The defense, led by Christopher M. Glew of the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, relied on his client’s compliance with state law and the lack of probable cause.  Mr. Glew argued, against strenuous opposition, that his client was following the State Attorney General’s guidelines, released in 2008 by the current Governor of California, Jerry Brown.

The prosecution adamantly opposed this position and, as is usually the case when a person is compliant, argued that the California Attorney General’s guidelines for medical cannabis patients, providers and police are not law.  Mr. Glew relied upon the codified Health and Safety Code section 11362.81 (d) that states: “In addition to the requirements of this article, the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and non diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”

He correctly informed the court that this provision was added by statute, Senate Bill 420, and the 2008 Attorney General guidelines released by Jerry Brown, who was the Attorney General at that time before being elected as the state’s Governor.

Lawyers on both sides debated the merits of the defense’s claims as they reviewed the guidelines line by line. After stipulating that the defendant was in compliance with the guidelines, the District Attorney agreed to a dismissal of all charges.

When asked about the dismissal, Mr. Glew replied: “It’s a good start for patients’ rights in California, but we still have a long battle ahead of us.”

Christopher M. Glew has a strong background of advocacy for the re-classification of marijuana and other Schedule I substances that have empirically demonstrated therapeutic applications.  Mr. Glew is first and foremost an advocate for change and will represent each and every client charged with a marijuana/drug offense with the most zealous defense.

For more information on the Law Offices of Glew & Kim and to read Mr. Glew’s blog, please visit www.glewkimlaw.com or call (866) 648-0004 for a free case analysis.

This past March, the Appeals Court ruled that cities cannot shut down a medical marijuana dispensary that cultivates its own marijuana. Thusly, they ruled in favor of Evergreen Holistic, a former Lake Forest medical marijuana collective—a decision their attorney was very pleased about. David Welch, a Los Angeles-based attorney, pointed out that the decision was significant because it showed that there were dispensaries operating legally. “Now cities have to prove that [the dispensaries are] operating illegally,” said Welch.

But Jeff Dunn, who has represented the city for more than two years in its fight against dispensaries, is happy for the Supreme Court review. He says that it will impact every city, and that “the court will be providing much-needed guidance in this ever-changing area of law.”

And while we agree that there needs to be some guidance from the lawmakers on how cities deal with medical marijuana dispensaries, we worry that people like Dunn are trying to categorically shut every dispensary down without a care for those who depend on them for alleviating their symptoms. Dunn has gone as far as to say that there has been “lots of crime including murders” where medical marijuana dispensaries are operating. We’d like to see the statistics to back that claim up, as “lots” doesn’t give us a true picture of the amount of crime. But that seems to work for most who oppose marijuana, medical or otherwise.

How do you feel about this decision? Do you live near a medical marijuana dispensary? Do you feel that they are good or bad for your community? Do you know a person, or have a family member, who have used marijuana to alleviate the pain from their illness? Please leave your comments below.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

*This is not an attorney-client communication, and as such no advice is being offered in this article. Any and all communications related to the Glew & Kim website and the MarijuanaLawyer.com website should be deemed and considered advertisement. This article is purely opinion, and the basis of this and any opinion was formed subject to the reporting by the actual news agencies, the information from with was used as source material.

Now there’s more controversy regarding California state’s legalization of marijuana. Since the housing crisis, the high inventory of short sale and foreclosed homes has allowed more people to buy homes they never could have afforded before. And some of the residents are up in arms.

No, it’s not a certain racial or religious group moving into suburban neighborhoods that have gotten the residents riled; it’s marijuana growers. These “grow homes” apparently typically go unnoticed, even by next-door-neighbors, even for years. In fact, neighbors have remarked that the grow-house residents just “blended right in”, and were “quiet types”.

So, how do the neighbors even find out about these residents that they then feel are so unsuitable for their neighborhood? It’s clearly not parties or loud music. It’s not the police raids to bust the growers and seize their product. In fact, since California has permitted the limited cultivation of marijuana for medical use since 1996, local police forces have stopped combing the suburbs for grow houses. And now it’s fires that seem to root out the grow houses, as the electrical wiring for the lamps required to grow the marijuana can be unsafely installed.

It seems to be that the fires are the only thing stopping the grow houses—local forces have shrunk during the crisis and lack the resources needed to police them, and the laws are more tolerant of marijuana cultivation in general.

