Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer Blog

In what has turned out to be a major investigation, deputies raided an Antelope Valley property where they uncovered an alleged cockfighting operation, $1 million in methamphetamine, children living in poor conditions and 100 roosters, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The operation started with a narcotics investigation and led to deputies seeking a search warrant served on a property in an unincorporated area near Lancaster, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said.

But all that was discovered could come unraveled if procedures weren't properly handled when police sought and wrote up an affidavit for a search warrant in Los Angeles.

Every American has a right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. What that means in practical terms is the police can't barge into your house, your vehicle or stop you walking down the street to search you or your property without some basis. And that basis, called probable cause, often is memorialized in a search warrant signed by a judge.

But even after a search warrant is obtained, that doesn't mean that all the potential evidence found can be used. As a Pasadena criminal defense lawyer would tell you, there are many ways to challenge a search warrant.

For one, the officer must have had credible evidence to suggest that a search warrant was necessary in the first place. Without reliable information to base the request for search on, the whole thing falls apart.

Secondly, if officers fudge the information on the search warrant, even a little, that can lead to a suppression motion that allows the defendant to keep any evidence collected by police out of trial.

In asking a series of questions of officers who were involved in a raid, defense lawyers can often get them to give contradictory statements about what evidence they expected to find and the basis for seeking a search warrant in the first place. And even in some cases, evidence that has nothing to do with the search warrant request may be held out of trial, depending on the circumstances.

In this case, deputies got a search warrant for the property for a drug investigation.While there, they found about $1 million worth of methamphetamine -- about five pounds. They also uncovered what they are calling a cockfighting rink -- about 100 roosters -- as well as children living in dilapidated sheds.

The children ranged in age from 4 to 17 and were sent to child welfare workers after police intervened. Firearms were also recovered as well as sparring tools and drugs for the roosters.

Police made six arrests on drug charges, though their names weren't released. The Times didn't report that anyone faced child abuse or animal abuse charges, despite allegations by deputies to the contrary.

Search warrants must be examined and double-checked in order to ensure the police are held accountable.

Continue reading "Child Abuse, Drugs, Cockfighting Alleged in Los Angeles Search Warrant Case" »

For those under the legal drinking age of 21 years old in California, it's crucial to understand the state's law on underage alcohol consumption and driving. Like others states, California has what's referred to as a "Zero Tolerance" law, which can be interpreted literally to mean that any evidence of alcohol consumption in any quantity by underage drivers is punishable by law.

Under the California Vehicle Code 23136, if an individual under the age of 21 is found with a blood alcohol level of 0.01 percent or above while driving, he or she may be charged with either a civil or criminal offense. If an individual is under 21 and accused by the police of having consumed alcohol in the state of California, he or she is required by law to take a:

1. Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test (PAS), and


2. any other tests required by law enforcement involving breath, urine, or blood to determine BAC.

1. a suspended driver's license for one year,


2. a denial of a driver's license for one year if the individual doesn't yet have one, and


3. one to three year driver's license suspensions if there are repeat offenses involved.

The nature of the California DUI offense is determined by the individual's determined BAC percentage. Nevertheless, the defendant has the right to legal representation. If you've been charged with underage DUI in the Santa Clarita area, contact the Law Office of Daniel Kann to make sure your case is handled properly and you receive the aggressive defense that you deserve. Call a skilled Santa Clarita drunk driving lawyer today at (661) 450-9678 for a free case review.

Sources: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23136.htm; http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11_5/vc23612.htm

Following a two year investigation, ten individuals, including two doctors, were arrested Thursday October 13 after being tried for accused participation in a drug trafficking circle run out of an office on West 8th Street close to downtown Los Angeles. According to federal officials, the drug ring is being charged with the illegal distribution of over 1 million OxyContin pills.

