permissible search incident to arrest. Id. at 460 n. 4, 101 S.Ct. 2860.
Full case here: United States v. Hall, 603 F.Supp.2d 1308 (2009), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9666803275967635642&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
L
In this case, a highway patrol officer announced he was going to search a suspect's backpack. That search would have violated the Fourth Amendment, because the officer did not have a warrant to search the backpack, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied at the time the officer made his announcement. In response to the officer's threat, the suspect confessed to being a felon and having a gun in the backpack. The government has now charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. But the government may not use in court evidence that an officer obtains through a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 452, 462–63, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) ; United States v. Saafir , 754 F.3d 262, 266 (4th Cir.2014). Therefore, the evidence the officer obtained as a result of his threat (specifically, the confession and the gun) must be suppressed.
Full case here: United States v. Howard, 156 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2016), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-howard-306
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
As mentioned at the outset, the dialogue between Ruffin and Howard on the side of the road had a certain unreality to it. A number of times, Ruffin seemed to go out of his way to tell Howard that he was not under arrest—even when Howard was in handcuffs and would not likely have believed he was free to terminate the encounter. Why did Ruffin go to such great lengths to communicate this message to Howard, notwithstanding the reality of the situation?
Although we don't know for sure what was going through Ruffin's mind, the answer is likely that he was following his training. California law enforcement agencies apparently train their officers to tell suspects that they are not under arrest, on the theory that these magic words allow officers to keep questioning suspects without advising them of their Miranda rights, even if it is otherwise obvious that the suspects are in custody and therefore entitled to Miranda 's protective admonitions. See, e.g. , Smith v. Clark , 612 Fed.Appx. 418, 424 (9th Cir.2015) (unpublished) (Watford, J., concurring).
Why, in turn, do law enforcement agencies train their officers to circumvent Miranda in this way? Apparently it is based on a series of court decisions that give “essentially dispositive weight” to these magic words, immunizing the government from adverse Miranda rulings in cases where the suspect cannot possibly have felt free to leave. Id. at 423 ; see also Smith v. Clark , 804 F.3d 983, 986–87 (9th Cir.2015) (W. Fletcher, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). In other words, law enforcement agencies train officers to work their way around Miranda because courts have signed off on the workaround.
In some cases, perhaps this practice helps officers obtain evidence when a suspect would otherwise clam up. But if Ruffin was following this practice here, it backfired. Because Ruffin made clear he was not in the process of arresting Howard when he announced he was going to search the backpack, Howard's statements following that announcement, and the gun found in the backpack, must be suppressed.
Full case here: United States v. Howard, 156 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2016), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-howard-306
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Search Incident to Arrest
A search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches violate the Fourth Amendment. The exception allows a police officer making a lawful arrest to conduct a search of the area within the arrestee's “immediate control,” that is, “the area from within which [an arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 344, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).
The Exigency Exception
Under the exigency exception, officers may make a warrantless search if: (1) they have probable cause to believe that the item or place to be searched contains evidence of a crime, and (2) they are facing exigent circumstances that require immediate police action. See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298–301, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (upholding a warrantless search where “the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative”). We have defined exigent circumstances as “those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry [or search] ... was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.” United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. Comm'r, 947 F.2d 1390, 1392–93 (9th Cir.1991). To be reasonable, a search under this exception must be limited in scope so that it is “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Reyes–Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th Cir.2010) ( “In order to prove that the exigent circumstances doctrine justified a warrantless search, the government must [also] show that ... the search's scope and manner were reasonable to meet the need.”).
The Vehicle Exception
Another exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the vehicle exception. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153–54, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Under the vehicle exception, officers may search a vehicle and any containers found therein without a warrant, so long as they have probable cause. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) ; United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 821–22, 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). Unlike search incident to arrest, the vehicle exception is not rooted in arrest and the Chimel rationales of preventing arrestees from harming officers and destroying evidence. Instead, the vehicle exception is motivated by the supposedly lower expectation of privacy individuals have in their vehicles as well as the mobility of vehicles, which allows evidence contained within those vehicles to be easily concealed from the police. Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153, 45 S.Ct. 280 ; California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390–91, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).
Full case here: United States v. Camou, 773 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2014), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-camou-4
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
h
Early one October morning, defendant Isaiah Hendrix walked up to a house in **281 Oxnard, knocked on the door, and rang the doorbell. Hearing no response, Hendrix walked around the house to the backyard, opened a screen door, and attempted to open the locked glass door behind it. Then, failing that, Hendrix sat down on a bench and stayed there. Hendrix was sitting on the bench when police arrived. Hendrix told police he was there to visit his cousin, but Hendrix's cousin did not, in fact, live in the house. Hendrix was charged with burglary.
