California Criminal Lawyers Blog

Last week, our Whittier vandalism criminal defense lawyers wrote about a man who pulled a shotgun on a man who had come to repossess his car. This week, a Tustin man made headlines by creating an 11-hour standoff with police over the repossession of his car. According to the Orange County Register, Bernard Veldhuizen, 46, was to be arraigned Aug. 13 on charges of felony vandalism stemming from the incident that led to the standoff. Veldhuizen is accused of intentionally ramming a rented U-Haul truck into a tow truck that had come to take his own car away. After that incident, Veldhuizen shut himself inside his Tustin home for hours as a SWAT team surrounded it. He eventually emerged, unarmed and shirtless, and nobody was harmed, but sheriff's deputies evacuated nearby homes and closed streets to be careful.

According to neighbors and friends, Veldhuizen, a painter, had recently suffered from a string of financial and personal problems. In addition to the vehicle repossession, a neighbor said Veldhuizen had recently been served with an eviction notice. Police records also show that he had been arrested July 29 for making criminal threats and brandishing a weapon. A former roommate of two years told the newspaper that he moved out after Veldhuizen became increasingly agitated and unfriendly; a neighbor said he had gotten "unstable." On Tuesday evening, firefighters responded to a call and discovered someone burning trash in the home's back yard. This was followed by the U-Haul ramming incident on Wednesday at 2:48 a.m. It was unclear how he came to barricade himself inside the home, but crisis negotiators worked for 11 hours to get him out before he finally walked out voluntarily around 1:30 p.m.

As Corona vandalism criminal defense attorneys, we're interested in the choice to charge Veldhuizen with felony, rather than misdemeanor, vandalism. In California, the penalty for vandalism changes according to how much damage was done, but most first vandalism charges are still misdemeanors. There are exceptions -- such as vandalism of a grave or house of worship -- but they don't seem to apply to this case. Outside of those circumstances, the most common way for a vandalism charge to be a felony is for the defendant to have a previous record of vandalism or other crimes. In this case, Veldhuizen's previous charges for brandishing and criminal threats could be the cause. However, we suspect both sets of charges may actually stem from Veldhuizen's financial problems and understandable emotional upset. We hope the courts take this situation into account when they judge his behavior.

Continue reading "Man Involved in Police Standoff Over Repossessed Car Faces Felony Vandalism Charge" »

As Moreno Valley firearms crimes defense attorneys, we were interested in a short news item about a man who was arrested for "brandishing" a false weapon. The Orange County Register reported Aug. 11 that Brandon Asbra of Mira Loma, 30, was arrested that day on suspicion of brandishing a replica or imitation firearm. Asbra was driving on the 91 freeway near Imperial Highway when another motorist spotted him holding a gun near the steering wheel. That motorist called the police, and California Highway Patrol cars responded. They followed Asbra's vehicle onto the 57 freeway and then from an exit into the city of Orange, where several CHP and Orange Police Department units pulled him over. They found the false firearm and arrested him on suspicion of brandishing a replica or imitation firearm.

Our Pomona firearms criminal defense attorneys were interested in this story because we are not sure Asbra actually committed any crime. Carrying a firearm openly is legal in California under most circumstances. As long as you are otherwise authorized to have a handgun, you may carry it openly in places where handguns are permitted. This includes a motor vehicle. (School zone laws mean you must stow the gun in a trunk or locked container within the school zone.) Thus, Asbra probably would have had the legal right to carry the gun even if it had been real. Calling the police on everyone who exercises this right would be a waste of police resources and a potential violation of the Second Amendment. In fact, on the same day, another Orange County man was arrested for falsely reporting a crime after he called the police to report a real handgun in his boss's desk drawer.

Of course, all of this applies to real firearms, and Asbra is accused of brandishing an imitation firearm. Openly displaying an imitation firearm in California is a minor offense -- an infraction rather than a misdemeanor, with a fine of $100 on the first offense. It's also possible that he could be charged with "exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner" while inside the vehicle, a much more serious crime intended to combat drive-by shootings. Here, the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to show that Asbra was "rude or threatening" and that his imitation gun should count as a real gun. This might work if the other motorist had a reasonable fear for his or her life, such as if Asbra was pointing the gun at that person, or randomly out the window of his vehicle. The realism of the replica might also matter -- that is, if Asbra's imitation handgun was made of red plastic, it would make any fear he inspired considerably less reasonable. But if he just happened to be carrying a gun and wasn't paying special attention to the motorists around him, it would be much harder to make this case.

Continue reading "Driver Arrested for Brandishing After Fellow Motorist Spots False Firearm" »

As Anaheim criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to read an article about an incident that resulted in no injuries, but $1 million bail. The Orange County Register reported July 20 that two 18-year-olds were arrested Monday on suspicion of blowing up plastic bottles at the Irvine Spectrum mall. Jason Mathewes and Kyle McCann, both of Mission Viejo, were being held in Orange County Jail in lieu of the $1 million bail. It was not clear what charges they faced, but California law makes it a felony to possess an explosive device in a public place, as well as to set one off with the intent to injure, terrify, intimidate or destroy property. Those crimes carry two to seven years in prison. The young men were scheduled to be arraigned July 21.

The article said Irvine Spectrum security guards called Irvine police late on Monday, after noticing some young men setting off the explosions in water bottles. The bottles were placed in outdoor areas of the shopping center. Irvine police said the devices were made of "household chemicals" mixed in water bottles, but did not say which ones or how powerful they were. No one was hurt in the incident. However, the police called the bomb squad for the Orange County Sheriff's Department to remove the devices, just in case. The guards tried to stop the young men during the incident, but they ran, got into a car and drove away. The guards were able to take down the car's license plate number, which led them to a home in Mission Viejo. This helped the police find the two young men at their homes.

