California Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Mission Viejo is the newest City in Orange County to ban sex offenders from city parks, open space areas and community recreation centers, as well as soccer fields. Still at issue are the liability, enforceability and constitutionality of the ban.

The ban would make it a misdemeanor for sex offenders to be in certain areas of the city without written permission from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, which handles services for Mission Viejo. A violation could mean up to six months in jail and/or a fine up to $500.00.

The City of Fullerton has previously passed a law making violators of Jessica’s Law, subject to a fine of to $1,000.00 and six months in jail. In addition to Mission Viejo, the ban has been approved in Irvine, La Habra, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Yorba Linda. Irvine has narrowed their law to sex offenders who have targeted minors.

In California, anyone who has been convicted of a sex crime is required to register as a sex offender for as long as they live in California, attend school in California or are working in California.

Anyone who has been accused of a sex crime should seek the immediate advice and assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney whose practice is strictly limited to criminal defense and focuses on sex crimes. An experienced attorney in this field will know the most effective defenses and be better able to present the types of arguments that can influence the prosecutors to limit the charges to those that do not subject a person to sex offender registration.

Continue reading →

Mission Viejo is the newest City in Orange County to ban sex offenders from city parks, open space areas and community recreation centers, as well as soccer fields. Still at issue are the liability, enforceability and constitutionality of the ban.

The ban would make it a misdemeanor for sex offenders to be in certain areas of the city without written permission from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, which handles services for Mission Viejo. A violation could mean up to six months in jail and/or a fine up to $500.00.

The City of Fullerton has previously passed a law making violators of Jessica’s Law, subject to a fine of to $1,000.00 and six months in jail. In addition to Mission Viejo, the ban has been approved in Irvine, La Habra, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, Westminster and Yorba Linda. Irvine has narrowed their law to sex offenders who have targeted minors.

In California, anyone who has been convicted of a sex crime is required to register as a sex offender for as long as they live in California, attend school in California or are working in California.

Anyone who has been accused of a sex crime should seek the immediate advice and assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney whose practice is strictly limited to criminal defense and focuses on sex crimes. An experienced attorney in this field will know the most effective defenses and be better able to present the types of arguments that can influence the prosecutors to limit the charges to those that do not subject a person to sex offender registration.

Continue reading →

A 16 year old boy was arrested on suspicion of murder after a 19 year old man was found stabbed and later died at the hospital. The altercation happened at a Huntington Beach park. This young man is facing serious charges, and at his young age, can affect him for the rest of his life. As devastating as something like this is to a parent, one of the most important questions a parent can ask themselves is: How do I protect my child? Teens are still not mature enough to stop, think and really consider how serious their actions are and what the consequences might be. Especially if they have never been in trouble with the law and have never had legal consequences. For this reason, it is extremely important that these minors be represented by experienced criminal defense attorneys, who have experience in not only defending these charges, but who are also experienced juvenile defense attorneys in Orange County, California.
Once a juvenile is arrested for a crime, there are a few different ways law enforcement may proceed. Informal contact with parents, public or private diversion, citation and referral to probation, or arrest. Once the case is submitted to probation, probation has limited discretion whether or not to submit the case to the district attorney or proceed informally. If the case is submitted to the district attorney, they then decide whether to file or dismiss the case. An Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, specializing in juvenile criminal matters, will be able to advise and guide parents and their child through these procedures.

The juvenile justice system is different from the adult justice system. In Orange County Juvenile Court, the focus is on treatment and rehabilitation for the juvenile while the adult justice system focuses on punishment. However, depending upon the charge, a juvenile can be prosecuted as an adult and be subject to the same penalties as an adult. In a situation where a juvenile is tried as an adult, it usually involves crimes of violence. Juveniles 16 or 17, who commit serious felonies, can be tried as an adult. Also, a juvenile 14 or older being charged with murder can be tried as an adult. However, even if a juvenile is tried as an adult, they are still treated different. There are more options in terms of how and where they are prosecuted and how and where they will serve their sentence.