As reported by FOX LA, the illicit ring was allegedly operated from a medical clinic where doctors gave Medicare prescriptions for the potent and dangerous painkiller for Medi-Cal, Medicare, and patients without insurance who demonstrated no medical necessity for the drug, said the U.S. Attorney's Office. The drug was acquired from pharmacies, in many counts by unlawfully sending bills to government insurance groups, while leaders of the ring are accused of re-selling the pills on the black market for millions of dollars in gain.

The L.A. federal court indictment indicates that over one million of the highest strength OxyContin doses were sold illegally on the street via the ring for between approximately $23 to $27 a pill. The charges also accuse that a portion of the drug was funneled through stolen Medicare identities at the cost of the government (Medicare fronted more than $2.7 million in prescriptions for the drug during the investigated period, according to officials).

Continue reading "Los Angeles Doctors Arrested in OxyContin Drug Ring" »

Actress Lindsay Lohan was sent back to jail on Wednesday with bail set at $100,000 for violating the terms of her probation and mandatory community service stemming from her May theft and drunk driving convictions. According to The Los Angeles Times, as part of Lohan's probation, the actress had been sentenced to 360 hours of community service at a women's center and 120 hours at a morgue.

In the six months since her sentencing, she had done 21 hours of service at the women's center and none at the morgue. Lohan cited that she had chosen to work at the American Red Cross instead, but the change was apparently never approved by the courts. If Lohan makes bail, she will have to regularly perform her community service until her November probation hearing to see if any further punishments will be levied against her.

Probation is a welcome sentence to many who are convicted of a crime in court, as it spares them from jail or prison time. However, probation comes with many terms. Those sentenced to probation must meet certain conditions, such as:

• Random drug testing;
• Community service;
• Reporting to his or her probation officer;
• Attending education and/or rehabilitation programs;
• Inability to possess a firearm;
• Payment of fines, restitution, and/or court fees;
• Required employment; and
• Curfew.

Violation of any conditions of a convicted person's probation can lead to revocation of probation, additional requirements, fines, an extended probationary period, and jail time.

Continue reading "Lindsay Lohan Sent to Jail for Probation Violation" »

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that drunken driving has decreased in the United States over the last five years.

U.S. News & World Report takes a different angle on the numbers, reporting that men make up about 81 percent of all drunk drivers, most of whom got behind the wheel after binge drinking.

The comprehensive study -- done by calling 210,000 Americans -- showed that the number of people who drink and drive in America has fallen drastically since 2006. Strangely enough, millions of people are arrested each year for DUI in Los Angeles and nationwide, despite the declining numbers.

Ventura DUI lawyers see people from all walks of life charged with DUI -- from school teachers to police officers to everyday construction workers and college students. It's a crime that doesn't take a well-thought out plan to commit. It requires a few drinks over a short period of time and perhaps an underestimation of the level of intoxication.

Yet because of the penalties -- possible probation, jail time, community service, fines and fees, ignition interlock device, DUI-related education programs -- and the out-of-court consequences -- injured reputation, job loss, added stress -- these charges must be fought aggressively.

The study found that drunk driving incidents are down 30 percent from 2006 to 2010 and in 2010 they were at their lowest level in nearly 20 years. While some may look at the time frame and say that they are down because of the economy, it's unclear if there's anything to back up that claim.

It could also be that people simply don't drink as much as the police would have you believe. Law enforcement has done a great job of making it seem as if people are driving drunk all over our roads and putting us in danger. They buy billboards, hold DUI roadblocks and take out television advertisements in a never ending public relations campaign about the dangers of driving under the influence.

And that's fine; people should be aware. But that doesn't mean that every person charged with DUI is guilty of DUI. The study looked at demographics, as well. It found that of the people called, men 21 to 34 made up 32 percent of all drunk drivers, though they only make up 11 percent of the U.S. population.

All told, men represent 81 percent of drunk drivers, the study found. It's unclear why that number is so high, but it must be noted that the numbers are based on only 210,000 people. While a large number, it's nothing compared to the country's population.