At trial, the court gave the jury a standard mistake of fact instruction, which informed jurors that they should not convict Hendrix if they determined he lacked criminal intent because he mistakenly believed a relevant fact — namely, that the house belonged to his cousin and not to a stranger. But the instruction specified that the mistake in question had to be a reasonable one. All parties now acknowledge this was error: To negate the specific criminal intent required for burglary, a defendant's mistaken belief need not be reasonable, just genuinely held. The question before us is whether the instructional error was prejudicial and thus requires reversal. The Court of Appeal, concluding Hendrix's claim of mistake was not credible in any event, answered no. We reach a different conclusion. The instructional error effectively precluded the jury from giving full consideration to a mistake of fact claim that was supported by substantial evidence, where resolution of the issue was central to the question whether Hendrix possessed the criminal intent necessary for conviction. Whether that claim is credible is a matter for a jury to decide. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.
Full case here: People v. Hendrix, 13 Cal.5th 933 (2022), https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S265668.PDF
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Wilke contends that the district court erred by denying him the adjustment solely because of the time and money the Government spent before and at trial. According to Wilke, § 3.E1.1(a) of the Guidelines focuses only on whether, in its words, “the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense,” not on whether he saves Government resources. Saving the Government resources is, rather, the basis for a separate 1-point reduction under § 3E1.1(b).
Whether USSG § 3.E1.1(a) permits consideration of the Government’s
expenditure of resources is a legal question this Court reviews de novo. United States v. Dixon, 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020). We conclude that it does not. We are persuaded by the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in United States v. Hollis, 823 F.3d 1045 (6th Cir. 2016), where it determined that USSG § 3.E1.1(a) is “[b]y its plain terms . . . focused only on whether the defendant ‘clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility,’ while subsection (b) . . . is focused only on whether the defendant[] . . . permit[s] the government to avoid preparing for trial and permit[s] the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently.” Id. at 1048 (quotations omitted). Considering the Government’s expenditure of resources under subsection (a) risks rendering “parts of § 3E1.1(b) superfluous,” because “[i]f waste of government resources could be a basis for denying the two-level decrease under subsection (a), then there would never be a situation where a defendant would qualify for the decrease under subsection (a) but then be denied the additional decrease under subsection (b) for the reason that his or her late-in-time guilty plea caused the government to waste resources preparing for trial.” Id.
Full case here: USA V. JUSTIN WILKE, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/09/14/21-30228.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
In a per curiam opinion, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Sergio Guerrero’s motion to suppress because of the consistent conclusions of Judge Gould and Judge Bea, which represent a majority of the panel, even though the reasoning of Judge Gould and Judge Bea in their separate concurrences is different.
The panel noted that one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of searches and seizures conducted without prior approval by judge or magistrate is a Terry stop, which allows an officer to briefly detain an
individual when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that an individual is engaged in a crime, during which stop an officer may also conduct a limited protective frisk if the officer has reason to believe the individual has a weapon. The panel noted that another exception is when an officer has probable cause to arrest an individual.
Judge Gould concurred on the grounds that Trooper Amick effected a de facto arrest supported by probable cause.
Although the possession of ammunition was not illegal in Arizona, the
extremely large volume of ammunition here raises risks to society that needed to be assessed more carefully and could not be done by a lone state trooper. The federal authorities, with their special expertise and databases, were properly invited to assess the situation before Guerrero was sent on his way with the ammunition. It was reasonable for Trooper Amick to believe this, and reasonableness is indeed the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment so far as searches and detentions are concerned.
Judge Bea concurred on the grounds that Trooper Amick merely detained Guerrero and did not effectuate a de facto arrest, but that even if Trooper Amick had arrested Guerrero, there was probable cause to do so.
Dissenting, Judge Thomas wrote that Trooper Amick’s stop ripened into an arrest when he held Guerrero handcuffed, on a roadside, for approximately 40 minutes, waiting for federal officers to arrive; and that Trooper Amick had no probable cause to do so.
