The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a warrant to include a description of the “place to be searched.” The police officers here—at first—complied with that requirement, obtaining a warrant that listed a motel room suspected of being a hub for drug trafficking. The officers then decided to search the suspect’s home as well, and asked the judge over the phone to expand the scope of the warrant to include the home. The judge agreed, but the officers did not physically amend the warrant.

We agree with the district court that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because the warrant was facially defective. While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched.

Full case here: Manriquez v. Ensley, --- F.4th ---- (2022), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/30/20-16917.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

Respondents' private residence was damaged by an early morning fire while they were out of town. Firefighters extinguished the blaze at 7:04 a.m., at which time all fire officials and police left the premises. Five hours later, a team of arson investigators arrived at the residence for the first time to investigate the cause of the blaze. They found a work crew on the scene boarding up the house and pumping water out of the basement. The investigators learned that respondents had been notified of the fire and had instructed their insurance agent to send the crew to secure the house. Nevertheless, the investigators entered the residence and conducted an extensive search without obtaining either consent or an administrative warrant. Their search began in the basement where they found two Coleman fuel cans and a crock pot attached to an electrical timer. The investigators determined that the fire had been caused by the crock pot and timer and had been set deliberately. After seizing and marking the evidence found in the basement, the investigators extended their search to the upper portions of the house where they found additional evidence of arson. Respondents were charged with arson and moved to suppress all the evidence seized in the warrantless search on the ground that it was obtained in violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Michigan trial court denied the motion on the ground that exigent circumstances justified the search. On interlocutory appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that no exigent circumstances existed and reversed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Justice POWELL, joined by Justice BRENNAN, Justice WHITE, and Justice MARSHALL, concluded that where reasonable expectations of privacy remain in fire-damaged premises, administrative searches into the cause and origin of a fire are **644 subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment absent consent or exigent circumstances. There are especially strong expectations of privacy in a private residence and respondents here retained significant privacy interests in their fire-damaged home. Because the warrantless search of the basement and upper areas of respondents' home was authorized neither by consent nor exigent circumstances, the evidence seized in that search was obtained in violation of respondents' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and must be suppressed.

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

This case presents the question whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by initiating an investigative traffic stop after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked driver’s license.

Under this Court’s precedents, the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417–418 (1981); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22 (1968). “Although a mere ‘hunch’ does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause.” Prado Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014) (quotation altered); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989).

Because it is a “less demanding” standard, “reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause.” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). The standard “depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Navarette, supra, at 402 (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 (1996) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts “cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty . . . where none exists.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000). Rather, they must permit officers to make “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” Ibid.; see also Navarette, supra, at 403 (noting that an officer “ ‘need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct’ ”).

Before initiating the stop, Deputy Mehrer observed an individual operating a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck with Kansas plate 295ATJ. He also knew that the registered owner of the truck had a revoked license and that the model of the truck matched the observed vehicle. From these three facts, Deputy Mehrer drew the commonsense inference that Glover was likely the driver of the vehicle, which provided more than reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop.

The fact that the registered owner of a vehicle is not always the driver of the vehicle does not negate the reason- ableness of Deputy Mehrer’s in

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

During the investigation of two traffic incidents involving an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame, Officer David Rhodes learned that the motorcycle likely was stolen and in the possession of petitioner Ryan Collins. Officer Rhodes discovered photographs on Collins' Facebook profile of an orange and black motorcycle parked in the driveway of a house, drove to the house, and parked on the street. From there, he could see what appeared to be the motorcycle under a white tarp parked in the same location as the motorcycle in the photograph. Without a search warrant, Office Rhodes walked to the top of the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed that the motorcycle was stolen by running the license plate and vehicle identification numbers, took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, replaced the tarp, and returned to his car to wait for Collins. When Collins returned, Officer Rhodes arrested him. The trial court denied Collins' motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that Officer Rhodes violated the Fourth Amendment when he trespassed on the house's curtilage to conduct a search, and Collins was convicted of receiving stolen property. The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed. The State Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the warrantless search was justified under the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception.

Like the automobile exception, the Fourth Amendment's protection of curtilage has long been black letter law. “[W]hen it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). “At the Amendment's ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961)). To give full practical effect to that right, the Court considers curtilage—“the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the home’ ”—to be “ ‘part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.’ ” Jardines, 569 U.S., at 6, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984)). “The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to *593 the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S.