But why are these grow houses so upsetting for people? The growers aren’t out selling marijuana on the street. They’re not behaving badly or disturbing the peace. A Northern California man and a neighbor of a grow house was quoted in the New York Times as saying: “They left early for work and came back late in the afternoon. They mowed their lawn, took out their trash and got groceries. There was never any extra foot traffic.”

Who else wants nice neighbors like that? It seems strange that these kind of quiet neighbors can be causing the value of houses to reduce in suburban neighborhoods. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the authorities seized 188,297 plants at 791 indoor grow houses in 2010, compared with 107,047 plants at 572 locations in 2005. That’s less than a 20 percent increase in five years—it certainly doesn’t seem like an epidemic.

What do you think about these grow houses? Would you allow one in your neighborhood? What do you think about California’s medical marijuana laws? Do you know someone whose illness has been helped by medical marijuana? Or do you feel that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin or cocaine?

Please let us know your thoughts by commenting below.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

Shazer Fernando Limas was taken into custody after the police finally caught him, as when they tried to pull over his Nissan 350Z near John Wayne Airport last night, he led them on a high-speed chase down the I-405 to the I-5. When he finally stopped near the San Clemente Border Patrol checkpoint, it was almost 8:00 p.m. when they were able to arrest him.

The arrest comes after two weeks’ worth of investigation by police, which was sparked by the property manager of Limas’ prior apartment, who found what he thought were several blood stains inside the vacant Orange apartment. It’s thought that Limas is responsible for the death of his girlfriend, Arlet Hernandez Contreras, 31; and their two sons, a four month old and a 2 year old.

“Based on the totality of our investigation, the evidence that we’ve collected and after speaking with our suspect, we are confident that he is our suspect and he will be booked in Orange County Jail for three counts of murder,” Orange police Sergeant Dan Adams said in an early-morning press conference.

Investigators believe that Limas had an altercation with Contreras, possibly as much as two weeks ago, and that’s when the three were killed. They have checked the local landfill in Brea in case the bodies had been dumped in a trash bin at the complex, but the police have yet to locate the bodies. Limas has as yet not revealed where the bodies are.

That is, if Limas is actually the murderer. We know that investigators routinely look at the husband/partner first, and yet we are unclear what they have uncovered that makes them so sure that Limas is the murderer. Plus, without the bodies there is a lot of forensic evidence missing—and by this amount of time having passed since the alleged murder, will any evidence remain if they do find the bodies?

Do you feel that Limas is guilty? Do you believe, like many commenters on the story, that Limas is definitely guilty, and the police should have just shot Limas to alleviate the state from having to pay for him being in jail? Hopefully our readers believe in the principles that the country was founded on, like being assumed innocent until proven guilty.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

Today it was reported in the Orange County Register that the Garden Grove police officials have asked federal authorities to raid the medical marijuana dispensaries in their city, like they did for Costa Mesa earlier this year. Speaking to the City Council last night, Police Chief Kevin Raney made it sound like a threat: “They will be coming to Garden Grove in the future.”

Raney’s comment was in response to both council members and residents who complained during the meeting about the “proliferation” of the dispensaries in the city. It does seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, especially when there was only five or eight dispensaries in the city two years ago. Raney has now said that there are around 60.

So, instead of letting these shops “proliferate”, why was the city allowing the dispensaries to open in the first place? Surely they could have come up with a city ordinance that capped how many dispensaries that could operate within city limits?

In fact, this is the biggest problem with medical marijuana, besides the fact that medical marijuana is legal in California but illegal in the eyes of federal law. California has not come up with any guidelines or recommendations about how cities or counties should deal with the dispensaries, leaving lawmakers, law enforcement and councils at a loss. Instead of being proactive, they seem to let the problem grow until they have to take drastic measures, like Garden Grove’s federal raid plan.

Costa Mesa is now facing a number of lawsuits with several dispensaries, and Garden Grove shouldn’t be surprised if they find they are also served if the raid happens.

Raney declined to discuss the specifics of the city’s request to the DEA, which does beg the question if there’s actually a plan besides just to raid the dispensaries and hope they go away.

Until they cure cancer and other serious and life-threatening illnesses, medical marijuana is not going to go away. The government and state lawmakers should start looking forward at solving this problem instead of sticking their heads in the sand.