Regardless of the numbers, it doesn't matter whether a person is arrested, but whether they are convicted of the charge. Many people are arrested by police only to have the charges dropped once prosecutors see the problems with the case. Or, once an experienced Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer gets involved and starts pecking away at the evidence -- field sobriety testing, breath testing and officer's observations.

An arrest can cause a lot of damage to a person, so don't increase the problems by allowing the state to secure a conviction. Fight back if you've been charged.

Continue reading "Study: Drunk Driving in Los Angeles Down, Men Make up 81% of DUI Cases" »

Roadside chemical and sobriety tests are topics that receive a lot of confusion and misinformation from the general public. If pulled over by the police, is an individual required to submit to a sobriety test? Can a person refuse the test? Upon refusal, what are the consequences? These are questions which every California driver should know, as there are serious implications to DUI charges and arrests.

Similar to the majority of other states in the country, California law has a rule called "implied consent" (under V C Section 23612). This mandates that if a person is arrested for driving while impaired (DWI or DUI) in the state, he or she automatically relinquishes permission for the chemical testing of breath, blood, or urine, as it relates to police sobriety examination. Refusal of this kind of test following an arrest results in a mandatory license suspension. However, this rule is only applicable after you are arrested.

Highway officers may conduct a field sobriety test (FST) using a hand-held Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) device to help determine whether an individual is intoxicated upon pulling them over. With exception of the PAS test for people under the age of 21, roadside field sobriety tests (FST's) are NOT mandatory. However, the other exception to the PAS being optional is if the driver is on probation for a prior DUI. Therefore, if you are under the age of 21 or are still on probation for a prior DUI, you are required to submit to a PAS test in the field; otherwise, the PAS is optional. On the other hand, "Chemical Tests" are never optional.

The laws surrounding a drunk driving arrest can be confusing, especially for individuals who are unsure of their legal rights. If you've been arrested for a DUI in or around Los Angeles, contact Los Angeles drunk driving defense attorney Daniel Kann for experienced and vigilant representation. Call 310-954-9356 for a complimentary case review today.

The Ventura County Star reports that a 42-year-old man has been arrested for eating and not paying his bill.

Theft charges in Ventura can result in years behind bars. And in California, the penalties vary based on the facts of the case, such as whether a weapon was used, as well as the value of what was taken. Of course, that's unlikely in this case. But a long string of petty crimes can lead to probation violations and other significant legal issues.

What can be difficult for prosecutors sometimes is being able to prove the value of what was taken. They must have credible evidence to prove the value, otherwise, it must remain in doubt.

As an experienced Ventura criminal defense attorney will tell you, theft charges can be difficult to defend when prosecutors stack the count by over-charging a defendant.

According to the newspaper article, a 42-year-old transient was arrested after attempting to leave a restaurant without paying for the food. According to police, the man had stolen from businesses in the area in the past and managers were concerned for their safety.

The man allegedly ate, drank several glasses of beer, and tried to pay with a credit card he allegedly found on the street. When the card came back declined, the man allegedly threatened staff and took off on his bicycle.

Police found him nearby and charged him with suspicion of defrauding an innkeeper, unlawfully using lost property, driving a bicycle while under the influence and resisting arrest.

In cases where theft is alleged, police must have witnesses who are unflappable in their testimony and that is rare. In many cases, witnesses are unreliable in that they are either far away from the alleged crime, under the influence or are coerced into saying something by police officers.

And this can lead to a defendant's rights being stripped away. Everyone charged with a crime has a right to have a fair trial. And that means holding the state and police to the burden of proof to beyond all reasonable doubt. Simply said, this means that if there is any doubt, the defendant should be found not guilty.

But jurors sometimes have a tough time with this concept. Some believe that if they are on a criminal jury, they have a duty to find the defendant guilty because the person is being tried for the crime. Many falsely accused people have gone to trial and been found guilty. I would bet few Americans would want to have a jury who believes the person who is charged with an alleged offense is automatically guilty.