Full case here: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SERGIO GUERRERO, --- F.4th --- (2022), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/02/21-10248.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a warrant to include a description of the “place to be searched.” The police officers here—at first—complied with that requirement, obtaining a warrant that listed a motel room suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking. The officers then decided to search the suspect’s home as well, and asked the judge over the phone to expand the scope of the warrant to include the home. The judge agreed, but the officers did not physically amend the warrant.
We agree with the district court that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was facially defective. While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched.
Full case here: Manriquez v. Ensley, --- F.4th ---- (2022), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/30/20-16917.pdf
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The purpose behind the decision to impound is crucial because of the reason for condoning inventory searches of impounded cars. "In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called `community caretaking functions,' [citation], automobiles are frequently taken into police custody." ( Opperman, supra, 428 U.S. at p. 368.) "When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody, [citation]; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, [citation]; and the protection of the police from potential danger, [citation]." ( Id. at p. 369.) "[T]his Court has consistently sustained police intrusions into automobiles impounded or otherwise in lawful police custody where the process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents." ( Id. at p. 373.)
The decision to impound the vehicle must be justified by a community caretaking function "other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity" ( Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 375) because inventory searches are "conducted in the absence of probable cause" ( Whren, supra, 517 U.S. at p. 811). "
Thus, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, inventory search cases apply "the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.
Full case here: People v. Torres, 188 Cal.App.4th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010), https://casetext.com/case/people-v-torres-1078
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the brief investigatory stop of a vehicle. United States v. Brignoni–Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578–79, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). An officer may not detain *246 a motorist without a showing of “reasonable suspicion.” Rodriguez, 976 F.2d at 594. This “objective basis, or ‘reasonable suspicion,’ must consist of ‘specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). A “gloss on this rule prohibits reasonable suspicion from being based on broad profiles which cast suspicion on entire categories of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person to be stopped.” United States v. Rodriguez–Sanchez, 23 F.3d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir.1994). United States v. Garcia-Camacho, 53 F.3d 244, 245–46 (9th Cir. 1995)
This court recently stated in Gonzalez–Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441, 1446 (9th Cir.1994), that “[u]nder Ninth Circuit law, a driver's failure to look at the Border Patrol cannot weigh in the balance of whether there existed reasonable suspicion for a stop.” The court stated:
A driver's failure to look at the border patrol car [cannot be used to justify the agent's suspicion] since the opposite reaction, a driver's repeated glancing at a Border Patrol car, can also be used to justify the agent's suspicion. To give weight to this type of justification “would put the officers in a classic ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ position [and] the driver, of course, can only lose.” Id. at 1447 (citation omitted). United States v. Garcia-Camacho, 53 F.3d 244, 247 (9th Cir. 1995)
Full case here: United States v. Garcia-Camacho, 53 F.3d 244, 247 (9th Cir. 1995), https://cite.case.law/f3d/53/244/
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
✅Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Following a traffic stop, officers searched Brandon Lance Lee's car without a warrant and discovered 56 grams of cocaine, a firearm, and other items associated with selling narcotics. After Lee was charged with various drug and weapons offenses, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless vehicle search. The trial court granted Lee's motion, rejecting the People's contentions that the search was proper under the automobile exception as supported by probable cause or, alternatively, as an inventory search of a vehicle following an impound. Reviewing that order, we rely on the trial court's express and implied factual findings, provided they are supported by substantial evidence, to independently determine whether the search was constitutional.
In evaluating the People's reliance on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, we weigh the totality of the circumstances to determine whether officers had probable cause to search Lee's car. Our analysis, like that of the trial court, does not overlook the small, permissible amount of marijuana found in Lee's pocket. But following the legalization of marijuana in 2016, California law now expressly provides that legal cannabis and related products “are not contraband” and their possession and/or use “shall not constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (c).) As a result, the trial court properly concluded that Lee's possession of a small amount of marijuana was of little relevance in assessing probable cause. Because the other factors relied on by the People were also of minimal significance, we conclude that even considering the totality of circumstances known to the officer there did not exist “ ‘ “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” ’ ” (Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (Alabama).)
We likewise find no error in the trial court's conclusion that the search was not valid as an inventory search. The search here served no community caretaking function. And based on the manner in which the search was conducted and the statements of the officer to Lee and his passenger, the trial *857 court reasonably found that the primary purpose of the search was not to inventory the contents of Lee's car, but rather to investigate Lee for possible criminal behavior.
We therefore affirm the order granting Lee's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the unlawful search of his car.
