Trusted Criminal Defense Attorneys In Southern California
I agree to receive promotional content and notifications from Manshoory Law Group through email or text message. For further details, kindly refer to our Privacy Policy.
When a person is convicted of a crime, a judge may order probation in lieu of prison in certain cases. This is not standard, as not all crimes provide a judge with this latitude, but for those that do allow this option, having a criminal defense attorney persuade the judge, on behalf of the criminal defendant, that this option is better than a prison term is crucial.
Further, if the criminal defendant is a juvenile, probation is almost always preferable, as it keeps the juvenile from having a criminal record and affords him/her a chance to redeem himself/herself going forward, in spite of any childhood transgressions.However, recently, Riverside County instituted a program under which juveniles are put on criminal probation as a result of having poor academic grades.
While this may seem like an extreme use of probation, and, in fact, from the article, the ACLU has instituted a lawsuit against the program, it does illustrate the use of criminal probation to punish juveniles, a discussion of probation and its specific application to minors will follow below.
What are the Rules of Probation in California?
Criminal probation, refers to the supervision of a convicted defendant for a specific period of time, in place of serving time in prison. Typically, the convicted will be ordered to meet various conditions by the court, and failure to do so may result in the imposition of the prison term.
By way of examples, convicts are typically required to surrender any firearms in their possession, remain employed (or participate in an educational program), abide by a curfew, live at a specified residence, obey the orders of a probation officer, and/or not leave the jurisdiction. In some cases, convicts may be required to retain a tracking device, such as an ankle bracelet, to track their movement.
California has two types of probation – summary and formal. Summary, also known as court probation, typically is imposed when one is convicted of a misdemeanor crime, or a wobbler crime, and where the convict is deemed not to be a danger to the community.
Formal, or felony, probation occurs when the convict has deemed a danger to the community. Formal probation, which is more restrictive, requires regular meetings with a probation officer to ensure that the convict is meeting all the conditions of the probation, while also ensuring that he/she has not left the jurisdiction.
What are the Types of Juvenile Probation?
When the convict is a juvenile, the types of probation available become more nuanced, as, in some cases, the probation allows the juvenile to be removed from his/her place of residence. Differing from adult probation, in juvenile matters, there is also non-wardship and wardship probation. The primary difference between these two types of probation is that, in wardship probation, the probation-ordering court will have jurisdiction over the juvenile as if it was the juvenile’s parent.
This jurisdiction includes the ability to remove the juvenile from his/her place of residence. In the majority of cases, juvenile probation is for a six-month period, after which a determination is made regarding whether the juvenile successfully met all conditions of the probation, or whether charges will be filed, and/or a prison sentence will be imposed.
When the probation is non-wardship, voluntary diversion programs between the probation officer, the juvenile, and his/her parents, are an option. Successful completion of the program means that the matter is closed, and no further action is taken.
Failure to complete the program means that a formal petition is filed with the Juvenile Court, which can lead to another round of informal, non-warship probation, in which the court will put the sentence on hold to allow successful completion.
Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney
If you are aware of a juvenile who has been charged with a crime, and are curious about the possibility of probation, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible.
Our knowledge of criminal law is extensive and we will use this knowledge to formulate the best strategy to defend against criminal accusations. Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.
As the U.S. Supreme Court winds down its term, every June and October, a flurry of opinions is typically released. This June was no exception. One case, in particular, touched on an issue that has been addressed by the Court in previous matters – an individual’s expectation of privacy, particularly from searches by the government.
Such an expectation varies according to the circumstance – trash left on the curb for pickup, for example, is accorded no expectation of privacy, and can be accessed by law enforcement without a warrant – and an attorney experienced incriminal defense lawyer can help combat warrantless searches if the circumstance demands it. In this instance, the Court held that, even though one is not listed as the authorized driver on a rental vehicle agreement, he/she still has an expectation of privacy just as if he/she was the authorized driver.
A discussion of this recent Supreme Court case, as well as how it may be applied going forward, will follow below.
The Fourth Amendment’s Expectation of Privacy
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits warrantless searches and seizures. However, case law has diluted this prohibition to, as stated above, various circumstances. Prior to this holding, most federal courts have held that a driver whose name is not listed on the rental contract does not have any right to challenge a search of that vehicle.
Unanimously, however, the Court rejected that viewpoint and maintained that one who has lawful possession and control of a vehicle will generally have an expectation of privacy. The Court specifically made the analogy that if a friend allowed another friend to drive his/her vehicle (or, pointed to a previous case, if a person is permitted to stay at a friend’s apartment), the driver (or the apartment dweller) would have an expectation of privacy.
Further, in this case, the Court noted that the fact that one is not on the rental contract is not, per se, illegal (the contract did not specify that such an act would void the agreement). Consequently, lawful possession of a rental vehicle would be if the rental company, or, in this case, the rentee, allowed the individual to operate the vehicle.
