We knew that a strong San Bernadino criminal defense would be needed for the individuals who were filmed committing arson and other property damage and vandalism. Fans were seen hopping on top of cars, shattering windshields and then setting fires.

In one clip, a man was seen sitting in his taxi that was parked on Flower Street. More than a dozen people crowded around the vehicle, trying to tip it over. The driver got out. The revelers weren't successful in tipping the vehicle over, but they proceeded to smash the windows. They can then be heard on the video chanting, "Burn it up," at which point a man in a video sparks a lighter and then throws a fire-soaked cloth piece into the cab.

Some were seen celebrating the whole scene by grinning for pictures in front of the blazing vehicle.

However, it has taken police nearly a year to identify just one of the individuals in the photo. They are still asking for the public's help in identifying five more.

The one suspect has been arrested on suspicion of arson, which is a violation of California Penal Codes 451 and 452 PC.

San Bernadino Trial Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that the penalty for violation of these statutes is going to depend on the type of property set on fire, to whom it belonged, and whether anyone was hurt or killed.

Both of these laws are very similar, except that one deals with "malicious" fire-setting, while the other refers to "unlawful or reckless" fire-setting.

In many arson cases, investigators put a large amount of resources into finding and arresting the suspected arsonists. Usually, this is because of the great collateral damage that can result from this crime. For example, when someone sets an unlawful fire in the woods, it can spark a brush fire which then can damage countless homes and put people's livelihoods and lives at risk.

This case appears to have involved just one incident involving one vehicle. However, there were multiple acts of arson and vandalism reported throughout the city that night.

The fact that police weren't actually there at the time of the incident is probably why it's taken so long to make an arrest. News crews and those with camera phones captured the incidents on film. The investigation involved tracking down video copies of the incident, and then employing a forensic photographer to show enhanced images of the suspects.

While they have made one arrest, they are asking for the public's help in identifying more.

This incident should serve as a warning to those who commit crimes in public places. It used to be that the larger the crowd, the less likely you were to get caught or for the charges to stick. That may still be true in some cases - and it's certainly an approach your San Bernadino criminal defense lawyer can explore. However, these days, almost everyone has a cell phone and almost everyone's cell phone has photo and video capabilities. That means that even if you don't see photo lights flashing, your actions may still be recorded. This doesn't make it impossible for you to mount a defense - but it certainly presents more challenges.

With this type of offense, this approach is counterintuitive - if you don't treat the underlying issue, jail can become a revolving door. But we were never in a position to do anything about it - except aggressively defend the cases and work diligently toward the best possible outcome for our clients.

Setting the standard of law is a responsibility that falls on the shoulders of our legislature.

Now, though, one of those legislators is facing his own first-time DUI. And, he is sponsoring a bill that would result in expanded early release options for people who are convicted of a DUI.

Of course, advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving are not pleased. However, the measure may make good sense, given our issues with jail and prison overcrowding and the cost of incarceration versus the benefit of society - particularly if treatment were an alternative (and less expensive) option.

Assembly Bill 2127 (or AB 2127) provides work release credits for certain jail inmates who complete life skills classes, actively search for employment or get approval to return to their regular place of employment. Under the current law, an inmate can earn work release credits, but only to complete manual labor that is supervised by the county. This would include things like graffiti clean up.

The bill, which was introduced by Roger Hernandez, a Democrat from West Covina, doesn't actually say that it's directed toward drunk drivers. However, this offense is one that could fall under the umbrella of low-level misdemeanor offenses.

Hernandez reportedly introduced the measure back in late February. Then in late March, he was arrested for drunk driving.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Hernandez was driving a state car in Sacramento around 2 a.m. in Concord. Police officers noted he was swerving between two lanes. The newspaper said Hernandez did not have permission to be driving the vehicle in the first place.

Hernandez was still being allowed access to state cars.

After he was stopped, he refused to take a breathalyzer test, though officers said he appeared to be intoxicated. He was subsequently arrested. A blood test was taken while he was in jail, and the results of that test are pending.