In theft cases especially, recovery of the alleged stolen goods is critical. If police charge a person with stealing, but are unable to recover what has been taken, isn't that doubt? If fuzzy surveillance video shows a person who may resemble the defendant, is that doubt? What about witnesses who "think" the defendant is the person who committed the crime?

There are many avenues to a good defense and an experienced criminal defense attorney in Ventura and throughout Southern California will explore all opportunities. This is essential for any defendant charged with crimes in our state.

Continue reading "'Dine and Dash' Leads to Ventura Man's Arrest" »

During the most recent leg in an extensive ongoing police offensive named "Operation Simple Green" targeting the Vagos motorcycle gang, twelve individuals have been arrested and over 300 weapons have been confiscated throughout seven counties in Southern California. In total, in part of an 18 month examination headed by the California Department of Justice, 37 individuals have been arrested for an assortment of alleged drug offenses.

Over 40 pounds of cocaine and eight pounds of methamphetamine were found and confiscated, as were droves of firearms (all discovered at a house in Alhambra) and a rocket launcher, according to reporting by the Associated Press. This past Thursday (October 6), police delivered a massive 52 search warrants in a county wide raid spanning from Santa Barbara to the north down to the Imperial counties in the south. Police claimed that the gang has approximately 500 affiliates around the world, and select members were associated with a wide-ranging drug sale syndicate. Up to fifty accusations are pending for illicit drug sale, illegal weapon possession, soliciting for murder, and rape.

In a comparable effort five years ago, federal and state officials arrested over 24 alleged Vagos members, among them seven chapter heads. And in 2004, a state initiative helped with the arrest of 26 individuals and the confiscation of over $125,000 in cash, illicit substances, and weapons. Have you been arrested for criminal activity affiliated with a gang in Los Angeles or its surrounding areas? Call criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles Daniel Kann at 310-593-2435 for a free case review.

The recent case of United States of America vs. Carl Roy Burleson shows why an experienced lawyer must be used in any criminal case.

Leaving your case to an attorney without the necessary court experience can be detrimental, and the Burleson case shows why. An aggressive Valencia criminal defense lawyer can provide solid advice to clients who have been thrust into the criminal justice system.

Whether facing drug charges in Valencia or murder charges in Ventura, a motion to suppress can hold police officers accountable for their misuse of power and allow a defendant to go free on charges that are unwarranted.

In the Burleson case, he and two others were walking down the middle of a Roswell, New Mexico, street one early morning, holding a dog that didn't have a leash. Because they were walking in the street, a police officer pulled them over and started talking with them.

As it was revealed in a pretrial hearing, the officer said there had been a rash of property crimes in the area, including a shooting, and several pet thefts had been reported recently as well. Plus, the three had violated city ordinances by walking in the middle of the street.

After talking with the three, the officer was satisfied the dog wasn't stolen -- they were afraid the dog would run off since they didn't have a leash -- and the officer didn't intend to ticket them for walking in the middle of the street.

But the situation took a bad turn after that.

After the officer, who admitted he wasn't going to make any arrests or issue any citations, spoke with the three, he asked for their identification to run a warrants check through dispatchers.

Though they were no longer suspected of a crime, the officer asked for their identification anyway. After running a check, dispatchers said Burleson had a warrant issued for his arrest. So, as the officer began handcuffing him, he told the officer he had two guns and some ammunition on him.

The officer found the two guns and ammunition and booked the man into custody. He was later charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before trial, his attorney convinced a judge to suppress the gun and ammunition because, as the officer stated, he no longer considered them suspects in a crime and there was no good reason for him to run a warrants check.

But the prosecution appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently overturned the ruling and sent the case back for further consideration. In its ruling, the appeals court stated that based on officer-safety concerns, the officer had the right to run a warrants check since there had been violence in that area recently.

It's unclear whether Burleson will be appealing the appeals court's decision.

Valencia criminal defense lawyers understand that a well-written and presented motion to suppress can mean the difference between a case won and a case lost. The defendant has the right to have a fair trial, and that includes making sure evidence that wasn't properly obtained stays out.

