Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Edwin H. Sutherland, who is one of the most influential criminologists of the first half of the twentieth century defined white collar crime as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation."

According to the IRS website, fraud on the corporate level, encompasses violations of the Internal Revenue Code (meaning mostly taxes) and related statues committed by large, publicly or privately traded corporation and/or by the senior executives. There are incredibly strict laws governing such crimes, and high profile cases such as Wesley Snipes recent tax evasion case have grown in scope of late.

Just this week, a French Bank, Societe Generale, lost $7.1 Billion from fraud, all to one trader. Fraud affects not only employees at such major corporations as Enron, but the corporations themselves. In fact, current presidential candidate and former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani had a close friend, ally and employee of the City of New York Bernard B. Kerik indicted on federal charges of fraud and tax evasion. Cases like these, white collar crimes, are being more frequent and due to public pressure are being prosecuted with greater zeal than ever before.

President Bush established a Presidential Fraud Task Force in 2002, which includes the IRS Commissioner as a board member. The task force is intended to provide direction for the investigation and prosecutions of significant cases involving securities and accounting fraud.

Fraud is a major issue which has plagued American business institutions for many years. Sources show that in 1996, fraud cost businesses in America six percent of annual revenue, that's $60 million out of every billion, meaning Microsoft (which grosses tens of billions annually) had an estimated loss greater than the value of many pro sports teams.

The IRS has even set up a website that informs citizens of not just laws, but potential penalties of tax and securities fraud.

Beyond just having to pay the money's owed (in the case of tax fraud) or fines (in the case of securities fraud) penalties always include jail time.

In January of this year, a man in St. Louis was sentenced to 44 months in jail for defrauding lenders of more than $500,000. Also in January of this year, a man was sentenced to 18 months in prison and pay $185,000 to the IRS for income tax evasion.

The jail sentences tend to be major, and in fact Wesley Snipes is facing years in jail for evading his taxes. Al Capone, the famous mobster, was never throw in jail for murder or robbery, but for tax fraud. The IRS is a mean institution, and enforces their laws down to the T.

LA just witnessed one of the worst instances of domestic violence and an abuse of the rules set in place to protect victims. Domestic violence is a very real situation, and at times the law is powerless to assist the victims. Restraining orders can be given by the courts, but as one victim claimed in the LA Times "paper can't stop bullets."

According to a Legal Assistant Resource website, a restraining order is an "order made by a court to protect a person from physical pain or injury or the threat of pain or injury." Often times this can be seen in television shows and movies. While a restraining order can't physically stop someone, it can bring a greater penalty upon the perpetrator, should he/she attack or attempt to attack again. In fact, if a victim or potential victim can prove that he/she is in eminent danger, the judge can grant an ex parte restraining order (although if there is a divorce involved, things get quite complicated).

An individual does not need an attorney to get a restraining order, however it is indeed best if one is used. Restraining orders don't cost anything and the state pays for a marshal to serve the papers.

One can also apply for an emergency protective order, which would be valid for five days and is issues by law enforcement.

According to the California Penal Code, an individual guilty of abuse can be sentenced and fined accordingly:

Spousal Abuse:

Up to 4 years in state prison

Fine of up to $6,000

Child Abuse:

6 years in state prison

Domestic Battery:

6 months in prison

$2,000 fine

Domestic Threats (verbal abuse):

1 year in county jail or state prison

Federal laws can be even more severe. There have been a number of instances recently where children have been overprotected, including a law which was almost introduced by a northern California state government official banning any spanking of a child under 2 years old (by a woman who had no children of her own no less), but when recent reports continue to come out of women losing their lives to abusive husbands, it becomes understandable. A woman in Tujunga, CA recently was stabbed to death, along with her mother, by a boyfriend who had become increasingly abusive.

Hate Crimes: A Maze, A Web, A Quandary

Hate crime statutes in California can be complicated. Wait, let's rephrase that, hate crime statutes in California are a maze of tangled loopholes and agendas spread throughout the law. The laws, for the most part, are well intentioned and are designed to protect anyone from being discriminated against based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or other factors. However, there have not only been grossly inappropriate applications of laws, but few understand when/where they are to be implemented. As a result, since no one wants to offend any particular special interest group, many are suffering the abuse of a legal system without direction.

Here are a few examples:

1. Over a year ago in Long Beach some African American teens were charged with beating up a few white students. However, because one or more of the teens uttered " I hate whites" during the incident, they were charged with a hate crime. The reason is that they law allows attorneys to piggyback penalties, meaning if you are charged with crime X and then it comes out during the investigation that racial slurs or something if that nature were uttered, then they prosecuter can piggyback a hate crime penalty onto the other charges.