He voted in favor of the bill the following month, about two weeks after his arrest.

MADD is staunchly against the measure - or at least the part that may pertain to drunk drivers. They don't have an issue with the bill per se as it pertains to other offenders, but they are requesting that the bill be rewritten so as to exclude drunk drivers as being eligible for the early release program.

However, Hernandez maintains that AB 2127 will be an incentive for those individuals locked up for low-level offenses to work hard and do their best to reintegrate into society - thereby reducing not only jail overcrowding, but also the possibility of recidivism.

Trial Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that these individuals are all but guaranteed to be released in short measure back into society. Therefore, makes sense to reward them for taking positive steps while they are locked up to make sure they don't return.

Orange County Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows this, and he and his staff work aggressively to poke holes in the state's case before it ever gets to the trial phase. Often, this can lead to charges that are dismissed or significantly downgraded - a testament to the fact that a skilled attorney is a worthwhile investment indeed.

Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has weighed in on Orange County drug crime penalties, specifically those related to crack cocaine.

It had already been decided by Congress that sentences for conviction of crimes involving crack cocaine were far too severe - and worse were racially discriminatory. That's because white powder cocaine was found to be more often in the possession of whites, while the rock form of the drug was more frequently found in possession of blacks.

It's the same drug, but the sentences differed wildly.

So now, under the Fair Sentencing Act, the penalties for selling small amounts of crack cocaine have been significantly reduced. Previously, selling 50 grams of crack - or less than two ounces - meant a mandatory sentence of 10 years in federal prison. Now, however, the threshold for that new sentence has been raised to 280 grams.

it's estimated that about 1,800 inmates are currently eligible to go free, and another 12,000 could receive a reduced sentence and early release. On average, sentence reductions will be by about 37 months - more than three years.

Some of the defendants may not be able to go free immediately, as they may still have to serve the remaining sentence on any other charges.

The question the Supreme Court is weighing in on is whether this law is going to apply to individuals who were arrested prior to the passage of the law (in August 2010) but were convicted afterward. Specifically there is a drug case out of Illinois in which a man was arrested for selling 5 grams of crack cocaine in 2008. However, he was not sentenced for this crime until September 2010 - just after the law had been passed. Still, the judge sentenced him under the old guidelines.

This will be a somewhat tough case to wrestle with because typically, trial courts have deemed that new laws shouldn't be applicable to old crimes. What makes this unique, however, is that the sentencing laws regarding crack cocaine were specifically found to be racially discriminatory. So do we go on with a practice in which discrimination is proven? Or do we retroactively apply the obviously fairer legislation?

Our Orange County defense attorneys will be closely watching how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on this case. If you have any questions about what this might mean for your sentence, or if you have been arrested for an Orange County drug crime, contact the Criminal Defense Team with Trial Attorney Houman Fakhimi.

Rancho Cucamonga Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that when prosecutors set out to make a case, they want to ensure that the witnesses they put on the stand are going to be believable.

Now, in the case of the so-called "Bling Ring," that's going to be very difficult, given the lead investigators involvement in a Hollywood movie of the same name.

You may recall the case. A group of young people, enamored with the lives of the rich and famous, ended up allegedly heisting designer clothes and artwork from the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. It's understandable that someone would want to make a film about the case, given the connection to such big names and the way the accused individuals were able to gain such close access.

What is likely to hurt the prosecution, however, is that the lead detective - the one who is credited with cracking the case - is on the payroll of that film, receiving an estimated $6,000. Not only did he reportedly provide consultation, he actually appears in it as himself, slapping cuffs onto the wrists of actress Emma Watson in one scene. What's more, one of the alleged suspects is on the payroll as well.

This has everything to do with the appearance and perception of impropriety. The film - and the detective's involvement in it - may have had no impact on the case if it had taken place after the trial was complete. However, it seems this veteran law enforcement officer became quite enamored with the fame himself - to the likely detriment of this case.