Continue reading "U.S. vs. Burleson Highlights Importance of Motion to Suppress in Valencia Criminal Cases" »

Domestic violence is a major concern in communities throughout California. Domestic violence cases are often complex due to high emotions, child custody matters, and the possibility of multiple crimes being involved, such as weapons violations, assault, battery, and even drug crimes.

It is important for anyone arrested for a domestic violence offense to understand the types of domestic violence cases. According to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, the following are the categories of domestic violence crimes:

• California Penal Code Section 273.5 - deliberate force of corporal injury on a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, etc.
• California Penal Code Section 242 - any deliberate or unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another
• California Penal Code Section 243 (e) - battery against a spouse, cohabitant, parent of the defendant's children, etc.
• California Penal Code Section 240 - assault; any unlawful attempt, in addition to a present ability, to commit a violent injury
• California Penal Code Section 136.1 - intimidation of victims and witnesses

These criminal cases may be heard in a specialized Domestic Violence Court. These types of courts were established to offer the most efficient and focused means for addressing the increasing number of domestic violence cases being filed in Los Angeles County. Because of the unique issues that are often associated with domestic violence cases, the judicial officer in a Domestic Violence Court is trained to provide sensitive, consistent sentencing and solid oversight for each case.

Although domestic violence cases are heard in all criminal courts in Los Angeles County, there are some courts that have departments that specialize in domestic violence cases. The five Domestic Violence Courts in the Los Angeles Superior Court include:

1. Long Beach Courthouse
2. El Monte Courthouse
3. West Covina Courthouse
4. Pomona Courthouse
5. Stanley Mosk Courthouse (Department 8) in downtown Los Angeles

Depending on the circumstances surrounding a person's arrest, a domestic violence conviction can result in serious consequences. To ensure that your rights are protected, you may want to contact a Los Angeles domestic violence defense lawyer who can inform you of your legal options. In a lot of situations, a person charged with a domestic violence offense will be offered a plea bargain. However, it is advised that an individual shouldn't agree to enter a plea without first speaking to an attorney. To find out more about your legal rights, call aggressive criminal defense lawyer Daniel Kann today at 310-954-9356 for a free consultation.

Most people have heard the phrase "drunk in public" before, but they may not be fully aware of its meaning. Having a beer while out at a restaurant may seem innocent enough, and it usually is; however, depending on the circumstances, a person may be arrested for being drunk in public.

Under California Penal Code Section 647(f), it is against the law for a person to be in a public place while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and show signs of the following:

• Being unable to demonstrate care for personal safety as well as the safety of others; and/or
• Interfering with, obstructing or preventing the free use of any street, sidewalk or other area (public way).

A law enforcement officer may place a person who appears to be carrying out the above acts and behavior in civil protective custody. Under Section 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, an individual may be taken to a facility for a 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates (substances such as alcohol and/or drugs that cause intoxication).

A California drunk in public charge is a type of disorderly conduct offense, which can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. If a person is convicted of this offense, he or she may face probation, steep fines, and even jail time. While these consequences are intimidating, there is no reason a person should not try to build a strong defense against the charges being held against them.

Daniel Kann has been defending the rights of those charged with a wide range of criminal offenses for many years. As a Los Angeles misdemeanor defense lawyer, Mr. Kann is prepared to inform you of your legal rights and options for defense. To learn more about how Mr. Kann can help you get your charges reduced or dismissed altogether, call 310-954-9356.

Jurors recently were unable to reach a verdict in an inmate jail assault case, raising questions about other allegations that have surfaced about deputy brutality in Los Angeles County jails. An LA Times article stated that the inmate was charged with attacking sheriff's deputies and that an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) jail monitor witnessed the incident.

