Case Results

We focused our efforts on a negotiation that would address both cases simultaneously. We successfully convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the marijuana case and the “out on bail” enhancement entirely. For the remaining cocaine charge, we negotiated a reduction from “possession for sale” to “transportation for personal use.” This change in the nature of the charge allowed the client to avoid a prison sentence. The case was resolved with probation and house arrest, allowing the client to move forward with their life.

We conducted a detailed analysis of the search warrant and the prosecution’s evidence linking our client to the alleged operation. Presence at a property is not cultivation — the prosecution must prove each individual’s own knowledge of and control over the operation, and it could not do so for our client. Through an independent investigation and strategic negotiations with the prosecution, we showed that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, and every count against our client was dismissed.

Our defense focused on the legality of the underlying wiretap operation, which was at the center of a national inquiry over whether its applications had been properly authorized — California law (Penal Code § 629.50) and federal law require that wiretap applications be personally approved by the District Attorney, not delegated to subordinates. We conducted a technical review of the warrant used to intercept our client’s telephone calls and identified significant legal deficiencies. By demonstrating that the evidence against our client was obtained through a potentially illegal wiretap, we gained the leverage necessary to secure a favorable resolution. The client was sentenced to 180 days of Caltrans work — a work-service alternative to custody — and served no time in state prison.

We conducted an independent investigation into the law enforcement procedures used in the raid — the warrant, its execution, and the seizure of evidence — and identified major constitutional defects in the search. Rather than wait for trial, we presented the violations to the prosecutor as the basis for a motion to suppress under Penal Code § 1538.5, demonstrating that the evidence against our client could not survive it. The District Attorney agreed to a full dismissal of all charges.

We engaged in direct negotiations with the prosecution while presenting evidence that placed our client’s actual role in the operation in context — a multi-location, multi-defendant investigation does not make every participant a principal. At the same time, we documented significant mitigating factors in our client’s personal background and family circumstances. We argued that prison was unnecessary and that a structured alternative would better serve the interests of justice; the court agreed, and our client was sentenced to home confinement rather than state prison.

We took a hard look at the evidence and challenged the prosecution’s central claim: that our client was the person running the operation. What the evidence actually showed was a much smaller role. We put that in front of the prosecutors, along with his personal circumstances and his willingness to accept responsibility. The negotiation came down to the weight enhancements. Those enhancements were what turned a possession-for-sale case into a 29-year exposure, and they are what normally rule out probation. We negotiated a resolution that set them aside. The case ended with probation and a period in county jail.

We spent two years contesting the prosecution’s case. Our focus was the child endangerment count. The prosecution had to prove the children were actually placed in danger, and we challenged the link between the grow and the children at every stage. The District Attorney eventually dismissed both the possession for sale and the child endangerment charges. The case resolved as a single misdemeanor with one year of probation and parenting counseling. No felony conviction, and the family stayed together.

A reverse sting raises a specific question: how much of the deal came from the defendants, and how much came from the officer. We examined every recorded conversation and every step of how the transaction was arranged. We challenged the weight enhancement, since the quantity was negotiated rather than delivered, and we presented our client’s background and circumstances. Through extended negotiation with the prosecution, the case resolved at 2 years, eight years below the original offer.

Possession means knowledge and control. Living with someone who runs an operation is not the same as running it. We challenged the evidence the prosecution used to tie our client to the sales operation, and we kept challenging it through lengthy court proceedings. Combined with mitigation about her circumstances, that pressure produced a negotiated resolution. The felony possession for sale charge was dismissed. She resolved the case on a misdemeanor, with probation, and house arrest. No felony conviction, and no prison.

We addressed the underlying problem first. The client entered treatment early, and we documented every step. We then negotiated with the prosecution and laid out the consequences a felony would have for both careers and for the household. All five felony counts were dismissed. The case resolved with a single misdemeanor plea, probation, and continued drug treatment. She kept her nursing license. Her husband kept his clearance and his career.

We started with the stop. An informant tip must be reliable and corroborated before it justifies following and searching a vehicle. We examined every step officers took from the tip to the truck. We then focused on our client’s role. A driver is not an organizer, and the law treats that difference seriously. Through negotiation with the prosecution, the case resolved at a sentence many years below what prosecutors had sought.