Think about it: if your freedom is on the line, how appropriate would be for the lead investigator to be making a profit off the "story" before a jury has even had a chance to hear it? Answer: It's not appropriate. So now, our Rancho Cucamonga theft defense attorneys understand that it has become a major snag in the prosecution's case, with state attorneys going so far as to say they now have to review where they stand and the credibility of one of their star witnesses in the courtroom.

Of course, the majority of Rancho Cucamonga theft defenses aren't going to involve celebrities, so the chances of this type of scenario unfolding in an every-day trial are slim. But there are certainly plenty of examples where an officer's credibility can come into play.

For example, a skilled Rancho Cucamonga defense attorney will seek an answer to questions like, "Has the officer ever lied in a police report?" and "Did the officer use excessive force during the arrest?" It's important to delve into the background of the officer and discover what other elements may be used to the favor of a defense client. We can also look at whether there may be a pattern of complaints against the officer for any particular offense - that goes directly to the issue of credibility.

Jurors tend to take police officers at their word. However, we know that like any other human being, there is the potential for dishonesty. In cases where police simply want it to be open-and-shut, make an arrest and move one, there may be a tendency to fudge facts or leave out vital information that could point to other suspects - simply because they don't want to thoroughly explore all the options. But that's their job.

When they don't do it, it's our job to stand up and protect your rights and your freedom.

Our Riverside drug crime attorneys are hoping this measure continues to gain steam. Riverside Trial Attorney Houman Fakhimi is in agreement with those on the Senate Public Safety Committee who voted 4-2 in favor of SB1506: Longer incarcerations don't reduce recidivism or improve public safety. In fact, they only cost taxpayer's in the long-term - not only because incarceration is expensive, but because while these individuals are locked up, their families and children often rely on public assistance for financial support.

By and large, those who are charged with possession of these drugs are not dealers, but rather individuals with a substance abuse problem for which they need intervention to recover. Most inmates in prison aren't likely to get that help. They may stay clean on the inside because they have no choice. But once they are out - and most do eventually get out - they are released back into the same environment with the same influences and no resources to help them cope. What's more, with a felony on their record, securing employment and starting over is that much more difficult.

SB1506 is sponsored by Sen. Mark Leno from San Francisco. He is the same lawmaker behind the push to downgrade possession of small amounts of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, similar to a traffic ticket.

Law enforcement agencies, unsurprisingly, are critical of the measure. However, our Riverside criminal defense attorneys would surmise that this has a lot to do with the the fact that potentially stiff sentences on drug charges gave police leverage with suspects to cooperate with them, making their jobs easier - not necessarily because it had any positive impact on public safety.

If California passes this law, it will come on the heels of 13 other state that have passed similar legislation.

Still, it would behoove voters to voice their support of SB1506 to lawmakers. In Florida recently, the governor there vetoed a similar law - passed and overwhelmingly supported by both Republican and Democratic legislators. That bill would have allowed those sentenced for non-violent drug crimes to enter treatment after serving 50 percent of their sentences. The Florida governor cited the broken-record argument of wanting to be tough on crime - despite the continuously mounting evidence that long sentences do nothing to deter crime.

This issue is especially critical in California, which last year drew the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court for overcrowding. In fact, justices ruled that the state had an obligation to reduce the populations within its 33 prisons. Starting last October, the state had to begin a public safety realignment plan to start reducing the total prison population by 37,000, from an estimated 156,000 total.

SB1506 is a common sense way to do that, without compromising public safety.

Santa Ana Criminal Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi, experienced in handling drug crime cases, knows that often, law enforcement expends a great deal of time and manpower to secure the arrests of alleged drug traffickers.

They want to make sure they get that return on investment, so they go hard after offenders they see as high-level. Convictions can net decades-long prison sentences. That's why it's critical if you're facing drug trafficking charges in Santa Ana to hire an attorney who can draw on decades of experience to defend you.

In this case, the operation was overseen by officials with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, as the suspects, age 31 and 41, are Canadian citizens. Investigators said the two worked for a drug ring in Canada that worked to sell ecstasy and marijuana in the U.S. The intent, officials say, was to then launder the money by buying cocaine and smuggling it into Canada.