2. An incident was reported this past summer in West Hollywood wherein two homosexual men were attacked while walking along the sidewalk. The incident was obviously the type of event that would fall under the hate crime statutes, however the Sheriff's department published the name's of the victims against their will. The victim's may sue, but the overarching issue is that the Sheriff's Department has certain procedures which may not gel with what the statutes are, meaning the Sheriff in question may need to post a victim's name in order to move a process along while the statute may call for the victim to be protected. In the end, there's a disconnect between statutes and the enforcement of the law.

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office defines a hate crime as :

* Criminal acts or attempted criminal acts against an individual or group of individuals because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Because they are targeted for who they are, victims of hate crimes continue to feel threatened long after an attack. These crimes victimize everyone - individuals and our entire community.

These crimes can fall under three umbrellas, felonies, misdemeanors or enhancements.

Felonies are appropriate when:
# P.C. 422.7 - Commission of a crime for the purpose of interfering with another's exercise of civil rights.
# P.C. 594.3
# - Vandalism of place of worship based on racial or religious bias. P.C. 11412
# - Threats obstructing exercise of religion. P.C. 11413
- Use of destructive device or explosive or commission of arson in certain places.

Misdemeanors are appropriate when:

* P.C. 302
* - Disorderly conduct during an assemblage of people gathered for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship. P.C. 422.6 - Use of force, threats or destruction of property to interfere with another's exercise of civil rights.
* P.C. 422.9 - Violation of civil order (Bane Act) protecting the exercise of civil rights.
* P.C. 538(c)
* - Unauthorized insertion of advertisements in newspapers and redistribution to the public. P.C. 640.2
* - Placing handbill, notice or advertisement on a consumer product or product package without authorization. P.C. 11411
- Terrorism of owner or occupant of real property. Placement or display of sign, symbol or other physical impression without authorization, engagement in pattern of conduct, or burning or desecration of religious symbols.

Enhancements come into play when:

* P.C. 190.2(a)(16) - Special circumstances imposing the Death Penalty or Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin.
* P.C. 190.3 - Special circumstances imposing Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of sexual orientation, gender or disability.
* P.C. 422.75 - Penalty for felony committed because of victim's race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation shall be enhanced one, two or three years in prison, if the person acts alone; and 2, 3 or 4 years if the person commits the act with another.

Los Angeles has one of the strangest legalized industries in the nation; namely, the adult industry, which employs actors, directors, producers, editing people, administrative folks, talent scouts and much more. What is most strange about this industry is that a variety of obscenity laws, passed by both state and federal governments, Republican and Democrats as well, directly target this industry.

Many in the adult industry hide behind the First Amendment to the Constitution, arguing that pornography is protected speech. However, the adult industry includes no only pornographers, but strippers, peep shows and everything that is essentially inappropriate for minors.

Most laws are targeted towards protecting children from exposure to pornography or adult shops (although some conservative groups manipulate these laws in order to make life difficult for porn shops and strip clubs).

There are Federal obscenity laws, such as 18 U.S.C. §§1460-1470, which forbid obscene materials (i.e. pornography) from being distributed across state lines if it violates state laws. Meaning that some materials legal in California are illegal in other states and it is illegal to ship those materials to those states from California. This targets mainly websites that people can buy pornography on and have shipped to them.

The California Penal code contains a great deal about obscene material, distribution and protecting minors. Penal Code 313(a) prohibits sales, displays, distributions of obscene materials to people under the age of 18. In the matter of Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore (California Appelate Court, 1st District 2001) involved obscene materials at public libraries.

The Free Speech Coalition however, fights for the rights of the adult industry. They view attacks against the adult industry as an attack on free speech. They are in a constant battle with the government over what they feel are abuses of certain laws and statutes. For example, 18 USC 2257 was enacted in 1988 and basically ordered all adult companies to keep a record of the proof of age of performers in the industry (in part as a reaction to Traci Lords performing while only 16 years old). Recent actions by primarily conservative government officials to crackdown on "supposed" abuses have caused some chaos in the industry, mainly because pornographers feel they are being unfairly treated and have done nothing wrong.

Los Angeles has long been a hot bed of legal action over this issue, as the San Fernando Valley is the main area in the world in producing pornography, which is a $4 - $12 billion industry per year, depending upon the source. The LA Times, the LA Daily News and other media outlets have performed a variety of expose's on the people and companies that produce and deal with this industry. The legal issues are ongoing, and the growth of porn on the Internet has fuiled a variety of new laws, lawsuits, backlashes, protests and general chaos.

