Category Archives: Drug Crimes

van-nuys-courthouse

Court Suppress Evidence, Finding That Dispensary Was Lawfully Operating

Posted on

People v. L.C.

Officers of the Los Angeles Police Department raided a local Van Nuys dispensary for possessing marijuana for sale. Upon searching the dispensary, firearms were located along with marijuana. The District Attorney’s office prosecuted Client for possession of marijuana for sale. Attorneys for Margolin and Lawrence brought a motion to suppress in Van Nuys Courthouse stating that there was no probable cause to authorize a search warrant because Client’s dispensary was lawfully operating under California’s Medical Marijuana law. The Court suppressed all evidence in the case, resulting in the dismissal of the case. All money and firearms were returned the the client.

 

alhambra-courthouse

Hung Jury Where Client Sold Marijuana to an Undercover Officer

Posted on

People v. R (2012) -Alhambra

Client was operating a mobile dispensary in the San Gabriel Valley and was contacted by an undercover police officer. The officer claimed that he was a medical marijuana patient throughout the transaction but had failed to give his recommendation the client. When the police officer approached the client for the exchange, the Client felt pressured and feared for his life after observing a bulge on the officer’s belt which turned out to be his service firearm. Not wanting to risk his life, Client exchanged the marijuana for cash and drove away.

At the jury trial, Attorney David F. Poblete presented a mistake of fact defense. The be specific, the client could not have formed the requisite intent to illegally sell marijuana because he had a reasonable belief that the officer was a medical marijuana patient. After deliberations, the judge ruled a mistrail due to a hung jury.

 

medical-marijuana

995 Motion to Aside Information Granted In Medical Marijuana Cultivation Case

Posted on

People v. EE (2008)

Client charged in cultivation, possession for sale of marijuana case where over 50 plants were being cultivated by a collective but client told allegedly told police he thought he was taking advantage of a loophole in the law. Though the court bound over client for trial court after Allison put on an an affirmative defense at the preliminary hearing, trial court magistrate dismissed pursuant to Penal Code 995, a motion based on the four corners of the preliminary hearing transcript.

Margolin Lawrence

MCLE PROVIDER - Medical Marijuana Resources

Posted on

Our law firm is dedicated to the zealous representation of our clients. Medical Marijuana is a subject near and dear to the hearts of our firm. We have built up years experience of waging a war against the war on drugs. We have instilled these experience in our detailed, fact-based motion practice. To assist medical marijuana attorneys, we will be making the motions available in a motion bank. Click here to view our motion bank.

Our office regularly hosts Minimum Continuing Legal Education sessions for attorneys hoping to increase their knowledge of ever changing medical marijuana jurisprudence. As a verified MCLE provider, the Riverside Public Defenders graciously recorded a recent lecture and are providing it all other attorneys upon request.We will provide our MCLE lecture to any public defender for free and for other attorneys for a small fee. If you are a public defense, please send us an email we will be happy to send our resources to you. All other attorneys use the link below to purchase the MCLE lecture.




lax court

DEJ for 105 Pills of Oxycodone

Posted on

People v. Oxy (2012) LAX

Client was apprehended mailing Oxycodone through the US mail service. She was pulled over after she had dropped off the package in the mail and was found to be in possession of marijuana and amphetamine. She was subsequently charged with transportation with intent to distribute Oxycodone, possession of controlled substances for sale, and transportation of marijuana. Margolin and Lawrence successfully negotiated a plea where client would plead to a simple possession and would undertake a deferred entry of judgment program. Client would have to enroll in a drug class and stay out of trouble for 18 months. If she is able to do this, her case will be dismissed and in the mean time no judgment will be filed against her.

People v. 8 Containers of Wax

Posted on

Van Nuys — Margolin Lawrence prevailed in a dismissal of a case against a client who working from his car and had a wax bong and approximately 8 containers of different strains of wax.

marijuana_0722

Client Receives ALL Marijuana and Grow Equipment Seized After Dismissal

Posted on

People v. J.K. (2012) LAX

Police officers arrested Client after seizing multiple pounds of medical marijuana and grow equipment. At the preliminary hearing, Margolin and Lawrence partner J. Raza Lawrence successfully argued a medical marijuana defense. Client was cultivating for numerous collective members all with valid doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana. The Court found that there was no probable cause to believe that the Client was illegally cultivating marijuana nor was there probable cause to believe that he was possessing the marijuana for sale.

The Client was able to receive all the marijuana seized (over three pounds of marijuana) and all of his grow equipment back.

Case Dismissed After Motion to Suppress and Client Received All Grow Equipment Back

Posted on

People v. J.H (2012) Torrance

In 2011, police officers entered Client’s home unannounced and without a warrant. They claim they were investigating a burglary but there was no signs of forced entry or forced entry. Officers went through the entire home until they found the Client tending to his legally operating medical marijuana grow operating in his backyard. Police officers arrested the Client, demolished the grow operation, and put all equipment into storage.

On a motion to suppress, a judge found that the police officers made an illegal search and seizure of Client’s home. The judge ordered all the evidence suppressed and therefore unusable by the District Attorney’s office - leaving the District Attorney only one option: dismissal. As part of the dismissal, the Client received all of his grow equipment back.