In a multi-agency sting, federal agents went undercover in this case, posing as Mexican cocaine traffickers. they sought to collect an estimated $750,000, broken down into two payments, for approximately 40 kilos (or about 80 pounds) of cocaine. Authorities say the suspects are believed to have laundered some $15 million in drug profits over the last 12 months, though for now, they are simply charged with two counts of conspiring to distribute cocaine.

The allegation that an individual would conspire to launder money from one criminal enterprise to cover the tracks of another seems counterintuitive. Perhaps this is one reason prosecutors haven't charged the men with money laundering. If they do, however, it's a claim that a skilled defense attorney could begin to pick apart.

As far as the drug charge, under California Health & Safety Code 11351 and 11352, it's illegal to possess certain drugs for the purpose of selling them and it's also illegal to actually sell or even transport them.

Possession with intent to sell is more serious than a simple possession charge. In the latter scenario, authorities consider that the drugs you have on you are for your own personal use. In the former case, authorities consider the drugs in your possession to be intended for sale to others. Some pieces of evidence can strengthen the state's case against you, such as whether you also have large quantities of the drug, if it's been packaged, if you have scales, if you have a large amount of cash and if there have been a lot of people constantly coming and going from your residence.

With regard to transportation of drugs, the main targets of law enforcement are going to be cocaine, meth, opiates, heroin, peyote, LSD and certain prescription medicine, such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. To prove that you are in violation of Health & Safety Code 11352, prosecutors have to show that you physically moved the drug from one location to another (doesn't matter if it was across the country or just a few blocks), or that you sold, supplied or gave it away. In order to be convicted on this charge, the prosecutor doesn't need to prove that you had any intent to sell or distribute the substances.

But then, their names, dates of birth and photographs were made public by the police department, prompting them to be published by various print news organizations.

Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi believes this amounts to nothing more than sheer humiliation for the cruel sake of it - and he's not alone.

Now, gay rights activists in Orange County and Los Angeles say that such action was unnecessary and not only amounts to humiliation, but could lead to far more severe consequences. In a poignant example, one of the men involved reportedly attempted to commit suicide after his identity was made public.

Our Orange County prostitution solicitation attorneys understand that public information laws allow these details to be provided to the public. However, the entire community could benefit if the police department - and media - used a little more discretion in broadcasting this information. That same discretion can often be used by an experienced attorney to keep such charges off a defendant's permanent criminal record.

We understand the issue has spawned a passionate debate in newsrooms across the state. Some of the editors argue that making this arrest data public will serve as a deterrent to others to refrain from engaging in sexual acts in a public place. Those on the other side, however, said that this struck a painfully familiar chord involving the public shaming of lesbians and gays in past decades.

In agreeing with the latter, we would point out to those with the former argument that an arrest does not equal a conviction. That these men were arrested does not automatically mean they are guilty of anything. Therefore, to publish this information at such an early stage in the process - without regard for the impact it could have on a person's personal relationships or employment - is just wrong. This is particularly true when we are talking about a victimless crime.

In this case, the men involved ranged in age from 20 to 59 years-old. They were reportedly arrested for soliciting sex in a public restroom at a local park.

Under California Penal Code 647(a), lewd or dissolute conduct in public is considered a misdemeanor. Often, these cases involve some form of entrapment. For example, an officer may try to bait you into performing some sexual act, and then arrest you. A lot of these cases result from stings like this. Others have been known to be held in bathrooms at the Beverly Hills Center and the Glendale Galleria, as well as Davis Park in Valencia and Roeding Park in Fresno.

What most people may not realize in these cases is that committing a sexual act in a public place in and of itself isn't necessarily a crime - unless there is or you have reason to believe that there may be someone there who would be offended by your actions.

This can be grounds for a solid defense if you reasonably believe that no one would see you or take offense.