The best witness for a prosecutor is an unbiased eye witness. For certain types of crime this is rare. A witness of value may be involved in the commission of the very crime a prosecutor wants to convict someone of.

How can a prosecutor make a case with this type of witness when the witness may have to incriminate himself in order to be of any value? The right to not incriminate one's self is enshrined in our constitution, so the prosecutor must offer incentive to get witnesses to testify. For a witness involved in a crime the prospect of immunity is a powerful incentive. Immunity would protect the witness from being charged with a crime in exchange for them testifying.

There are two types of immunity, "use" and "transactional."

Use immunity, the more narrow of the two, mean that a witnesses statements about a crime cannot be used to charge them with a crime. This is no guarantee that the witness cannot be prosecuted for that crime, it just means that the prosecutor would have to find evidence somewhere else. In practice this is rare.

Transactional immunity is broader than use immunity and gives a witness a pass on any crimes he is forced to testify about. For instance, Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano was given immunity for committing 19 murders in exchange for his testimony against John Gotti.

Immunity does not have to be cooperative, it can be put in place by court order and then the witness would be compelled to testify. A prosecutor may wish to have this setup in place for reasons of perception even if the witness is cooperative. The idea being that the witness had no choice in the matter which could make a better impression on the jury than someone who was just cutting a deal.

California has long sought solutions to its gang problems, and has tried a number of different strategies. The most infamous of these is to serve injunctions against specific gangs, as Sacramento did against the ?Broderick Boys?, making it illegal for gang members to gather. As these strategies have met with varying success (for example, the Sacramento injunction has met with a lot of public dismay and limited effect due to its not covering as many people as desired). However, more effective methods are always being investigated.

California's prisons are also facing a severe over-crowding issue, with 173,100 prisoners, but only having beds for 156,500 of them (as of 2006). Part of the issue is that gang members see jail time as not only a rite of passage but also adding to their reputation. By dealing with the gang issue, California would also deal with the over-crowding issue.

If a child is committing crimes then that child's parents may lack the parenting skills needed to raise a law-abiding child. Because of this, AB 1291 was passed, forcing parents of first-time offenders convected for gang-related crimes to attend anti-gang violence classes. The idea is that parents should be responsible for the actions of their children, but that too many gangs are raising their children. AB 1291 hopes to change that by giving them ways to deal with the problem.

Although parents are already liable for the actions of their children under civil law, this law adds tp that, as parents will be forced to attend and pay for classes if their children get into gang trouble. It's an interesting law, especially as most attempts to deal with the gang issue tend to skirt constitutional law (injunctions, for example, need to be very precisely worded to avoid charges of limiting the freedom of assembly). By taking the issue to their parents, this law makes it imperative that parents become better parents and not allow their children to join gangs.

However, this does make the lives of single parents more interesting, as they may simply not have the ability to watch their children all of the time, and attending the classes may actually create problems. Although it may force them to rely more on family and friends, it may also prevent the parent from being able to take on more hours and make the family a hardship case. More to the point, families where the parents both work multiple jobs may also be affected, as the parents are forced to keep a closer eye on their children.

Overall, this law is a good one in that it puts the blame on the parents for their children's bad behavior. It will be interesting to watch the effects of this law, and to see if there are any hidden costs. It will especially be interesting to see what affect it has on the gangs themselves as parents drag their children away in order to avoid the classes!

Martin Tankleff was just seventeen years old when he was convicted of the brutal murder of his parents in their Long Island, New York home. While no motive beyond adolescent angst was ever given, Marty was convicted based on a confession made to Long Island police after hours of interrogation and a malicious ruse where police told him that his father had awoken from a coma and named him as the attacker. He never signed the confession and recanted, but it was enough for a jury to convict him. He spent the next seventeen years in jail trying to prove his innocence. In December, a panel of the appellate court overturned his conviction and, at the first of the year, the Suffolk County District Attorney announced that he would not start a new trial and would formally drop the indictment against Mr. Tankleff. Marty Tankleff is finally free. Unfortunately after so much time has lapsed, the clues gone cold, and witnesses' memories faded, the real killers of Arlene and Seymour Tankleff may never be brought to justice.