Even if the rental contract did indicate that the agreement would be void, the Court seemed to imply that this fact was irrelevant, as the agreement is actually about risk allocation of the rental vehicle, and not necessarily an effort to block someone from allowing another person to drive it.
Effect of the Holding
At first glance, it would seem that the effect of this holding is clear when it is applied to situations just like the one at issue. However, it is important to note that the Court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if any exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and/or seizures would apply (ex. consent, plain view, stop and frisk, or vehicle with probable cause).
Consequently, the Petitioner is not out of the woods just yet. Nevertheless, the holding does give some guidance – if no exception applies, then the fact that one is not listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver does not destroy his/her expectation of privacy.
Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney
While the Supreme Court case discussed in this post is somewhat narrow, if you have been charged with a crime in which you believe law enforcement may have searched your person or your effects improperly, and potentially violated your rights, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible. If indeed, evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the attorneys at our office will use their skill to argue against its introduction at trial.
Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.
As summer is officially here, more stories of individuals leaving children in hot vehicles start to appear. Even more unfortunate are the horrific stories of children who perish as a result of heatstroke due to rising ambient temperatures while trapped in the vehicle.
While it is extremely rare for the adult to intend the child harm, in many cases, the individual responsible for the child, in fact, intended to leave the child in the vehicle, and just may not have appreciated the danger of doing so.
Regardless of the circumstances leading to criminal charges for leaving a child in a vehicle, the individual responsible for doing so should engage the services of acriminal defense attorney to assist with the legal ramifications.
In this case, the mother’s attorney is asserting that the death, while obviously unfortunate, is an accident and that the child’s mother truly did not realize that she left her daughter in the vehicle, believing until she saw her daughter’s lifeless body, that she had taken her to daycare.
A discussion of California’s Unattended Child in Motor Vehicle Safety Act (USMVSA), as well as potential arguments against prosecution, will follow below.
What Age Can You Leave a Child in The Car?
In 2002, the California Legislature passed the USMVSA, which made it a fineable offense to leave a child, aged 6 or younger, in a vehicle without supervision of someone 12 years of age or older if:
doing so presents a significant risk to the child’s health and/or safety, or
the vehicle is running or the keys are left in the ignition.
Importantly, this Act does not prevent the individual responsible for the child from being charged with any other provision of the California Penal Code, such as manslaughter.
In any event, there are a number of precautions an individual responsible for a child can take to ensure that leaving a child in a vehicle unattended does not occur, even accidentally, including:
Practicing a “Look Before Lock” routine, to get into the habit of looking in the back seat before locking the vehicle;
Avoiding distractions;
Scheduling a call as a reminder to ensure the child arrives at his/her destination; and
Placing a reminder in the vehicle to check the back seat at one’s destination, such as placing a stuffed toy in the front seat, and getting into the habit of putting it in the child’s car seat every time the vehicle is emptied.
Are There Any Defenses to Leaving a Child Unattended in a Car?
While many believe there is no excuse for leaving a child unattended in a vehicle, there are countless stories of parents making honest mistakes that, unfortunately, have led to devastating consequences.
In some cases, children can remain so quiet or sleep so peacefully that it is easy to forget they are in the back seat. In other cases, an individual’s daily routine has changed, which can lead to honest forgetfulness about dropping off or picking up a child from daycare.
Unfortunately, the heat of the summer does not concern itself with the reasons why a child has been left unattended in a vehicle, and, as illustrated above, disastrous results can occur. While it will never erase the tragic loss of a child to vehicular heatstroke, an experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to help the individual responsible for the child if his/her actions were a truly honest mistake.
In addition, evidence the accused was not responsible for the child or caused the dangerous condition could also be used to combat this charge.
Should I Hire a Lawyer If I’m Criminally Charged for Leaving a Child in a Car?
If you have been charged with violating the Unattended Child in Motor Vehicle Safety Act, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible.
Although the results may, unfortunately, be tragic, extenuating circumstances may mitigate any punishment you can receive, and the attorneys at Manshoory will use their expertise to build a defense to obtain the best possible results.
Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.
The ability to identify individuals is an important priority for law enforcement. As time goes by, the amount of cold cases only increases, and the potential to associate a suspect with a crime can go a long way toward solving these cases. To assist law enforcement in this endeavor, in 2004, California passed Proposition 69, the “DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act.”
Essentially, this Act required law enforcement to take a DNA sample of everyone who is arrested on suspicion of a felony. The DNA sample is then checked against a national database to see if the arrestee was involved in another criminal matter. Anytime criminal charges are a possibility the services of an attorney experienced in criminal defense should be secured because defending against a charge in which DNA has implicated a person is almost impossible to do alone.
Further, the California Supreme Court recently upheld Proposition 69 as not violating either California or U.S. Constitutions. A discussion of this decision, and what it will mean going forward, will follow below.
