Unparalleled Experience

Over three decades of work
as an attorney and police officer

Proven Results

Many cases dismissed or charges reduced

Unparalleled Experience - Proven Results
SF’s Top DMV Law Office
Thousands of
licenses saved
  • Negligent operator hearings
  • Excessive DMV points
  • Age discrimination
  • License re-examinations
SF’s Top DMV Law Office
DUI and Traffic Defense
  • Avoid jail and going to court
  • Save your license
  • Charge reductions
DUI and Traffic Defense
Criminal Defense
  • Hire a former police officer with a team of “top flight”
    private investigators and experts with law-enforcement
    backgrounds.
  • If you are innocent or have facts that have been ignored
    by the police, we can help!
Criminal Defense
Since 1985
San Francisco Traffic Law Clinic
  • SF’s largest and longest running traffic law firm
  • Experienced traffic attorney will handle your ticket for less
    than cost of the fine!
  • We successfully represent over 3000 cases annually
  • Special Internet discount: SF 1 point infraction only $99.00!
Since 1985 San Francisco Traffic Law Clinic

Body Worn Cameras for trust and transparency 

Body Worn Cameras (BWC) are a tool for law enforcement agencies to demonstrate commitment to transparency, ensure the accountability of its members, increase the public’s trust in officers, and protect department members from unjustified complaints of misconduct. (San Francisco Police Department Statement on Body Worn Cameras)

The SFPD’s Body Worn Camera Policy was adopted on 06/01/2016. All 10 of SFPD’s District Stations have been trained, along with the Traffic Company and Headquarters personnel. The remaining units were scheduled for training completion by the end of March 2017.

Common Law: Court has no jurisdiction over defendant once execution of sentence commences

Under the common law, once execution of the sentence has commenced or the trial court relinquishes custody over the defendant, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over a defendant.  If trial court retains the actual or constructive custody of the defendant and the execution of sentence has not begun, the court may vacate and modify the sentence. In a criminal case, the execution of a judgment of conviction is the process of carrying the judgment into effect. Under the common law, the court relinquishes control over a defendant by committing and delivering the defendant to the prison authority. However, Pen C § 1170(d), extends the jurisdiction of the trial court to mitigate the sentence imposed by an additional 120 days. People v. Superior Court (Cornelius) (1995), 31 Cal. App. 4th 343.

PC § 1170 (d) and mitigation of sentence

Law enforcement may use social media to gain incriminating information about a suspect.

A jury convicted Chaz Nasjhee Pride of robbery and found true allegations he committed the robbery for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

Pride argued that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) were violated when a police detective viewed and saved a copy of a video Pride posted on a social media account shortly after the robbery depicting Pride wearing a chain taken in the robbery.  The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. The Court found no violation of Pride’s  Fourth Amendment Rights.

In almost any type of legal matter, there are certain things you definitely should do and things you definitely shouldn’t. For example, if you get caught speeding, do not try to invent some off-the-cuff lie to create a purported justification for your speeding, and don’t double-down on that lie after the original lie has been exposed. Instead, you should contact a knowledgeable DMV defense attorney about your options.

Similarly, if you get a notice of re-examination from the DMV as a result of your alleged seizure disorder, there are definite do’s and don’ts. Definitely don’t ignore the notice. Do reach out with all due speed to an experienced San Francisco DMV defense attorney to help you determine what you next steps should be, and to prepare for them.

The legal action of A.K.A. was a case study in the do’s and don’ts of DMV notices of re-examination. For A.K.A., his troubles with the DMV began after he was involved in an accident in 2006. This triggered the DMV’s issuing a notice of re-examination. This notice occurs if the DMV believes that it may have reason to suspend your license due to your lack of “ability to operate a motor vehicle safely due to… a physical or mental condition.”

Police in Indians arrested seized Tyson Timb’s for dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. They seized his Land Rover that he had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died.Timbs pleaded guilty and the State sought forfeiture of his vehicle, charging that the SUV had been used to transport heroin.

The maximum monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction was $10,000  and the trial court denied the State’s request. The vehicle’s forfeiture, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions.