After seventeen years in prison, how did Marty Tankleff finally win his freedom? Like many prisoners, Mr. Tankleff spent a lot of time writing letters to people he thought may be willing to help him. Mr. Tankleff was luckier than a lot of inmates, though, because he found people who were willing to listen to his story and believed his claims of innocence. With the support of his friends and family, who never believed that he committed the crime, Mr. Tankleff found a team of lawyers and investigators willing to work for free on the arduous task of overturning a conviction.

Six years ago, this new team of lawyers and investigators began to find evidence that implicated Mr. Tankleff's father's former business associate, Jerard Steuerman. A man who Martin Tankleff had implicated as soon as his parents' bodies were found. A man who owed Seymour Tankleff over half a million dollars and had been in the Tankleff home the evening of the murders. A man who fled the state after the murders, faked his own death, and was living in California under an assumed name. A man the police had never really investigated as a suspect.

The new evidence provided by Tankleff's investigators and lawyers, along with the unsigned and recanted confession, created a compelling alternative theory of the crime. Compelling enough to allow an appellate panel to overturn the conviction on the grounds that it was "probable" that a new jury would render a different verdict, if given a chance to reconsider all evidence now available. While the panel did not find that Tankleff was innocent it instead directed that a new trial be held. After the court's decision, Mr. Tankleff posted his million-dollar bail and immediately began working on his new trial. A few weeks later came the news that the Suffolk County District Attorney would not seek a new trial. Martin Tankleff was a free man.

While it is hard to call a man lucky who spent seventeen years in prison for a crime he may not have committed, Mr. Tankleff is luckier than many inmates because he found people willing to listen. But to get someone to listen to his tale and to look closely at his arrest and trial, involved a lot of hard work on his part. According to one report Mr. Tankleff sent out over 50,000 letters during his 17-year incarceration. Stories like Mr. Tankleff's make you wonder how many other people sit in prison due to confessions won by harsh police interrogations and detective work that never investigated other worthwhile suspects. How many prisoners gave up after sending a hundred letters or even a thousand? Hopefully Mr. Tankleff's story will make people examine a criminal justice system that takes seventeen years and 50,0000 letters to right a wrong. Hopefully, Mr. Tankleff's case will start people talking about systemic changes that can be made to prevent this from ever happening again.

If you need help getting an appeal, or proving your innocence, call criminal defense attorney Stephen G. Rodriguez and Associates.

In California, there are fifty percent traffic accidents that result in fatality for individuals who drive drunk. These staggering numbers indicate the reason for so many frequent prosecuted offenses. California has increased its enforcement of Drug-related and DUI traffic violations.

A person driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent is concerned to be in violation of the California DUI law. To drive at a lower blood alcohol concentration than .08 percent may be illegal and is punishable by all States including California. The law will punish commercial drivers who have a blood alcohol level of .04 percent. For drivers who are under 21 years of age, the consequences for driving at .01 percent blood alcohol level are severe. According to the California DUI law, any type of drug that impairs an individual's driving capabilities is considered a drug-related offense.

Anyone who is convicted of DUI for the first time in the state of California and is 21 years of age or over will face a sentence of 2 days to six months jail time. It may even extend to a $1000 or more fine and suspension of the individual's driver's license. Any other subsequent DUI violations that lead to conviction within seven years of the first conviction will result in a mandatory jail time of up to one year and a fine of $1000 or more.

The person who commits this violation may have their driver's license taken away for 18 months or more and their vehicle may be taken away for 90 days. An individual who is convicted of DUI may get a restricted license if they commit and complete a drug or alcohol treatment program ordered by the judge. A third DUI conviction within seven years of the second violation results in losing the drivers license for three years, a large fine and up to four months of jail time.

California also has precise laws that deal with DUI problems for drivers who are under the age of 21. For a person under the age of 21 years of age that is convicted of a DUI violation, the consequence is the loss of driving privileges for a year. After this one year period, the driver is required to pay a reissue fee of $100 to the DMV and must present and maintain a proof of three years of financial responsibility.

DUI drivers who are underage can have their driver's license confiscated by the judge for as much as 30 days and any offenses committed within seven years can result in a long period of revoking their license.

California law dictates that if a driver is arrested for driving under alcoholic influence, they are required to have their blood, urine or breath tested. Any refusal of this can result in license revocation. There are some crimes committed by individuals that can also cause their license to be revoked. One such crime that results in license revocation is a minor who possesses a firearm, commits any type of property vandalism or habitually skips schools. If you need help or legal assistance, contact Stephen G. Rodriguez and Associates.

An editorial from one of our guest writers...

