by

Over the past couple of years, e-bikes have exploded in popularity across California, especially in Orange County, where sunny weather and beach paths make them an easy choice for getting around. But with that popularity has come something else: a wave of new rules, penalties, and even criminal cases aimed at riders, including both adults and minors. Cities and state lawmakers are scrambling to keep up, and that means regular riders sometimes find themselves facing unexpected fines, bike impounds, or even misdemeanor or felony charges.

What’s Behind the Crackdown?

Cities and counties are seeing more collisions, dangerous riding near schools, and young riders on high-powered or modified e-bikes. As a result, local governments have moved quickly, often faster than the state, to create new regulations. These include helmet requirements for minors, restrictions on riding in certain areas, impoundment authority, and stricter enforcement of speed and modification limits.

Continue reading →

by

When most people hear about the U.S. meth crisis, they picture desert labs in Mexico or rural houses in the Midwest. But the story actually starts thousands of miles away — in the sprawling industrial zones of China. There, among thousands of legitimate factories, a quieter trade has been thriving: the production and export of chemicals that can be turned into methamphetamine.

According to a 2016 report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, as much as 80 percentof the chemicals Mexican cartels use to make meth originally came from China (USCC.gov). Those cartels — mainly the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel — supply around 90 percent of the meth that ends up in the United States. So even though the cooking happens in Mexico, the recipe starts with Chinese ingredients.

In the last few years, U.S. officials have repeatedly busted Chinese firms for shipping “ton quantities” of precursor chemicals used to make meth, MDMA, and fentanyl. Just in October 2023, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned 28 Chinese individuals and companies for doing exactly that (home.treasury.gov). And in June 2025, border agents seized 50,000 kilograms of meth precursors at the Port of Long Beach — a shipment that had come from China and was headed to the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico (ICE.gov).

Continue reading →

by
In the United States, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1898 in the case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, this right extends to any child born in the United States, regardless of the child’s parents’ nationality and regardless of whether that child later lives in another country.

Recently President Trump signed an executive order to deny birthright citizenship to specific categories of individuals. The executive order was immediately challenged in the federal courts, and it in all probability the United States Supreme Court will once again be tasked with interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.

The executive order would deny citizenship to those babies born of undocumented immigrants or those in the country with temporary status. It is the latter category that is the subject of this blog.

Continue reading →

by

“[A]t the very core” of the Fourth Amendment “stands the right of [an individual] to retreat into his [or her] own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” (Silverman v. United States (1961) 365 U.S. 505, 511.) This protection against unreasonable search and seizure, that is, a search without a warrant, extends to the curtilage of the home.  Curtilage is the areas immediately surrounding a home, such as porches, and other protected spaces where individuals maintain significant privacy expectations. Law enforcement searches of curtilage has been challenged, defined, and redefined by our courts for over 150 years.

Even in cases where there is a valid search warrant, a search of a home’s curtilage can render the search unlawful. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) held that after law enforcement brought a drug-sniffing dog to the front porch of a house – that dog immediately alerting to drugs, prompting law enforcement to obtain a search warrant for the home—resulted in an unlawful search even though a warrant was obtained. The evidence (drugsthat were discovered in the search upon warrant) was suppressed because taking the dog to the front porch to sniff for drugs was a violation of the “physical trespass test.” In other words, the court held that the dog sniff itself was a search, and because it occurred on the curtilage of the home, it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The upshot of the Jardines case is that law enforcements physical invasion into protected areas can itself trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny, regardless of whether there’s an expectation of privacy.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit in the case Tran & Chong v. United States (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024) 112 F.4th 848, relied upon Jardines when it held that an unlawful search took place when law enforcement entered a residential driveway and peered into the garage on the property.

Continue reading →

by

Perhaps going down as one of the most inventive and also one of the stupidest insurance fraud crimes in recent memory, a group of scammers filed several insurance claims for damage to their three luxury vehicles.

The four scammers filed separate insurance claims, all to separate insurance companies, after they allegedly found their respective vehicle interiors destroyed by a bear while parked in the San Bernardino mountains. The vehicle owners even provided video footage of the bear inside their vehicles. As those of us who are visited the mountains of Southern California, we know that bears have been known to find their way into the vehicles in search of food. But one of the insurance companies was dubious of the video “evidence.” It just didn’t look like a real bear.

And, indeed, it was not. The California Insurance Department was alerted. The Insurance Department investigated and found the two other similar claims of bear damage on the same day and location.  The video footage was submitted to the California Department of Wildlife which agreed with the Insurance Department. The “bear” looked to the biologist investigating the footage like a human in a bear suit. And, indeed, it was.