Veteran Orange County Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that not all thefts or burglaries are created equal. In fact, the more you are accused of stealing, the more serious the charges - and the higher the penalties.This may also be true in cases where violence, force or a weapon are used.

Theft is one of those crimes that once you are convicted, the stigma stays with you, particularly in your search for future employment. That's why if you're accused, your first phone call should be to an experienced attorney - before you offer a statement to police.

In this case, authorities haven't made any arrests as of yet, according to The Los Angeles Times. In fact, the incident reportedly happened about two weeks ago. The two suspects are believed to have jumped a security gate and broken into an unoccupied home using an unknown object to shatter the window. Once inside, the two reportedly located the safe, which is believed to have contained expensive jewelry, including diamond rings and gold watches, as well as cash - all totaling $10 million. Investigators believe the pair located the safe, in a closet of an upstairs bedroom, and used a rug to help pull it down the stairs and out to a waiting vehicle.

It's not clear why the investigators believe the exact number of alleged intruders was two. They were alerted to the scene by a security alarm.

On the surface at least, there are two potential charges that could be filed in this case: burglary and theft.

The definition and penalties for burglary are defined in California Penal Code 459 and 460. The charge can be either a felony or a misdemeanor.

First-degree burglary is always going to be considered a felony. A second-degree burglary could be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor. Usually, the defining trait is whether the place you allegedly entered was a residence (occupied or not) or a commercial structure. The former is usually going to be charged as a first-degree felony. The latter is typically charged as second-degree.

In both of these cases, a prosecutor would need to show that you intended to commit a crime when you entered the structure in question - namely, some form of theft. One way they do this is by recovering what they call "burglary tools." These could be anything from screw drivers to crow bars. However, as an experienced Orange County defense attorney might point out, these items have many other purposes, and possession alone does not equal guilt.

In terms of theft, there are a wide range of possible theft charges, and almost all are tied to the value of the stolen item or items. To qualify for a charge of grand theft under California Penal Code 487, generally, the value of those items must be over $950 (unless any of the items in question were a car, a gun or certain types of animals - the theft of which can be labeled "grand" regardless of value). There are some cases of grand theft in which the value of the items must be just over $250.

If you are unsure about the consequences of criminal charges you may be facing, contact a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

It all has to do with the drug-sniffing dogs, employed by virtually all law enforcement agencies. Orange County Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi has long believed that the use of these animals was a clear violation of privacy rights in certain scenarios. Now, the question that the lower courts have grappled with has finally reached the Supreme Court in the form of Jardines v. Florida.

Essentially, here's what happened in the case in question:

Police in Miami in 2006 received a tip from Crimestoppers that a man was cultivating marijuana in his home. Investigators for weeks conducted surveillance at the home, but turned up little or no evidence against the defendants.

Then, an officer approached the front door with a drug-sniffing dog. The dog gave the positive signal that he detected drugs. The officer, too, noted that he smelled marijuana while standing on that doorstep. No one answered the door, but the officer used that information to secure a warrant from a magistrate.

When law enforcement entered the home, they discovered nearly 180 pot plants.

The issue in this case was never really, "Was Jardines growing marijuana?" The issue was whether the methods used by police to uncover that fact were lawful.

The trial court ultimately agreed with Jardines in saying that having a drug dog sniff your home without your permission is akin to a search, and therefore, not allowed unless there is a warrant. So all the evidence found subsequent to that search was tossed.

An appeals court disagreed with that finding, saying that a sniff by a dog is not intrusive and there's no need for a warrant to do it.

But then, the Florida Supreme Court delivered a stern ruling, saying that not only is the dog-sniff in front of the home a search, it should be considered a substantial and unreasonable intrusion, under the Fourth Amendment.

Now we are left with whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides, which will have an impact in Orange County and beyond. It's difficult to say in which direction the justices will go. The court has previously upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs for cars stopped along the highway and for use at airports to sniff luggage.

But a home is different. The sanctity of the home is one that is fiercely protected under the constitution - and rightfully so. In fact, the use of thermal imagers, which have the ability to detect the light and heat used to grow marijuana, were deemed unconstitutional, on the basis that the ability of officers to essentially peer into a private home was a clear invasion of privacy.