Great news! Violent crime in the U.S. has decreased by almost 60% since 1993. As a former law student, I'm wondering why. First, I must say I'm a bit surprised that the decrease is so significant. Considering the slap on the wrist some violent crimes receive (assault and battery is usually a mere misdemeanor), and considering how full our country's prisons are already, I would expect the crime rate to stay about the same.

No one knows the answer, but some speculate that the police are doing a more thorough job because of the terrorism hoopla. I'm thinking it has more to do with the criminals' mindsets. If criminals watch T.V. as much as everyone else, they've seen all the crime shows that are on almost every major channel. You might think this would create smarter criminals. It might. But I think it also serves to scare away potential criminals who realize they aren't geniuses.

I can imagine a would-be burglar's thoughts: "If I break in that house, someone might be home. And what if I accidentally kill them. I need to wear gloves to hide my fingerprints. Oh, and I have to cover my hair. But if someone scratches me, I'll have to figure out how to remove my dna from their nails. What if their neighbor has a video camera? What if I tear my coat on the way out, and they trace it back to me?

"This isn't a good idea. I'd better just shoplift instead."

Crime TV has taught everyone that it's not that easy to get away with violent crimes. High-tech forensics will catch you (like in CSI), maybe even 20 years later (like in Cold Case).

And have you seen the new rash of prison shows? Now the potential criminals know what'll happen tothem if and when they get caught. Not a pretty picture. What do you think? Could today's television shows be the reason crime has gone down?

Reminder: Law on television and law in the real world of course vary dramatically. Although TV has good insights and is entertaining, consult a lawyer for legal advice.

If you have been charged with a DUI or DWI offense and the Breathalyzer results are over the legal limit, you may be thinking that you may as well just plead guilty to the charges and take whatever punishment the judge hands down. Assuming that you don't have any options for defending yourself would be both foolish and inaccurate.

What the Breathalyzer Actually Measures

The breathalyzer machine doesn't measure a person's Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). Instead, it provides an estimate of the BAC. This estimate can vary greatly from the BAC results from a blood test conducted on the same person.

How Breathalyzers Work

A breathalyzer unit is designed to detect the presence of ethyl alcohol on a person's breath. (Alcoholic drinks contain ethyl alcohol.) The problem with breathalyzers is that the machine is unable to make a distinction between ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol. A number of substances that you can consume contain methyl alcohol, which will register in just the same was as if you had actually been drinking.

If you happen to be a diabetic, you may have a higher level of methyl alcohol on your breath. The same thing will happen if you are on a diet. As your body throws off ketones, the level of methyl alcohol on your breath also rises.

Factors That Effect a Breathalyzer Reading

Breathalyzer evidence can be challenged in a number of ways. If the machine is not in good repair or the test was not conducted properly, then the results may not be accurate.
Other factors that can throw off a breath test include:

• Temperature


• Machine Not Properly Calibrated Before Use


• Dirt


• Smoke


• Moisture


• Blood or Vomit in the Mouth

All of these factors can be used by your defense attorney to challenge the breathalyzer results in court. Before you make a final decision about entering a plea, contact a qualified DUI/DWI attorney who can evaluate the evidence against you and provide the appropriate advice for your situation.

Since the consequences of being convicted of this type of criminal offense can be both costly and severe, you owe it to yourself to challenge every piece of evidence the Prosecution has against you, including the breathalyzer results.

The United States has a rare relationship with immigration, a relationship that no nation on earth can mirror. On the one hand, we are a nation full of immigrant, and on the other hand it causes incredibly problem from sea to shining sea. Being that it is an election year, both parties have exploited not only people, but the entire issue itself, leading to all sorts of failed ideas which were doomed from the start, but which lure certain demographics into various political parties. Worst of it is, illegal immigration and crime are linked quite closely, and politicians all over the nation aren't dealing with the issues in any sort of realistic manner. Here are a few states and how they're handling (or not handling) the issue:

New York

Governor Spitzer proposed a program that would allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers license . Then, he backed off that plan. Now, Gov. Spitzer is completely rethinking his plans as the public, the Republicans and even the courts were ready to fight him tooth and nail. Gov. Spitzer made a million promises while running for governor, and those who elected him have watched him fail and flail, especially on the issue of immigration.

Arizona

In 2006, they proposed a bill to make illegal immigrants illegal. But then the governor struck it down. However, Gov. Janet Napolitano the signed into law a measure punishing employers who employ illegal immigrants. And now, the laws in Arizona criminalizing their employment are so strict, some immigrants are moving out of the state.