Continue reading →

by

California Penal Code section 3055 provides that inmates who have been incarcerated for 20 years or more and are over the age of 50 or those incarcerated for 25 years or more and are over the age of 60 are eligible for what is called “Elderly Parole.” Even violent sex offenders and child molesters are eligible. The only inmates not eligible are those who were sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Those under 60 years of age are not eligible if they are serving a sentence for a second or third strike under the three strikes law. However, after reaching the age of 60, those inmates are also eligible.

An inmate who reaches eligibility for this program is entitled to a parole hearing. Among other factors, the Board of Parole Hearings considers the early release applicant’s physical condition, mental capacity, and the inmate’s social adjustment or lack thereof while incarcerated.  (California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2449.43.)

The Elderly Parole program as it currently operates became effective on January 1, 2024; however elderly parole programs have operated in California for a decade.

Continue reading →

by

Low risk, minimum custody status inmates in California may be eligible to serve all or part of their incarceration as a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) employee. The program is known as the Conservation (Fire) Camp Program. Acceptance into the program is highly sought after by qualifying inmates. The Camp Program serves as a rehabilitation program with each camp offering rehabilitative and educational services as well as learning real world skills. There are Camp Programs in 25 counties across California.

Typically, inmates accepted into this program support California firefighters throughout the state. This inmate workforce performs critical support tasks in fire control.  Acceptance into this coveted position requires that the inmate have eight years or less remaining on their sentence, is physically fit and healthy, and does not have a disqualifying conviction. Among the disqualifying convictions is (obviously) arson.

A San Bernardino man, who was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, was one of the fortunate inmates who was selected for this program. Sadly, he is now charged with starting fires while working as an apparatus engineer for CAL FIRE.  This unfortunate event should not reflect on the Camp Program, but nevertheless, some are questioning whether the program remains viable.

Continue reading →

by

Here’s a recipe for the stupid criminal files:

Fill large packages – about watermelon size – with methamphetamine. Form each package into a watermelon shape and cover each package with a wrapper that is printed to look like a watermelon. Oh, don’t forget to slap an agricultural sticker on each package. Load the packages up in a watermelon truck from Mexico bound for California. What could go wrong?

In the annals of disguises that didn’t work, a truckload of 1,220 packages of methamphetamine wrapped in plastic painted to look like watermelon (well, sort of), was seized among real watermelons as the truck crossed from Mexico into the US at the Otay Mesa crossing. The total amount of methamphetamine seized weighed in at around 4,500 pounds. The haul is estimated to be worth $5 million.

Continue reading →

by
You’ve been stopped by the police for speeding. Can the officer search your vehicle without your consent? The answer is yes and no. Yes, the officer can search your vehicle, without your consent, if he or she has probable cause to believe your vehicle contains evidence of a crime. This is one of the so-called automobile exceptions to 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Let’s say the officer stops your vehicle and as soon as you roll down the window, a strong waft of cannabis smoke hits the officer’s olfactory senses. While recreational cannabis is legal in California, smoking it while driving is not. In this scenario, the officer can establish probable cause—that is a reasonable belief based on the fact of the strong smell of burning cannabis in the vehicle—that there is evidence of crime in the vehicle, to wit: burned cannabis.

Let’s consider another scenario. The police encounter a group of known gang members in a parking lot. Several individuals are arrested for weapons possession. The car belonging to one of those individuals was parked in the parking lot where the police encounter occurred. Even though this individual (here, the defendant) was not in his car at the time, the police surmised they had probable cause to search the vehicle. And indeed, the law permits the police to search an unoccupied parked car if “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular

Continue reading →

by

A New Zealand couple’s vacation in Southern California ended in tragedy. The couple, a prominent businessman in New Zealand and his wife were visiting Newport Beach’s iconic outdoor shopping mall Fashion Island. There they were accosted by two men brandishing guns. Perhaps the two men didn’t intend their robbery to end in murder, but it did. One of the men put a gun to the businessman’s head while another dragged the businessman’s wife to into the street as he tried to pull away the shopping bags she was carrying from her. Another accomplice, the getaway driver pulled his car toward the man trying to grab the shopping bags. In the process, the getaway driver ran over the woman and dragged her body across the parking lot resulting in the woman’s death.

While not all murders are capital murder cases (that is, a murder charge eligible for the death penalty), the circumstance here makes the crime a potential capital murder case and indeed, all three men have been charged by the Orange County District Attorney with capital murder.

You may wonder how all three could be charged with capital murder when there did not appear to be an intent to murder the woman and her death was caused only by the driver.  The answer is special circumstances. The men are all charged with murder in commission of a felony (robbery) which is a special circumstances charge. This charge does not require the intent to commit murder but only that the underlying felony was intended. Furthermore, the special circumstances murder charge applies to anyone who aided or abetted the underlying crime that resulted in the murder.

Continue reading →