Issue Presented:

In a death penalty case, the California Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly excused at least four prospective jurors for cause and reversed the defendant’s death sentence while affirming his conviction. In a capital case, the erroneous excusal of even one prospective juror for cause requires automatic reversal of the death sentence, although not the guilt determinations. Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510. A jury in Los Angeles convicted defendant for kidnapping, robbing, raping, torturing, and murdering a 45-year-old woman and returned a death verdict.  The prosecutor also struck four black male jurors, leaving no black man on the jury.

Defendant Jamelle Edward Armstrong, a black man, was sentenced to death for raping, torturing, and murdering Penny Sigler, a white woman. Armstrong objected to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of four black men in the jury panel. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S.; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258. The prosecutor gave reasons for each strike, and the trial court rejected Armstrong’s Batson claims.

Trial Court applied erroneous standard to juror qualification for death penalty

The California Court of Appeal held that the prosecution in this case was not required to grant use immunity to a prosecution witness who invoked his right of self-incrimination at trial instead of introducing the witness’s preliminary hearing testimony under the provisions of Evidence Code section 1291.1, the hearsay and confrontation clause exception for former testimony.

Appealing a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, the defendant contended that:

(1) the trial court erred in admitting at trial prosecution witness’s preliminary hearing testimony after he invoked the right to remain silent because the defense did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness about a prior criminal conviction not disclosed by the prosecution until after the preliminary hearing or about alleged threats made to defendant’s wife the day after defendant’s arrest;

Here are some of the significant changes to Criminal Laws in 2019.

Post-conviction Discovery

• Under existing PC 1054.9, a person sentenced to death or LWOP is entitled to post-conviction discovery to file a habeas or motion to vacate judgment. Amendments expand this right to defendants sentenced to:any case in which a defendant is convicted of a serious or violent felony resulting in a sentence of 15 years or more.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s sanctions imposed on a San Francisco Public Defender for failing to provide the prosecution with the name and statements taken from a witness called by the co-defendant’s lawyer.  The Public Defender asserted that the trial judge improperly imposed a $950 sanction on him because he never intended to call the witness at trial and did not call the witness. The defense strategy was not to put on an affirmative defense but to create reasonable doubt of his client’s guilt through cross examination of the witnesses called by the co-defendant’s lawyer and the District Attorney. The decision clarifies the limits of the defense’s reciprocal discovery obligation in criminal cases. This was the first case to address whether a criminal defense lawyer in a multi-defendant case has duty to disclose a witness he claims he does not intend to call, but reasonably anticipates a codefendant is likely to call. (People v. Landers, A145037; 1/14/19; C/A 1st, Div.4)

Reciprocal Discovery in Criminal Case

Reciprocal Discovery in criminal cases was added to the Penal Code by Proposition 115 in 1990 and may be found at Penal Code, part 2, title 6, chapter 10 (§ 1054 et seq.) (Chapter 10). “The purpose of [Chapter 10] is to promote ascertainment of truth by liberal discovery rules which allow parties to obtain information in order to prepare their cases and reduce the chance of surprise at trial. Reciprocal discovery is intended to protect the public interest in a full and truthful disclosure of critical facts, to promote the People’s interest in preventing a last minute defense, and to reduce the risk of judgments based on incomplete testimony.” (People v. Jackson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1201

They are the sights and sounds no driver ever wants to see or hear. They are flashing lights of a law enforcement vehicle pulling you over, or the disheartening thump or crunch of your vehicle colliding with another. While these things may have an immediate impact on you in areas like expense, they can also impact you in a longer-term sense -– through points on your driver’s license. Accumulating too many points in too short a period of time could mean losing your driving privileges, which can have dramatically harmful collateral impacts on your life, including losing your ability to do things for your family and perhaps even losing your job. If you’ve been assigned points, there may be a way to get that reversed, however. To get as many points as possible reversed, be sure you’ve contacted a knowledgeable San Francisco DMV attorney.

First off, there are some types of infractions that do not result in points on your license. These can include things like non-moving violations (such as a license plate light that isn’t working). When it comes to a points-based license suspension, these violations won’t factor into that calculation.

One-point violations include a variety of things. Anything from speeding to making an unsafe lane change to running a stop sign to causing an accident will generally net you one point on your license. Two point violations generally involve more serious offenses like a DUI, hit-and-run, driving on a suspended license, speeding at 100 mph+, and reckless driving.