People v. Lee, 40 Cal. App. 5th 853, 856–57, 253 Cal. Rptr. 3d 512, 515 (2019)
Vehicular Searches: https://youtu.be/17btYF5d5hM
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Fourth Amendment guards “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. To challenge the legality of a search under the Fourth Amendment, a criminal defendant must prove that he has a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the item or area searched. “A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search ... of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.”
To determine whether a legitimate expectation of privacy exists, we look to “concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Byrd v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018). Applying those principles, the Supreme Court has recognized that a driver in “lawful possession” of a rental car may have such a legitimate expectation of privacy, even if the rental agreement does not authorize that driver to drive the car. Id. at 1531.
To prevail in a Fourth Amendment challenge, the criminal defendant bears the burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched property, at the time of the search, by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Castellanos, 716 F.3d 828, 833–35 (4th Cir. 2013). Defendant's failure to prove ownership through a title, bill of sale, vehicle registration, or “anything else,” and the failure to prove lawful possession through evidence that anyone “had granted him permission to use the vehicle ... or any other right of any kind to the vehicle.”
Under Byrd, an unauthorized driver of a rental car only has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a car when (1) they possess the rental car and (2) that possession is “lawful.” 138 S. Ct. at 1531. And here, as in Castellanos, Daniels had the burden of producing evidence that he had possession and that his possession was lawful. Although Daniels' counsel claimed at the suppression hearing and in his briefs that Baldwin allowed him to drive the car, Daniels did not introduce any evidence at the suppression hearing to support that claim—not even a statement of his own to suggest that he had permission. Counsel's unsupported claim is not evidence. Because Daniels did not put forward any evidence that would support his claim that Baldwin let him use the car—or that he “lawfully” possessed the rental car by other means—he fails to carry his burden that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the rental car. Thus, his challenge of the search that led to the discovery of the gun must fail.
See full case here: United States v. Daniels, No. 19-4812, 2022 WL 2912314, at *3 (4th Cir. July 25, 2022), https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/194812.P.pdf
See Also: Can police search a rental car without a warrant or your consent? | Byrd v. United States, https://youtu.be/76LzEL37Kpg
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Penal Code section 16470 defines a dirk or dagger as "a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death." (Ibid. ) This definitional language is immediately followed by an exemption: "A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 21510[, i.e., a switchblade], or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position." (Ibid .)
Penal Code section 16470 excludes only nonlocking folding knives, non-switchblade folding knives, and pocketknives. The box cutter in defendant's backpack was nonfolding. If the Legislature had wanted to exclude nonfolding box cutters from the definition of "dirk" or "dagger," or to exclude all box cutters as they chose to exclude all pocketknives, they could have said so. "Our function is not to judge the wisdom of statutes. Nor are we empowered to insert what a legislative body has omitted from its enactments."
The Supreme Court has held the definition of dirk or dagger includes a knowledge element. ( People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 331–332, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52, discussing former Pen. Code, § 12020.) "Thus, to commit the offense, a defendant must still have the requisite guilty mind : that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon his or her person an instrument ‘that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.’ " ( Rubalcava, at p. 332, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52.)
"In addition to incorporating a knowledge element, the California Supreme Court has generally recognized that when a defendant is charged with an offense that penalizes possession of an instrument that is ordinarily usable for peaceful purposes, the defendant may justify the possession by showing the possession was ‘in accordance with [the instrument's] ordinary legitimate design.’ "
[A] morally blameless person carrying a concealed box cutter for innocent purposes, such as a grocery store worker, carpenter or car mechanic, cannot be convicted of violating Penal Code section 21310. Defendant was convicted of violating section 21310 because he inflicted a deep, bloody wound on the victim and yelled at the victim as he sat slumped against a wall that defendant would kill him (and the eyewitness, too), leaving the victim in hysterical fear of death. This defendant was not morally blameless, and our holding does not invite prosecutors to prosecute morally blameless people.
Full case here: People v. Hester, 58 Cal.App.5th 630, 272 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020), https://casetext.com/case/people-v-hester-68
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
"[S]ection 21310 makes it a criminal offense to carry `concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger.'" (People v. Castillolopez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 322, 327 [202 Cal.Rptr.3d 703, 371 P.3d 216]; see § 21310 ["any person in this state who carries concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger" commits a criminal offense punishable as a felony or misdemeanor].) Section 16470 defines a dirk or dagger as "a knife or other instrument with or without a 653*653 handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death."