What do you think Garden Grove should do? Are you a resident? Are you unhappy with the number of “pot shops” in the city? What is the danger of medical marijuana, in your opinion? Or do you support the legality of medical marijuana in California? Perhaps you, or someone you know, has used it to relieve the pain and suffering of cancer? Please let us know your comments below.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

Ferguson was killed in the car crash, and Jo Anne Ferguson, his mother, has asked the city of San Juan Capistrano to pay damages in excess of $25,000, as she holds them responsible for the crash. Ms. Ferguson claims that the design of Del Obispo Street may have contributed to the crash, and therefore the city is at fault.

Goodrich was arrested for the accident, but not until January, when he was charged with vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, plus hit-and-run with property damage. He pled not guilty, and his preliminary hearing is scheduled for this Friday, April 20, according to the Orange County Register.

Unfortunately, the law firm representing Ms. Ferguson made a mistake, albeit not an intentional mistake, but one that could cost Ferguson her claim. If a person wishes to file a suit against a city or other local government entity must submit a written claim for damages directly to that city or entity within six months of the incident, according to state law. Ferguson’s deadline for filing such a claim was February 16, 2012.

Although Ferguson’s law firm, Schumann, Rallo & Rosenberg of Costa Mesa, filed a claim within the deadline, according to the Orange County Register, they filed it with the state instead of the city. The mistake was not caught in time; actually, the only reason the mistake was noted was when the state sent a rejection letter, which arrived at the firm’s office on February 21, five days after the deadline.

And that’s not all. Even though Orange County has accepted Schumann, Rallo & Rosenberg’s request to file a late claim, which is very generous, they require more information before they will even investigate the incident. And, to make matters worse for Ferguson, City Attorney Omar Sandoval, who represents San Juan Capistrano, has recommended that the claim be denied. He wrote in a staff report that the road had no obvious defects, according to an insurance adjuster who visited the site shortly after the incident. In his opinion, this removes any responsibility from the city.

What do you think about this situation? Do you think Jo Anne Ferguson has the right to sue the city, when the driver has already been accused of vehicular manslaughter? Del Obispo Street has not recently been changed or altered, so could it conceivably be responsible for the crash? Ortega Highway is a notoriously dangerous road; do you think that someone could sue the city if a family member was killed on that road? Do you think the city should deny the claim? Or do you feel that this mother who lost her son deserves the funds for damages from the city?

Please leave your comments in the section below. We always appreciate your comments and opinions on our area’s events. At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

One of the men was Gregory Ruiz Aguirre, age 53 of El Monte, whom was found guilty of three felonies including going to meet a minor for a lewd purpose. He was sentenced with five years of formal probation and any violation would incarcerate him for four years in state prison. In addition, Aguirre was to also register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

However, the three-justice panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana recently overturned the case in favor of Aguirre. The court stated that he was entitled to a new trial because the previous court did not instruct the jury on entrapment defense. By not doing so, the case was in higher favor against Aguirre and overlooked details that provided evidence that the police officer was possibly working illegitimately.

For instance, the initial post on Craigslist did not mention that the woman who submitted the post was 13 years old. It was not until after the men had responded to the ad that the undercover police officer sent out a private message saying, “Hi im Jess, Im 13 yrs old and looking to make some $ in exchange for stuff”. Although Aguirre decided to pursue communication with the undercover police officer, he did ask for a picture of Jess, of which they sent an image of a full and attractive female.

Thus, the justices felt that between Jess’s initiation of sexually explicit conversation and Aguirre’s denial in believing Jess was really 13, the police were luring law-abiding citizens into a trap that they would not normally be persuaded into. In result, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office is in the process of reviewing the decision and creating an action plan to carry out in the near future.

Do you feel that Aguirre was a victim of entrapment? Do you think that the police should be allowed to place fake ads to attract who they feel are criminals? Or do you think that placing these ads is definitely entrapment, any way you look at it? Please share your thoughts and comments below.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

Taylor was arrested on suspicion of felony child endangerment, and said through her lawyer yesterday that her child had been sick and vomited on herself. Sources say that she did not feel that it was right to take her obviously sick child into the mall to buy her  clothes to replace the soiled ones, so Taylor left her in the car.

