Los Angeles, CA
Criminal defense Lawyer at Los Angeles, CA
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Federal Crime ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Drivers License Suspension Avoided
Our client was in a serious traffic accident with injuries and had a blood-alcohol level of .25. Our client's driver’s license suspension was set aside at the DMV hearing when the Department could not ... prove when the driving had occurred.
OUTCOME: Case Dismissed
Eisner Gorin LLP earned a great victory for the Fourth Amendment today after a Judge held that officers had no legal justification to enter our client’s car to search for the registration after the veh ... icle stop. In so holding, the court granted defendant’s motion to suppress a firearm recovered inside the car, and the prosecution dismissed the case (People v. Y.F.) Officer’s made a patrol stop of our client’s vehicle after claiming he went through a stop sign, made unsafe lane changes, and failed to signal before changing lanes. (Violations of Vehicle Code sections 22450, 21658 and 22107). Officers approached the car and asked client for his driver’s license, insurance and registration. Officers claimed that client moved nervously in the vehicle, put his hand in his pockets and did not produce the proper documentation. Officers ordered client out of his car. While outside the car, client continued to move nervously, and denied officers’ requests to keep still and keep his hands out of his pockets. Officers handcuffed client. Officers again requested the registration, which client said was on his phone. Officers ask client for consent to enter the car which client refused. Officers entered the car in attempt to locate the registration, and while searching the interior, recovered a firearm in plain view from an open grocery bag. The court held that in general, an officer has the lawful right to enter a vehicle to recover the registration and proof of ownership of the vehicle – even where the subject refuses consent, or where the subject states that the documents are not in the car. But the court noted the relevant Vehicle Code section states as follows: “The driver of a motor vehicle shall present the registration or identification card or other evidence of registration of any or all vehicles under his or her immediate control for examination upon demand of any peace officer.” Vehicle Code section 44627. The court ruled that in this case, client did not fail to produce his vehicle registration as the officers testified; in fact, he told them it was on his cell phone. This in effect constituted “other evidence of registration” as the statute permits. The court reasoned that in today’s electronic age, where we can travel between countries with a plane ticket produced on our phone (that passes muster even with TSA), a citizen that says his registration is “on my cell phone” does not fail to produce his registration. The court also noted that it was significant that officers made no attempt to ask for or recover the cell phone, before entering and searching the vehicle. The Court granted defendant’s Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, on grounds that although officers acted in good faith, they acted unlawfully by entering the car to search for the registration after client told them it was on his cell phone. The court suppressed the firearm recovered in the vehicle and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. The Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures…” is an essential principal in criminal defense law. It provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases.
OUTCOME: Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY
Client was charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon (stick) and Great Bodily Injury after client and his neighbor (victim) had an argument and fight. Client retrieved a bamboo stick from his garage af ... ter verbal altercation with victim. Victim had injuries to his head, arm and chest area. We presented multiple witness demonstrating alleged victim’s prior false complaints to police and history of prior violence. We also presented two character witnesses for client, demonstrating his character for non-violence and honesty. We also called the responding police officer to bring out the victim’s (inconsistent) version of incident given to officers at the scene. Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
OUTCOME: Not Guilty (Torrance Courthouse)
Domestic violence and abuse charges.
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Baby Death case. Client found Not Guilty. Case in ligitation for over 5 years.
OUTCOME: Not Guilty - Felony Trial in San Bernardino County
Client acquitted of rape claims after two week jury trial. Use of expert witnesses, jury consultant, and aggressive courtroom defense led to successful result.
OUTCOME: Kidnapping and Felony Assault Charges Dismissed
Client accused of serious gang crimes. Case dismissed after demonstrating to the judge that clients constitutional rights violated.
OUTCOME: Client Avoid Jail
Federal fraud and hacking case. Client settles for misdemeanor disposition and avoids jail. Had been facing years in federal prison.
OUTCOME: Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Strip Club Murder. Client found Insane by jury, after a month long trial. LA Times covered the case.