Massachusetts

In 2006, then prospective presidential candidate Mitt Romney approved measures to allow sheriffs to enforce federal immigration law. And while Massachusetts has had its share of criminal challenges with illegal immigrants, not much else has happened. However, as president, Mitt Romney pledged to punish states that "harbor" illegal immigrants.

Missouri

Gov. Matt Blunt has ordered the highway patrol to keep track of illegal immigrants on the road.

California

This state deals with this possibly more than other, due to the abundance of work for illegal aliens. As a result, cities all over the state handle the issue differently (see Costa Mesa and San Francisco). As a result, the state has no cohesive way to handle the issue.

Time and again, states are handling what is a federal issue without any commonality, and states have done everything from making illegal aliens criminals to welcoming them with open arms. And, as a result, the crime rate surrounding illegal immigrants is ignored and a new naturalization process is left twisting in the wind.

If you commit a crime and need assistance from a lawyer, contact Stephen G Rodriguez and Associates for help in English or Espanol.

Hopefully one of these tips will save you from further incriminating yourself to a police officer, whether you are guilty of a crime or not. Police will often pretend they know more than they actually do about a situation, to get you to say something that may give them more evidence against you. Take these tips into consideration, and don't be afraid to get a lawyer.

1. Don't Resist the Arrest. We've all seen enough movies and television to know this right? Now you have no excuse. Even if you are innocent, making a mistake here can land a resisting arrest charge on you. Be careful with physical contact of the officer. Even if the officer is loud or rude, do not swipe at the officer's hands or arms if they are placing handcuffs on you as this could land you with an assaulting a police officer felony.

2. Be quiet! The law is a set of codes and rules of which you most likely know very little about, or at least less than many police officers. Police officers will do things that appeal to your human nature to start talking. Resist this, as one small seemingly innocent fact can turn nothing into a misdemeanor or even a felony. This also include back talking to the officers. This will get you nowhere.

3. Mind Your Surroundings. The police don't all follow the law, by choice or by accident. Remember everything you can about the arrest. Note the officers' badge numbers and patrol car numbers. If you are injured by an officer, try to get a picture as soon as you can, or have someone else you are with take a picture before you're hauled off. Try to obtain contact information for any witnesses that may be present.

To be a basis for an arrest or admissible in court, in most cases, authorities must obtain evidence using a search warrant. This legal principle is known as the exclusionary rule, which was created in 1914 in the case of Weeks vs. United States. The principle was developed to protect a citizens forth and fifth amendment rights from violation by preventing illegal gathering of evidence. Due to the popularity of TV shows such as Law and Order, or CSI, as well as avid interest in real life court cases, most Americans are familiar with the basic gist of this law. However, many American's are unaware of the specific exceptions to the exclusionary rule and their implications. Better understanding when and where a legal search warrant is needed is important in understanding your rights. In each situation below, a search warrant is not needed by the police:

1) Voluntary Consent. No warrant is needed if an individual gives voluntary consent to search an area. In order for this search to be legal, the individual must agree of their own volition (i.e. they must not be tricked or pressured into giving consent), and the area they consent to search must be within their control. If for example, you allow the police to search your brief case, but not your computer bag and they search it anyway, the search of your brief case is legal, however the computer bag and all the fruits from that search are considered illegal, and will not hold up in court.

2) Probable Cause (Car). If while in a car, an individual is stopped by probable cause, the police can search the car for objects relating to the stop without a warrant. Thus, on a routine traffic stop, should police suspect that illegal drugs or alcohol may be involved, they are allowed to search the vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. The police are also allowed to frisk the individuals in question for weapons, should they have reasonable suspicion that these subjects are involved in illegal activity. This also does not require a warrant.

3) Plain View. If an authority spots an object in plain view they have the right to seize that object, assuming the officer is has a right to be in that location and the object is in plain view from that location. If a gun or a knife is sitting on a kitchen counter top, and the officer is allowed to be in that room, then the search is legal, however if these items were behind a closed closet door, seizing them would be illegal.

4) Search Incident to Lawful Arrest. After a subjects been arrested, police are allowed to search a defendant and the area in immediate control of that defendant. Therefore, the subject and the area around them can be searched to ensure safety of everyone involved. This is known as a search incident to arrest, and does not require a warrant. Immediately following arrest, a search of the area may be conducted if police have reason to believe there is an accomplice or still a danger. This is known as a protective sweep search and it may be conducted without a warrant. During this search, if any objects are found in plain view, the police are entitled to confiscate them.