Good Faith Exception to Officer’s Execution of an Improper Search Warrant Does Not Have Similar Application to an Improper Traffic Stop.

There is a well-known principle that when a police officer executes a search warrant in good faith without knowing it is defective, the items found in the search are not suppressed.  If the courts are to encourage officers to know the law, the same good faith exception should not apply to the items, i.e. drugs or a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, found in an improper traffic search, right?  The ignorance of officers should not be enabled.  Click on the following link to read more about this issue.

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1977475.html.

Appeals Court Holds, in Ruling on a Romero Motion, that There Is No Automatic Dismissal for Strikes Arising from Same Act.

A judge’s discretion must always be considered as an ability to make the right decision when the law is not entirely clear on the issue.  It is a judge’s power to make rulings according to what is logical or “the right thing to do” when no other statute or case instructs otherwise.  In the case of “striking a strike” for purposes of sentencing, there is nothing to bind a judge to dismissing all or no strikes from a prior act with multiple strikes involved.  In other words, the judge has discretion to strike one strike and not another, as paradoxically as this may seem, as the link to the attached case summary explains. 

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1977074.html.

What Happens at a Probation Violation Hearing?

Our office represents a high number of people accused of violating probation and facing new charges.  The client is often aware that a violation of probation can result in being remanded to either jail or prison, so he or she is concerned, especially if the person is supporting a family and will lose his or her job.  Yet what actually happens at a probation violation hearing, also called a PV hearing?  Click on the following link to read a short article answering this question. 

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1975125.html.

How Do I Have My Name Removed from the Megan’s Law Internet Listing?

It is well known that public hysteria over sex offenders is based on both fact and exaggerated, unjustified fears.  Yet no one really knows the best way to monitor registered sex offenders in a way that serves public safety while also maintining respect for the sex offender as an individual.  It is a hard thing to balance.  The Megan’s Law Internet listing is one manifestation of this struggle.  Yet one can have one’s name excluded from it or even removed in certain situation, as the following article explains.

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1974889.html.

DUI Based on Being Under the Influence of Drugs.

DUI is not just about driving while under the influence of alcohol.  Under the new code section of Vehicle Code § 23152(e), DUI for drugs is its own code section, although the law against such driving has existed for dozens of years.  Lately, however, such DUI’s appear more and more common.  The key, we find it quantifying the level of the illegal drug in one’s system, or if it is a legal drug obtained while on prescription, measuring the concentration of the drug and comparing it to one’s prescription.  For more information about this offense, click on the following link.

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1973211.html.

Sixth Amendment Not Violated in Rape Case When Expert Introduces Hearsay That Supports Conviction.

The Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness is a right that is not always interpreted literally.  After all, sometimes such a witness is unavailable.  Sometimes, the testimony of such a witness is incorporated into the testimony of another witness. However, such exceptions to the right are viewed carefully and, we hope, strictly.  The following case involving DNA evidene in a rape case strains this right, allowing a conviction.  Click on the following link to read about this.

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1950996.html.

Orange County Judge Reversed for Refusing Production of Internal Affairs Witness Statements.

Defense attorneys who practice in both Orange County and Los Angeles County will often agree that, in general, the judges in each county do differ in how they approach certain cases.  In general, Orange County seems, to this office, to be more pro-prosecution and less sympathetic to defendants.  To read about what our office considers characteristic of Orange County, click on the following summary of a case involving internal affairs witness statements that an Orange County judge would not order produced.

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1950278.html.