If one is not a U.S. Citizen, having a conviction for a drug offense can easily subject that person to removal proceedings. Naturally, it matters what the offense is. For example if it is an infraction violation for possession of less than an ounce of marijuance, deportation is not a possibility. However, for more serious offenses it certainly is. To read more about the immigration consequences of a conviction for a drug offense, click on the following link – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1885887.html.
It comes as a shock to many of our clients that a judge can require someone on probation to turn in their “medical marijuana” card or recommendation. If the marijuana is for treating a medical condition, is this legal? After all, isn’t the judge going to cause the person pain and suffering? Is this sadism? It this legal? Click on the article link that follows here to read a summary of a case that answered these questions – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1874968.html.
What exactly is a search? If an officer watches someone walking down a public street, is that a search? If the officer takes a photograph of someone in public, is that a seizure of evidence of the person’s whereabouts? What if the police place a GPS tracking device on a suspected drug dealer’s car, without his knowledge, and monitor his travels on public roads? Is that a lawful search and seizure? Click on the following link to find out answers to these questions – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1871166.html.
Who is eligible for a drug diversion program? Granted, most folks who are arrested for possession of drugs, if they are for their own use, need treatment more than jail. However, not everyone qualifies. Moreover, what is the difference between Prop 36 and PC 1000? Click on the short article that follows to read answers to these questions –
Not all evidence is admissible to prove something. A judge has the power to exclude certain evidence if its introduction would cause undue prejudice, consume too much time for its value, confuse a juror, cause undue sympathy or is just irrelevant in the judge’s discretion. The following case summary epitomizes this principal in a drug case where evidence of a drug cartel being involved was introduced. Click on the following link to read about this –http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-2097413.html.
Occasionally, a client will tell us that the police made a traffic stop of the client’s car and searched the car from top to bottom, trunk to engine compartment. The experience can be terrifying because the police often bring a drug-sniffing dog to walk through the car. The police may find a baggie or more of legal marijuana and they take it. The same experience could happen at one’s home. Then no charges are filed. The client is usually thankful for this and hesitant about upsetting the police by asking for the return of his marijuana. What about asking one’s homeowner’s insurance? After all, isn’t this what it is for? Click on the attached article to read a case that discussed this.
A drug courier, or “mule,” often will be unaware that the truck or car he is driving is loaded with drugs. The following case summary put this ignorance defense to the test, as it involved a driver moving about 75 pounds of cocaine and being paid $3,500 to do so. The judge did not believe the driver’s claim and therefore did not reduce the sentence. Click on the attached link to read a summary of this case – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1845183.html.
The following case summary is perhaps my favorite case, as it epitomizes justice. A police officer clearly makes a pretextual stop based on a “vehicle code violation” that simply was really no violation at all. The officer’s suspicions about the driver having drugs was found true, but the driver suppressed the drugs and had the case dismissed because the traffic stop was improper. Click on the link that follows to read this great case – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1845134.html.
Earlier on this blog, we presented an article about a conviction for possession of Ecstasy as a controlled substance being dismissed. The issue then was whether MDMA in Ecstasy meant Ecstasy was methamphetamine. In People v. Richie Quang, the court decided the answer was no. Now there is a new case, People v. Davis, that takes the opposite approach, however, we believe it will be reversed on further appeal. Click on the attached link to read about this – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1834476.html.
When Ecstasy was first being used on a wide basis, perhaps in 1990, its allure was not only its effects, but that it was not illegal. The Health and Safety Code was seen several revisions since ecstasy came out, including several that seem to make it illegal. However, some prosecutors have had trouble obtaining convictions, as the following article explains – http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-1813290.html.