A final decision in this case is expected to be handed down sometime early this summer. We'll be watching closely.

According to numerous media reports, a 39-year-old man, identified as Hispanic, was approached by three individuals, who asked whether he was homosexual. When he responded that he was, the men reportedly attacked him.

The man reportedly beaten unconscious, and the alleged attack was stopped by a passerby. He is expected to fully recover.

Hollywood Criminal Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that hate crimes in California are treated differently under the law than other types of alleged criminal actions.

Hate crimes can be considered felonies or misdemeanors in and of themselves, or it can be considered an enhancement for another crime if the motivation for that alleged crime was due to a person's color, race, ancestry, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

There are hate crimes laws that have been enacted both at the federal and state level. California felony hate crimes are described in detail under the following statutes:

P.C. 422.7 - a crime carried out with the express purpose of interfering with someone else's right to exercise their civil rights;

P.C. 594.3 - vandalizing a house of worship because of religious or racial bias;

P.C. 11412 - threatening to obstruct peaceful practice of religion;

P.C. 11413 - using an explosive or other flammable agent to commit arson against a person or place on the basis of racial or religious bias.

Misdemeanor hate crimes are defined under a number of statutes as well, and include a wide range of actions, including: threatening use of force, placing unauthorized handbills or advertisements that display hateful language into newspapers or other products or engaging in a pattern of desecration of religious symbols.

In some cases, misdemeanor crimes can even be bumped up to felonies if they were motivated by one of the biases mentioned above.

As an enhancement, a hate crime can mean severe penalties. For example, an assault committed on the basis of any of the reasons outlined above is going to net an additional two to four years in prison - on top of the penalties for the assault itself.

New federal legislation in the form of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act expanded the laws under which someone can be prosecuted for a hate crime. Essentially, the law no longer requires the alleged victim to be engaged in a federally protected activity in order for the crime against them to be considered motivated by hate.

Of course, sometimes law enforcement and prosecutors can get carried away with these crimes. Just because an alleged victim is a minority or homosexual does not mean the crime was committed for that reason.

And even if you blurt out a racial or other slur, that does not automatically mean that hate was behind your alleged actions. And what's more, the First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech - no matter how offensive it may be.

If you are accused of a hate crime in Los Angeles, it will be important to secure a skilled criminal defense attorney who will know how to analyze every facet of your case to fight toward the best possible outcome for you.

According to the indictment, which ticks off 29 criminal counts, those involved include two of the country's top rave promoters, three of the Coliseum's employees and a former contractor. All are accused of taking advantage of the venue, which is funded by Los Angeles taxpayers.

As Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Houman Fakhimi understands, embezzlement, under California Penal Code 503, is essentially defined as fraudulently pocketing money or property that you have been entrusted with. It is a white collar crime, and is sometimes called employee fraud or theft.

The major difference between embezzlement and other types of theft is that the money or property had been "entrusted" to you. It's considered a somewhat more complex kind of theft because the courts must prove you legally possessed or had the authority to access the money or property.

It is a charge that can either be considered petty theft (if the value is under $950) or grand theft (if it's over $950).

While the Coliseum case is high-profile and involves allegations of kickbacks and public corruption, embezzlement can cover a wide range of actions. For example, an in-home nurse who allegedly takes property from the homes of her clients can be charged with embezzlement, as can a retail employee who takes merchandise home without paying for it.

Because an embezzlement charge can be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor, the punishments vary greatly. Petty theft embezzlement can land you a six month jail sentence and a $1,000 fine. Misdemeanor grand theft embezzlement in Los Angeles can net you a a maximum 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine. If you are prosecuted for felony embezzlement, the maximum penalty is three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

If you have multiple embezzlement charges for crimes that allegedly took place over the course of a year, a defense attorney can argue that it was all part of one scheme, and work to have each of the charges consolidated, which could thereby significantly reduce the amount of time you will spend behind bars.