People v. Buza
As alluded to above, in 2004, Proposition 69 was passed and codified into law, which directed law enforcement to obtain a DNA sample of every person arrested under suspicion of committing a felony.This direction applies to everyone arrested for a felony, including those apprehended without a warrant or any finding by a judge that there was sufficient cause for the arrest. The State then stores these DNA samples and allows these samples to be searched continuously by other law enforcement agencies around the country.
The primary issue people have with this law is that it is overreaching, in that it affects anyone arrested for suspicion of a felony, including those who are never charged with a crime, approximately 33% of all such arrestees.As a result, law enforcement agencies have this immensely private information at their disposal for an infinite amount of time. This, opponents assert, is a tremendous invasion of privacy.
The law does provide for a means by which one can have his/her sample destroyed and any registration of information contained within the sample purged from storage. However, it is a very complicated process to have it destroyed and purged, if not impossible.
The Aftermath
Initially, it is important to note that the holding in Buza is specifically limited to the facts of that particular case, and the California Supreme Court did not speculate on the constitutionality of the law as applied under different circumstances. In fact, the court noted that an individual arrested in the future without, as in Buza, probable cause, could have a valid challenge to the adequacy of the law’s expungement procedures or other aspect of the law.
The law does allow a person to refuse to submit to a DNA test. However, doing so is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $500 in fines and up to 1 year in prison, and creates a criminal record that brings its own set of issues.
Additionally, also as mentioned above, there is a destruction and purge process. An experienced criminal defense attorney can definitely assist in this procedure to ensure the technicalities of the rules do not block a legitimate request.
The best scenario is the California Legislature corrects the serious privacy issues with the law, which it started to do in 2015, after the California Supreme Court initially granted review of this case. But, whether those revisions will materialize in the wake of the Court’s decision remains to be seen.
Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney
If you have been arrested on suspicion of a felony, and have been required to provide a sample of your DNA to law enforcement, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible. The attorneys at Manshoory will use their expertise to hopefully force law enforcement to destroy the sample, and help you keep your private information private.
Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.
A sad reality is that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence. To protect these victims, domestic violence laws have been established. While such laws, as any law proscribing conduct which society has deemed to be detrimental, have gone a long way in punishing aggressors, in some cases, the laws, as written, cast such a wide net that unintended persons are caught.
An experienced domestic violence attorneycan help these individuals. California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act is one of these such laws, written in such vague terms that unwarranted restraining orders have been levied against persons who are not the intended targets – that is, persons whose actions do not rise to the level of aggression intended by the California Legislature when drafting the statute.
A discussion of the vagueness of the California Domestic Violence Prevention Act, and the consequences of being accused of its violation, will follow below.
What Is California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act?
In 1993, the California Legislature enacted the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, which is intended to prevent the abuse of a person by an aggressor with whom the person has a special (sometimes called intimate) relationship. Specifically, the law prohibits the following actions:
Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury;
Sexual assault;
Placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another;
Engaging in the following types of behavior: molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, destroying the personal property of, contacting either directly or indirectly by mail or otherwise, and/or disturbing the peace of another party.
As mentioned above, there must be a special relationship between the aggressor and the victim. Specifically, the victim must be any of the following:
A current or former spouse;
A current or former cohabitant;
A person in or formerly in a dating or engagement relationship;
A co-parent (i.e., the two persons are parents of a child together);
A child of a party; or
Any other person related by blood, marriage, or adoption within two degrees.
What are the Consequences of Domestic Violence?
As written, the statute is very vague as to what specifically constitutes domestic violence. However, as noted by a Professor of Law in the story linked above, the statute should be vague so that a wide range of detrimental behavior can, in fact, qualify as domestic violence, but it is then up to a judge to make sure the language is being applied in a fair way to every particular situation.
However, this is not necessarily what occurs, and consequences of being found in violation of the statute – the imposition of a restraining order against the violator – can have a wide-ranging effect. In fact, the article notes that a phone call or calling someone a name can be considered domestic violence, assuming they qualify as an intimate partner or household member.
Restraining orders are public records, and any individual can conduct a search to find out who has a restraining order imposed against them, including potential employers. To this end, many employers will not hire such a person. Further, some professions require termination when such an order has been imposed. Additionally, security clearances can be revoked for these people. Such restraining orders also appear in law enforcement databases.
Another issue is that one may not own a firearm during the enforcement period of the restraining order, which typically would mean the loss of a job for someone who uses a weapon in their employment, not to mention a loss of rights for anyone who owns a weapon for self-defense or for hunting. Finally, a restraining order can have a material effect on custody and visitation, potentially preventing a parent from interacting with his/her child.
If you have been charged with violating California’s Domestic Violence Law, and do not believe your actions are consistent with the intent of the statute, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. The attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC will use their skills to build a defense on your behalf to obtain the best possible results.
Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.
We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. Agree
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