"[T]he legislative history is clear and unequivocal: the intent to use the concealed instrument as a stabbing instrument is not an element of the crime of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger." (People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 331 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52]; accord, Stark v. Superior Court (2011) 52 Cal.4th 368, 394-395 [128 Cal.Rptr.3d 611, 257 P.3d 41].) However, a defendant must know the concealed instrument could readily be used as a stabbing weapon. (Rubalcava, at p. 332 ["[T]o commit the offense, a defendant must still have the requisite guilty mind: that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon his or her person an instrument `that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.'"]; see CALCRIM No. 2501 ["To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: [¶] ... [¶] 4. The defendant knew that it could readily be used as a stabbing weapon."].) Whether a knife is a dirk or dagger is a question of fact for the jury to determine. (People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 851 [97 Cal.Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564]; People v. Wharton (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 72, 76 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 673] (Wharton).)
Contrary to Belloso's contentions, substantial evidence supported the jury's finding the knife could readily be used as a stabbing weapon. The jury observed the knife at trial, and the photograph of the knife was admitted into evidence. Deputy Simpkins testified the stainless steel knife measured eight to nine inches long, with a four- to four-and-a-half-inch fixed blade. The knife's blade could not be folded, unlike a pocket knife. The photograph of the knife showed it had a sharp point. Deputy Simpkins explained the knife was wrapped in paper to prevent cuts from handling the knife. The jury could have reasonably inferred from Deputy Simpkins's testimony the knife was sharp; otherwise, it would not have posed a risk of cutting someone. In addition, Deputy Simpkins testified Belloso was carrying the knife for protection, in light of Belloso's comments he was carrying the knife because he was "sketched out" and not from the area. The jury could have reasonably inferred Belloso would not have carried a dull, rounded-tip knife for protection.
Full case here: People v. Belloso, 42 Cal. App. 5th 647 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 2019, available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7384235712369789969&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, including unreasonable investigative stops. With respect to seizures, “[a] seizure occurs whenever a police officer ‘by means of physical force or show of authority’ restrains the liberty of a person to walk away.”
It is well settled that the driver of a vehicle that is the subject of a traffic stop is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806) The question whether a passenger in the vehicle is also seized at the time of the traffic stop, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, is currently *9 pending before the United States Supreme Court. (See People v. Brendlin (2006) 127 U.S. 1145.) We need not address or decide that issue, however, because here the question before us is whether defendant, a passenger in the Cadillac, was lawfully seized or detained when the officers first directed him to remain in the car and then directed him to sit on the curb. The Attorney General has conceded that this was a seizure. The parties argue whether or not the seizure was lawful.
These authorities fully support the conclusion under the circumstances here that the officers were justified in ordering defendant to stay in the car, and then to get out of the car with the other occupants. The two officers in this case were dealing not only with the driver of the stopped car, but with three passengers. One of the passengers was making furtive movements in the back seat at the same time as defendant, the other passenger in the back seat, was attempting to leave the car. The third passenger in the front seat chose to remain in the car. Thus, if the officers allowed defendant to walk away, the possibility of a violent encounter could arise from two locations: one from inside the car and the other from defendant's location outside the car. The officers' attention could be distracted by the different movements of the various occupants of the car. The officers, therefore, could reasonably require defendant to stay with the other occupants of the car, either inside or outside the car, pending completion of the car stop.
“Giving officers the authority to control all movement in a traffic encounter is sensibly **9 consistent with the public interest in protecting their safety. [Citations.] Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation splitting the officer's attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer.” (Williams, supra, 419 F.3d at p. 1034.)
Full case here: People v. Vibanco, 151 Cal.App.4th 1, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007), https://casetext.com/case/people-v-vibanco
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
In prosecution for willfully and unlawfuly carrying concealed weapon and for willfully and unlawfully carrying loaded firearm in a public place, the Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District, Ronald Schoenberg, J., granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence on ground that discovery of firearm resulted from unlawful search and seizure. State appealed. The Court of Appeal, Johnson, J., held that: (1) acts of police officer constituted a “detention” where the officer stood at passenger door of car which police had legitimately stopped and asked to see driver's license of passenger not suspected of any crime; (2) fact that the restraint on passenger's liberty was minimal did not make the restraint a reasonable one; (3) officer's failure to offer passenger choice whether to produce her driver's license, together with other factors, resulted in “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes; and (4) the seizure was not reasonable.
Full case here: People v. Spicer, 157 Cal. App. 3d 213, 203 Cal. Rptr. 599 (Ct. App. 1984), https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/157/213.html
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/
Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/
Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!