It's certainly a charge worth fighting with an experienced Los Angeles embezzlement attorney. A conviction on any of these charges is going to cause serious repercussions for your future employment prospects, in that it involves a stigma that you may be untrustworthy.

In the case of the Coliseum embezzlement, The Los Angeles Times reports that two top rave promoters, who had hosted a large number of events at the arena, were paying kickbacks to a former events manager and others who were employed there. Those payments were reportedly in exchange for giving them prime access to the stadium.

There was also a janitorial contractor involved, who was also accused of paying kickbacks to Coliseum employees in exchange for hanging onto that contract.

The employees are accused of diverting funds from the stadium into their pockets, in some cases allegedly even setting up a bank account with a similar-sounding name as the Coliseum, so that event coordinators would believe they were actually paying the Coliseum.

Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that laws regarding internet crimes are constantly changing, trying to keep pace with the ever-expanding technology. This is why it is so critical if you're charged with one of these crimes to contact an attorney with experience. Just the discovery process, or the initial phase of sorting through the prosecution's case against you, can be overwhelming for an attorney who has never before tried one of these cases.

You can't afford not to because the penalties for internet crimes - particularly when children are alleged to be involved - are quite often very severe.

In this case, the 34-year-old Orange County man is looking at a sentence of life behind bars.

Here's what we know, according to media reports: The reported incidents happened between 2007 and 2009. Investigators say the suspect set up a phony modeling agency, and additionally set up an online account on MySpace purporting to be a 13-year-old female. Using these tools, prosecutors said he was able to talk dozens of young girls between the ages of 11 and 17 into sending him naked photographs of themselves.

Additionally, prosecutors say he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl at his home after reportedly luring her there for a photo shoot. Other young girls had also previously gone to his home and were photographed by him, according to investigators.

It is estimated that he reached out to as many as 200 girls across a wide swath of areas, including:

Moreno Valley;
Beaumont;
Banning; San Jacinto;
Corona;
Palm Springs;

Additionally, he is said to have contacted girls in Canada, the UK and Iran. An estimated 40 girls were brought in to testify at his trial. They told the court that the man had told them he couldn't pay them for their photos, but they could be used in a portfolio to kick start their modeling careers.

He was ultimately arrested after the mother of one of the girls discovered a note that mentioned a sex tape that was slated for production in Palm Springs. She contacted authorities, who ultimately tracked down this suspect at his Orange County residence.

Police ended up seizing his cell phone, several computers and cameras from his home in order to build their case.

A jury debated for two days before convicting him. He faces sentencing in April. While he is facing down the possibility of life in prison, if he ever is released, he will likely fall under the purview of the state's Sex Offender Tracking Program, which would require him to register as a sex offender with the California Department of Justice. These offenders are required to update their residence information annually, at a minimum. Their information will then appear for public display on the state's sex offender web site, per Penal Code section 290.46.

As Los Angeles DUI trial attorney Houman Fakhimi understands it, it was New Year's Eve 2010, and the man had reportedly been drinking and was trying to flee from police.

The couple, parents to five children between the ages of 17 and 28, were struck and killed when the driver was reportedly attempting to evade police at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour. According to investigators, he ran a red light near Crenshaw Boulevard and Florence Avenue shortly before midnight. The impact of the collision caused the couple's car to flip over. They were pronounced dead at the scene. They were reportedly returning home from a party.

The suspect then reportedly fled the scene on foot without stopping to help the couple.

When the suspect was arrested, investigators said his blood alcohol level tested at .21 percent - well above the .08 limit. Investigators said he later admitted he had drank about six beers that night, and he also had a bottle of vodka stashed in his vehicle.

It's not clear from media reports why the police were initially after him or why he felt the need to flee. Records indicate he did have a prior conviction for an earlier DUI. Regardless, this case brings up some points for an experienced L.A. DUI defense attorney:

-It usually never pays to flee from police. It is almost never going to help your case, and you are likely to end up with additional charges, such as fleeing and eluding and resisting arrest.