It is extremely important that an experienced Orange County Juvenile Defense Attorney be retained to represent this young man and further that, the attorney be familiar with the Orange County Juvenile Court. Being familiar with the Judges, District Attorneys, Court Clerks and Probation Department, will help facilitate the best possible outcome for your child. The question parents should ask themselves is what do I do to protect my child. Juveniles make mistakes and most have never known, or been exposed to legal consequences. Preserving your child’s record, so that their college goals and future employment are not affected negatively should be the goal of a good juvenile criminal defense attorney.

Continue reading →

A Laguna Hills man was recently arrested and is in custody on suspicion of lewd and lascivious acts against three children. An allegation of child molestation is probably the most serious of allegations in terms of the effect is has on a person’s future. An experienced Orange County child molestation defense attorney understands the seriousness of the allegations and also understands how actions or information can be misinterpreted. The Irvine Law Office of William Weinberg understands how social workers, hospital staff and school administrators sometimes act before thoroughly investigate and understanding the circumstances surrounding the information they have been given.

In this case, A 37 year old man, who is a bus driver in South Orange County, is being accused of having two children under the age of 14 and a 3 year old, in his apartment and committing lewd acts against them. Lewd acts with a child is described as the touching of a child on his/her body for sexual purposes. These cases often involve accusations that a child was touched or fondled, or that some other act of child molestation took place. A charge of molestation or lewd acts with a minor involves the touching the child anywhere on the body, even on the outside of clothing, if the touching is done “with the intent of arousing or gratifying the lust or sexual desires of the person or the child.”
To be convicted of this charge, it must be proven that the person willfully touched any part of a child’s body or caused the child to touch his/her own body, and that it was done so with the intent to arouse or gratify the lust, passion or sexual desires of the person or the child.
The potential prison sentence if convicted of Penal Code 288 PC/Lewd Acts with a Child, is three, six or eight years in state prison. Further, anyone convicted of this crime is required to, for the rest of their life, register as a sex offender, while living in California, working in California or attending school in California.

Unfortunately, false accusations of child sexual abuse occur more than people realize. If a child makes an allegation of some sort of Lewd and lascivious act, the police and prosecutors typically tend to begin building a case against the accused rather than looking closely at the situation, the child, and what may be going on in the life of both that may have lead to the accusation.

There are situations where children make false accusations. This is done for a number of reasons. One reason might be that there is a new stepparent in the picture and child is unhappy about it. Also, if there is a divorce or custody case pending, one parent may coerce the child into making false accusations or, convince the child that something inappropriate happened.

If you have been falsely accused of a sex crime against a child, or if you think you might be, it is critical that you contact a California Criminal Defense Attorney to protect you and your reputation.

Continue reading →

When a juvenile is charged with a juvenile offense, employing the help of an attorney who has experience specifically in juvenile court will ensure the best outcome for that child. Juvenile court is very different from adult Court. The procedures are different, the language is different and many of the laws are different. Criminal defense attorneys who take the occasional juvenile matter are not going to be as effective in getting the best result for the minor as an attorney who is familiar with the inner workings of the juvenile court system. Further, an attorney experienced in the juvenile courts will have developed relationships with the Judges, district attorneys, court clerks and personnel which gives the attorney an advantage over an attorney who practices primarily adult criminal defense law.

When representing a juvenile, the objective of a good juvenile defense attorney should be: 1) keeping the minor out of custody. The minor should be with their family, in school, and in community where they belong. 2) Keep the offense off the record. When a minor makes a mistake which results in an arrest and/or criminal charges, the objective should be to do whatever possible to get the charges dismissed so that the mistake doesn’t follow them into adulthood; and 3) Help the minor get back on track. Find out what was or is going on in the minor’s life that caused them to get into trouble in the first place. Whether it be drugs, alcohol or hanging around with the wrong crowd, knowing what the triggers are will help determine the best plan for the minor, thereby helping them stay out of trouble in the future, and back on track.

There are many options that do not involve confinement and that allow the juvenile the chance to accept responsibility for what they have done and at the same time preserving their record.