The jurors deadlocked; however, the majority voted to free the inmate from three counts of battery and resisting arrest. Despite the hung jury, the FBI investigation into the incident is still underway and is scheduled to be presented to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. This mistrial comes at a difficult time for the Sheriff's Department since it is currently facing FBI careful inspection for alleged inmate abuse and other forms of misconduct inside of jails. Meanwhile, a group of civil rights lawyers and others have signed an ACLU letter to petition federal authorities to initiate an extensive "pattern and practice" jail investigation.

According to the article, even though allegations of deputy brutality in county jails are frequently made, they are often challenging to verify and prove. In general, the only witnesses of alleged assaults in jail other than deputies are inmates, and under most circumstances, the stigma against inmates makes their accounts seemingly less credible. This recent case is considered rare since there was a third party witness.

There is no clear-cut way to settle a criminal case; each one is different and has specific circumstances that may influence the severity of charges a person faces. Los Angeles defense attorney Daniel Kann has years of experience building effective cases on behalf of his clients to get criminal charges reduced or eliminated. For a free consultation, call 310-593-2435 today.

The case that has recently attracted national attention in regards to free-speech rights has come to an end. According to The Los Angeles Times, seven students from UC Irvine and three from UC Riverside have been found guilty of two misdemeanors to conspire and then disrupt a February 2010 speech at UC Irvine by the Israeli ambassador to the United States. A jury in Orange County deliberated for over two days.

One of the case's main debates related to opposing views as to who was being censored during the speech. The prosecutor claimed that Ambassador Michael Oren was "shut down" by students interrupting his speech who took turns shouting phrases that were allegedly planned. The defense argued that the students were being singled out and that they were only displaying typical behavior seen at other college protests. During trial, the defense stated that a guilty verdict could squash student activism and the free exchange of ideas at colleges throughout the nation.

Another issue was whether this particular incident needed to be prosecuted at a criminal level. Some students were disciplined by University administrators through the suspension of the campus Muslim Student Union for an academic quarter. Pending the fulfillment of 40 hours of community service, the charges against one defendant have been tentatively dismissed. The dean of UC Irvine's Law School stated that university sanctions were enough for the students for something so minor and that criminal sanctions go too far.

Although there are varying points of view on the guilty jury verdict, it does raise some valid questions about freedom of speech laws.

If you are facing criminal charges, no matter how minor or serious, it is important to seek legal counsel from an experienced criminal defense attorney in California. Even though felony charges have more severe consequences, a misdemeanor charge on your record can still have life-altering effects. Daniel Kann has worked exclusively as a criminal defense attorney throughout Southern California providing his clients with skilled legal representation. Call 888-744-7730 today for more information about your rights.

A Fullerton police officer has been charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter for the death of an apparently homeless man. Another officer faces charges for involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force. It was argued that the officers resorted to physical force because the homeless man violently resisted arrest.

According to The Huffington Post, the officers responded to reports that a "homeless" individual was peering into car windows and shaking door handles in downtown Fullerton. Once the officers arrived at the scene, they had the man sit on the curb. However, the man, who suffered from schizophrenia, reportedly had issues following the officer's requests. It was at this time that an officer allegedly threatened force upon the man.

The officers have been accused of beating the man for 10 minutes in which they pinned him to the ground so hard that he wasn't able to breathe. The man's cause of death was determined to be compression of the thorax as well as injuries to the face and head.

If the officer facing murder charges is convicted, he could serve a maximum of 15 years to life in prison. The other officer faces a maximum penalty of four years in prison if convicted.

It isn't easy for most people to wrap their brain around this type of controversial incident, mostly due to the fact that numerous accounts of the incident have been shared. Not every case of battery or assault results in death. However, anyone charged with a violent crime or making threats faces serious penalties if convicted.

California Penal Code Section 242 defines battery as "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another" and California Penal Code Section 240 states that assault is "an unlawful attempted, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."

As a battery defense lawyer in California, Daniel Kann understands the importance of building a strong case on his clients' behalf to protect their rights and help restore their good name. Assault and battery cases are complex, often leaving a person confused about their legal rights. To find out more about how Mr. Kann can help keep you out of jail, call 888-744-7730 today.