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

Before Officer Nichols could pull over petitioner, petitioner parked and got out of his car. Nichols then parked, accosted petitioner, and arrested him after finding drugs in his pocket. Incident to the arrest, Nichols searched petitioner’s car and found a handgun under the driver’s seat. Petitioner was charged with federal drug and firearms violations. In denying his motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unconstitutional search, the District Court found, inter alia, the automobile search valid under New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, in which this Court held that, when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile’s occupant, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to search the vehicle’s passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest, id., at 460. Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing that Belton was limited to situations where the officer initiated contact with an arrestee while he was still in the car. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Held: Belton governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has left the vehicle. In Belton, the Court placed no reliance on the fact that the officer ordered the occupants out of the vehicle, or initiated contact with them while they remained within it. And here, there is simply no basis to conclude that the span of the area generally within the arrestee’s immediate control is determined by whether the arrestee exited the vehicle at the officer’s direction, or whether the officer initiated contact with him while he was in the car. In all relevant aspects, the arrest of a suspect who is next to a vehicle presents identical concerns regarding officer safety and evidence destruction as one who is inside. Under petitioner’s proposed “contact initiation” rule, officers who decide that it may be safer and more effective to conceal their presence until a suspect has left his car would be unable to search the passenger compartment in the event of a custodial arrest, potentially compromising their safety and placing incriminating evidence at risk of concealment or destruction. The Fourth Amendment does not require such a gamble. Belton allows police to search a car’s passenger compartment incident to a lawful arrest of both “occupants” and “recent occupants.” Ibid. While an arrestee’s status as a “recent occupant” may turn on his temporal or spatial relationship to the car at the time of the arrest and search, it certain

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), is a Supreme Court case addressing the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.

Facts:

Marc Doggett was indicted in 1980 for drug-related charges. Shortly after the indictment, he left the United States. While authorities knew he was in Colombia and later Panama, they failed to apprehend him due to logistical issues. In 1982, Doggett returned to the U.S. unnoticed and lived openly for the next six years. He was arrested in 1988, but during this time, he had no knowledge of the indictment.

Issue:

Does an 8½-year delay between the indictment and arrest, largely due to government negligence, violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial?

Holding:

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Doggett, holding that the delay violated his right to a speedy trial.

Reasoning:

The Court applied the Barker v. Wingo (1972) balancing test, which considers:

1. Length of delay: The 8½-year delay was presumptively prejudicial.
2. Reason for delay: The government was negligent in pursuing Doggett, as they could have located him with reasonable effort.
3. Defendant’s assertion of the right: Doggett could not assert his right earlier because he was unaware of the indictment.
4. Prejudice to the defendant: The Court presumed prejudice due to the excessive delay caused by government negligence, even without specific proof of harm to Doggett's defense.

Outcome:

The Court reversed Doggett’s conviction, emphasizing that a lengthy, negligent delay by the government undermines the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right, even if the defendant cannot show concrete prejudice.

This case underscores the importance of timely prosecution and holds the government accountable for unnecessary delays in pursuing charges.

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

A police officer looked in an apartment window through a gap in the closed blind and observed respondents Carter and Johns and the apartment's lessee bagging cocaine. After respondents were arrested, they moved to suppress, inter alia, cocaine and other evidence obtained from the apartment and their car, arguing that the officer's initial observation was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Respondents were convicted of state drug offenses. The Minnesota trial court held that since they were not overnight social guests, they were not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, and that the officer's observation was not a search under the Amendment. The State Court of Appeals held that Carter did not have “standing” to object to the officer's actions because the evidence indicated that he used the apartment for a business purpose—to package drugs—and, separately, affirmed Johns' conviction without addressing the “standing” issue. In reversing, the State Supreme Court held that respondents had “standing” to claim Fourth Amendment protection because they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place, and that the officer's observation constituted an unreasonable search.

Held: Any search that may have occurred did not violate respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. The state courts' analysis of respondents' expectation of privacy under the rubric of “standing” doctrine was expressly rejected in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387. Rather, to claim Fourth Amendment protection, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable. Id., at 143–144, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421. The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of “their persons [and] houses,” and thus indicates that it is a personal right that must be invoked by an individual. But the extent to which the Amendment protects people may depend upon where those people are. While an overnight guest may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in someone else's home, see Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98–99, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85, one **471 who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not, see Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 259, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. And an expectation *84 of privacy in commercial property is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in a home.

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause/Vehicular Tows

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the City of Portland in an action brought by Andrew Grimm alleging that the City’s procedures for notifying him that his car would be towed were deficient under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Grimm parked a car on the side of a downtown street, paid for an hour and 19 minutes of parking through a mobile app, and then left the car on the street for seven days. During that time, City parking enforcement officers issued multiple parking citations, which they placed on the car’s windshield. After the car sat on the street for five days, a parking enforcement officer added a red slip warning that the car would be towed.

Grimm did not move the car, and, two days after the warning slip was placed on the windshield, the car was towed.

The panel held that the City conformed with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment by providing notice reasonably calculated to alert Grimm of the impending tow. The warning slip placed on the car’s windshield five days after Grimm had parked the car and two days before the car was towed, which explicitly stated that the car would be towed if it were not moved, was reasonably calculated to inform Grimm of the impending tow.

The panel further held that Grimm’s failure to remove the citations and warning slip from the windshield did not provide the City with actual knowledge that its attempt to provide notice had failed.

Read the full case here: Grimm v. City of Portland, No. 23-35235, 2025 WL 22134 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2025), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/03/23-35235.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...