Continue reading →

When a juvenile is charged with a juvenile offense, employing the help of an attorney who has experience specifically in juvenile court will ensure the best outcome for that child. Juvenile court is very different from adult Court. The procedures are different, the language is different and many of the laws are different. Criminal defense attorneys who take the occasional juvenile matter are not going to be as effective in getting the best result for the minor as an attorney who is familiar with the inner workings of the juvenile court system. Further, an attorney experienced in the juvenile courts will have developed relationships with the Judges, district attorneys, court clerks and personnel which gives the attorney an advantage over an attorney who practices primarily adult criminal defense law.

When representing a juvenile, the objective of a good juvenile defense attorney should be: 1) keeping the minor out of custody. The minor should be with their family, in school, and in community where they belong. 2) Keep the offense off the record. When a minor makes a mistake which results in an arrest and/or criminal charges, the objective should be to do whatever possible to get the charges dismissed so that the mistake doesn’t follow them into adulthood; and 3) Help the minor get back on track. Find out what was or is going on in the minor’s life that caused them to get into trouble in the first place. Whether it be drugs, alcohol or hanging around with the wrong crowd, knowing what the triggers are will help determine the best plan for the minor, thereby helping them stay out of trouble in the future, and back on track.

There are many options that do not involve confinement and that allow the juvenile the chance to accept responsibility for what they have done and at the same time preserving their record.

Continue reading →

A federal grand jury charged Appellant Angel Camacho with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by prior felon and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition evidence on the grounds that they were obtained through an illegal search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion. Camacho then entered conditional guilty pleas on both counts, reserving his right to challenge the trial judge’s suppression ruling on appeal. The district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison one Court one, to be served concurrently with 5 years in prison on Court Two, followed by 5 years of formal probation. As an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, protecting my clients’ constitutional rights is my number one priority.

In this case, in question is whether or not appellant’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated when he was questioned and subsequently searched and arrested. The facts of this case are, that a series of 911 calls reported a fight going on between gangs, identifying most of them as members of the Latin Kings, a well-known national street gang. Police Gang Units arrived on the scene as people scattered. One officer in particular recognized several of them as members of the Latin Kings. Another officer noticed two men he did not recognize walking down the street and directed two officers to intercept and question them. The officers that were directed to go were familiar with the gangs and the gang members in the area and did not recognize either of the men walking down the street. They pulled their car up in a driveway, blocking their path, got out of the car and ordered one of the men to put his hands on the roof of the car and the other officer began questioning Camacho. Camacho indicated that he had seen the fight but was not involved. Camacho had his hands in his pockets. The officer ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets. When he did, the officer patted his waist and felt a gun and yelled “gun”. At this point, Camacho pushed the officer and they struggled until Camacho was subdued and placed under arrest. He was then searched which resulted in the officer finding a gun and ammunition.

Appellant, Camacho’s position is that, the initial stop was a violation of his Fourth Amendment in that the police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for the stop and seizure. The judge agreed with Camacho’s position on this and agreed that this was not enough to raise a reasonable suspicion. However, the judge concluded that suppression of the gun was “neither called for nor appropriate.” The trial judge found that the gun was seized after Camacho shoved the officer and the officer succeeded in wrestling him to the ground and placing him under arrest. Therefore, the search and seizure of the gun was justified.

The Appellate Court agreed with Camacho and cited Terry v. Ohio, wherein it states that a police officer may briefly detain an individual for questioning if the officer “reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a crime. The reasonable suspicion standard is an intermediate, indeterminate standard that requires more than a mere hunch. It demands a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity. The suspicion must be both reasonable and “grounded in specific and articulate facts.” The Appellate Court’s opinion was that the police officers lacked an objectively reasonable particularized basis for suspecting Camacho of criminal activity and that the initial questioning of Camacho was instead an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And further, that the officers’ conduct “amounted to a flagrant violation of the core of Camacho’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”

The Appellate Court further concluded that regardless of whether or not the frisk and discovery of the gun was legal, the gun was so tainted by the illegal stop that it should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The discovery of the gun was a direct result of the officer’s’ original unlawful seizure of Camacho. The Appellate Court concluded that the district court erred in denying Camacho’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition and the Judgment of the District Court was reversed.