Our Seal Beach criminal defense lawyers do not believe that it's a good idea to set off explosions in a busy public place, and we are glad no one was hurt. But because no one was hurt, we are surprised and disappointed that the two teenagers are being held on such high bail. Bail of $1 million suggests that they face serious charges, and we are not sure the circumstances described in the article warrant such charges. For example, the crime of exploding a destructive device, which we noted above, requires the prosecution to show that the defendant intended to hurt someone, intimidate someone or destroy property. The limited amount of information in the article suggests that there was no such intent, especially since they were outside. In fact, the article seems to suggest that they were playing a prank or experimenting with low-powered explosions, with no intention to actually harm anyone. That isn't to say that the teens should be allowed to think their actions were safe, polite or a good idea, but felony charges seem inappropriate.

Continue reading "Teenagers Held on $1 Million Bail for Exploding Plastic Bottles at Shopping Center" »

Our Long Beach assault criminal defense lawyers have been watching news trickle in about sentencing for two biker groups involved in a 2008 bar fight. In that incident, the Set Free Soldiers fought with Hell's Angels at Blackies by the Sea in Newport Beach. The Set Free Soldiers describes itself as a Christian ministry on motorcycles, but law enforcement says they are outlaws. The fight itself left two people with stab wounds and a third injured from a blow from a billiard bar, and also triggered raids of bikers' homes a week later by various Orange County police agencies. Now, the Orange County Register reports, Set Free Soldiers leader Phillip Aguilar has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count related to the incident, possession of ammunition by a prohibited person.

Aguilar was already a convicted felon before the fight broke out, though the newspaper doesn't note what felonies or when they occurred. He was arrested in the raids along with six other Set Free Soldiers on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder; authorities believed the group planned the fight. Ultimately, only one member was charged with attempted murder. Altogether, six Set Free Soldiers and two Hell's Angels faced charges, mainly for weapons possession, gang involvement and assault. Aguilar was originally charged with three felonies: possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of brass knuckles and street terrorism. It wasn't clear why prosecutors chose to offer the plea bargain for the much less serious misdemeanor charge instead.

As Anaheim Hills assault criminal defense attorneys, we suspect Aguilar got a good plea deal because the prosecutor's office realized it didn't have much of a case. Furthermore, sloppy police work has been an issue in at least one other prosecution related to the police raids on the bikers' homes. As we wrote back in March, firearms and drug possession charges against Hell's Angel Brian David Heslington were dropped after a judge found that the search warrant for the home was supported by "false or reckless testimony." That is, law enforcement bent the rules to obtain evidence in his case. We have no reason to think this is true for every search, but it wouldn't be unusual for the problems to extend beyond the one case. This could be particularly true if the search of the homes was based on prejudice against bikers rather than solid evidence of conspiracy to commit murder -- a crime with which only one participant was ultimately charged.

Continue reading "Leader of Christian Motorcycle Gang Plea Bargains in Newport Beach Bar Fight" »

A recent item from the Daily Pilot interested us greatly as Orange drug possession criminal defense attorneys, because it showed how police misconduct can shatter a case. According to the March 3 article, a Superior Court judge dismissed all charges this week against Brian David Heslington, 37, because the police had misrepresented the documents that supported a search warrant against him. As a result of that warrant, police found a controlled substance and a firearm at Heslington's home, leading to possession charges for both. The judge said the police officer responsible for the mistake had submitted "false or restless testimony" in support of the search warrant.

Heslington originally came to law enforcement's attention because of his involvement in a bar fight in Newport Beach, in which he and other Hell's Angels fought with another biker gang. More than a week later, on Aug. 6, 2008, the Newport Beach police searched Heslington's home. It wasn't clear what controlled substance was found or why the firearm was not legal. However, the charges were thrown out because of mistakes by Newport Beach officer Christine O'Donnell. She reportedly submitted uncertified documents when certified ones were called for, and submitted a photocopied court seal instead of an authentic one. Perhaps more importantly to the judge, she failed to clarify this in two separate court hearings. The judge's opinion said this made it possible that the search warrant was granted based on false statements.

This doesn't happen in every case our Fontana drug possession defense lawyers handle -- but when it does, it can weaken the case so badly that it must be thrown out. Search warrants must be based on court orders because they are an exception to our Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches. Those court orders require judges to weigh the evidence carefully -- which they cannot do if they are given false or misleading statements. That is, lies and sloppy work from police undermine the protections in our justice system against police overreaching. And, as in this case, that means that the evidence from the search may be hopelessly tainted and must be thrown out. Without evidence, prosecutors generally don't have a case and must drop the charges entirely.

HOWARD | NASSIRI PC represents clients who are facing all types of drug charges, from simple possession to sales and trafficking. As with this case, many drug cases are built around a search, sometimes multiple searches or surveillance. And as with this case, those searches must be legal in order to hold up in court. Searches may be irrevocably tainted by tainted warrants; a lack of any warrant; traffic stops without reasonable probable cause or other violations. Our Buena Park drug possession criminal defense lawyers look carefully through each new drug case we take to find these and other violations of our clients' legal rights. These can form the basis of a strong defense, or sometimes allow us to negotiate for reduced charges with lighter, more reasonable penalties.

If you're charged with any kind of drug crime in California, don't assume you're guilty just because the police said you were. To discuss your options at a free, confidential consultation, please call HOWARD | NASSIRI at 1-800-872-5925 or contact us through the Internet today.