The call to police was made at 11:15 a.m. by a concerned citizen, who noticed the child unattended in the Sears parking lot, in a Saturn Ion with the windows rolled up and in full sun, according to Laguna Hills Chief of Police Services Lt. Tom Behrens. The caller said that the child had been in the car for 10 minutes, and Taylor did not return to the car until 15 minutes after the police arrived at the scene. They managed to convince the child to unlock the car, otherwise they would have broken a window to release her from the car.

Authorities are not commenting on whether or not the child had vomit on her clothing or whether or not Taylor had new clothes for her daughter when she returned to the car. She was released on $100,000 bail on Tuesday.

Her attorney, Fred Thiagarajah, said the situation might reflect poor parenting, but it does not rise to the level of felony criminal conduct.

“I’m not condoning this activity, but the charge of felony child endangerment for these specific circumstances is over the top,” he said, adding that if Taylor could turn back the clock, she would, according to the Orange County Register.

What do you think? Did the mother panic and run to the store to get replacement clothing instead of home to put her daughter to bed? Did she assume that her child was just reacting to something she ate, and wasn’t sick with something like stomach flu? Most parents know that there are days you don’t make the best decisions—do you think this is what happened to Taylor? Do you think the officers acted too rashly? Or do you think she was negligent as a parent and the charge of felony child endangerment was appropriate and justified?

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

Also a former English teacher at the high school, Eric Patton remains on the district’s payroll—pending a final decision before the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings. His appeal isn’t likely to be decided before June 30, when the retirement bonus is set to be distributed.

Patton has been accused, in termination reports, of “accepting bribes from a sporting equipment company, knowingly defrauding and stealing thousands of dollars from the school district, and violating at least nine state and federal laws,” according to the Orange County Register. In an interview with the newspaper last fall, Patton vigorously denied any wrongdoing and explained his belief that the spending credits (the district termed them as “stolen funds”) did not come from taxpayer money and that he never used them for personal benefit.

Although Patton was fired from San Clemente High School on February 27, it will probably take six months to one year for it to be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings, according to Orange County Department of Education attorney Ronald Wenkart.

The Capistrano Unified School District only has the authority to “initiate” termination proceedings, and the final decision lies with the state panel, so while the case is pending, Patton is still officially employed by the district.

So why shouldn’t Patton get his retirement bonus when he is legally eligible? He has not been tried or found guilty of the alleged crimes, so he is still technically innocent. Ask yourself how you would feel in Patton’s position—you haven’t been able to defend yourself in court, yet there are those who are trying to deprive you of something because of the charges against you.

What do you think about this? The whole article can be found here. Should they give Patton the bonus? Or should they withhold it until after the hearing? Or should they give it to him on the stipulation that he has to return the money if he is found guilty? Please let us know in the comments how you feel about Patton, the school district’s position, and the state of education in California today.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.

The police engaged in what they referred to as a “knock-down, drag-out fight” after they witnessed Cornejo, a documented gang member on parole at the time, throw away a handgun—it lasted for over 15 minutes.

The county coroner’s report backed up the city attorney’s office’s testimony at trial that Cornejo’s death was a result of the physical strain of resisting officers in addition to being under the effects of drug intoxication, specifically methamphetamine and cocaine.

But prosecutors presented evidence that included video from cellphones and the station’s surveillance equipment and testimony from a Ventura County chief medical examiner, Ronald O’Halloran. O’Halloran testified that the officers’ force was a direct cause of Cornejo’s death, especially the baton blows to his back and midsection.

There are conflicting reports on Cornejo’s condition during his time at the station. The officers maintain that they carried him because he was unwilling to walk on his own, while the prosecution accuse officers of ignoring his condition and pretending he was alive to avoid calling an ambulance to take Cornejo to the local L.A. County-USC Medical Center.

Cornejo’s sister pointed out after the payout was awarded on Tuesday, March 20 that Cornejo was a “son, a brother, an uncle and a father.” But he was also a documented gang member who was on parole for another crime. While yes, Cornejo was a human being and deserves to be treated as such, the incident happened while he was evading the police and resisting arrest.

Do you feel that the family deserved a settlement from the LAPD? Do you think what they received was too much, or do you think that you can’t put a number on a human life? Do you feel that the police acted correctly in the situation? Or do you feel that they callously ignored Cornejo’s condition? Please let us know in the comments section, below.

At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on (866) 648-0004 or use our online form for a free case analysis.