The Appellate Court’s decision was later reversed on Appeal by the United States. Citing case law, The United States Circuit Court held that in this case, the suspicion may be modest; but the intrusion is similarly modest and the need for prompt inquiry is compelling. They further found that in questioning Camacho, the police acted reasonably and that “reasonableness, as it happens, is the standard set by the Fourth Amendment itself. ”
Anyone who has been arrested and/or charged with a crime as a result of a stop and search should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney who has the experience and knowledge to protect your rights as it applies to the US Constitutionhttps://www.williamweinberg.com/ will know whether or not there your rights were violated and thereby leading to the possibility of having evidence suppressed and/or the case being dismissed.

Continue reading →

A federal grand jury charged Appellant Angel Camacho with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by prior felon and one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition evidence on the grounds that they were obtained through an illegal search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion. Camacho then entered conditional guilty pleas on both counts, reserving his right to challenge the trial judge’s suppression ruling on appeal. The district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison one Court one, to be served concurrently with 5 years in prison on Court Two, followed by 5 years of formal probation. As an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, protecting my clients’ constitutional rights is my number one priority.

In this case, in question is whether or not appellant’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated when he was questioned and subsequently searched and arrested. The facts of this case are, that a series of 911 calls reported a fight going on between gangs, identifying most of them as members of the Latin Kings, a well-known national street gang. Police Gang Units arrived on the scene as people scattered. One officer in particular recognized several of them as members of the Latin Kings. Another officer noticed two men he did not recognize walking down the street and directed two officers to intercept and question them. The officers that were directed to go were familiar with the gangs and the gang members in the area and did not recognize either of the men walking down the street. They pulled their car up in a driveway, blocking their path, got out of the car and ordered one of the men to put his hands on the roof of the car and the other officer began questioning Camacho. Camacho indicated that he had seen the fight but was not involved. Camacho had his hands in his pockets. The officer ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets. When he did, the officer patted his waist and felt a gun and yelled “gun”. At this point, Camacho pushed the officer and they struggled until Camacho was subdued and placed under arrest. He was then searched which resulted in the officer finding a gun and ammunition.

Appellant, Camacho’s position is that, the initial stop was a violation of his Fourth Amendment in that the police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary for the stop and seizure. The judge agreed with Camacho’s position on this and agreed that this was not enough to raise a reasonable suspicion. However, the judge concluded that suppression of the gun was “neither called for nor appropriate.” The trial judge found that the gun was seized after Camacho shoved the officer and the officer succeeded in wrestling him to the ground and placing him under arrest. Therefore, the search and seizure of the gun was justified.

The Appellate Court agreed with Camacho and cited Terry v. Ohio, wherein it states that a police officer may briefly detain an individual for questioning if the officer “reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a crime. The reasonable suspicion standard is an intermediate, indeterminate standard that requires more than a mere hunch. It demands a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity. The suspicion must be both reasonable and “grounded in specific and articulate facts.” The Appellate Court’s opinion was that the police officers lacked an objectively reasonable particularized basis for suspecting Camacho of criminal activity and that the initial questioning of Camacho was instead an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And further, that the officers’ conduct “amounted to a flagrant violation of the core of Camacho’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”

The Appellate Court further concluded that regardless of whether or not the frisk and discovery of the gun was legal, the gun was so tainted by the illegal stop that it should have been suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The discovery of the gun was a direct result of the officer’s’ original unlawful seizure of Camacho. The Appellate Court concluded that the district court erred in denying Camacho’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition and the Judgment of the District Court was reversed.

The Appellate Court’s decision was later reversed on Appeal by the United States. Citing case law, The United States Circuit Court held that in this case, the suspicion may be modest; but the intrusion is similarly modest and the need for prompt inquiry is compelling. They further found that in questioning Camacho, the police acted reasonably and that “reasonableness, as it happens, is the standard set by the Fourth Amendment itself. ”
Anyone who has been arrested and/or charged with a crime as a result of a stop and search should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney who has the experience and knowledge to protect your rights as it applies to the US Constitutionhttps://www.williamweinberg.com/ will know whether or not there your rights were violated and thereby leading to the possibility of having evidence suppressed and/or the case being dismissed.

Continue reading →