-Depending on the circumstances of the case, you could be charged with either a felony or misdemeanor, defined under California Vehicle Code 2800.1 VC. In order to prove this charge, prosecutors need to show that you willfully fled and that you did so from a clearly marked officer that you reasonably saw and recognized.

-There are tactics that a skilled attorney can employ to fight a fleeing and eluding charge, but it's going to be tougher if that act resulted in the serious injury or death of another.

-Your best course of action if you are pulled over - even if it is while you have been drinking - is to stop and cooperate with police. That doesn't mean you answer their questions or submit to field sobriety tests. What it means is that you don't run, you are polite and that you refer all questions to your attorney - whom you must call at the first available opportunity.

In this case, one might surmise that the individual was concerned about the consequences of a second DUI. But there is a big difference between what he would have faced had he stopped, and the decades he is now likely to serve. Under California law, a second DUI conviction is going to result in a maximum 1 year in jail, $2,800 in fines, 2 years of a license suspension and the installation of an interlock ignition device. And all of that is the maximum - it is likely if you acquire an experienced attorney at the outset, you could receive much lesser sanctions.

Orange County criminal defense attorneys know how serious kidnapping charges are. This rarely means the classic holding someone for ransom. In most cases, it can mean simply holding a spouse or someone against their will, no matter how temporarily. In some cases it can be not permitting someone to leave a room or use the phone.

Not so in this case, as reported by The Los Angeles Times:

The alleged crime happened in 2002, when a homeowner was blindfolded, bound and gagged for two weeks. He was moved from hotel to hotel by a total of six men, who prosecutors said demanded ransom from the victim's girlfriend.

The alleged co-conspirators had reportedly encountered the man while doing remodeling work at the man's home.

After kidnapping him, prosecutors say they demanded a $10,000 ransom. The girlfriend, who had been searching for the missing man for weeks, contacted police. When she met with the suspects to hand over the money, the suspects were arrested.

The alleged victim was located in a hotel room, and taken to a local hospital where he was treated for minor injuries - including wounds to his torso, arms, feet, hands and shoulder - as well as dehydration.

Throughout the two-week ordeal, the man was reportedly fed only a handful of times and allowed him to shower twice. It's also alleged that the suspects shot rubber pellets at him in order to embarrass him.

The alleged victim has since left the country and broken off his engagement, as prosecutors said the incident left him emotionally scarred.

The 50-year-old defendant was convicted on 10 felonies, including commercial burglary, robbery, kidnapping, fraudulent use of a credit card, growing and possessing marijuana for the purpose of sale and committing a crime while out on bail for a previous crime. His co-defendants had previously been sentenced to between 5 and 11 years.

The facts of this kidnapping case appear to be somewhat cut-and-dry. There was premeditation to hold someone against their will and that plan was allegedly carried out.

However, oftentimes, kidnapping cases aren't so simple. There may be no forethought given to the sequence of events. Our Orange County criminal defense attorneys understand that there have even been cases in which misunderstandings arising in the heat of an argument have given way to kidnapping charges.

California Penal Code 207, 208, 209 and 209.5 outline the state's kidnapping laws. Essentially, the state attorney's office must prove that you moved someone without their consent by using either force or fear. The use of force or fear is defined as either actually physically forcing someone to move or threatening to hurt them if they do not do as you say.

The charges are considered to be aggravated if the victim is under the age of 14, if there is a demand for ransom, if you seriously hurt or kill the victim or if the crime occurs while you are trying to steal a car.

If you are convicted on one of these charges, you could face between five years to life behind bars. In some cases, you'll have to serve 85 percent of that sentence before you could be released.

Given the severity of the penalties, if this is a crime you are ever accused of, you need to immediately contact an experienced Orange County defense attorney, who can help walk you through your best options.

Sometimes, your actions are considered defensible under the following circumstances:

1. You were there, but did not actively participate in the alleged incident;
2. You weren't there at all, and this is an issue of mistaken identity;
3. The alleged victim had actually agreed to be moved;
4. The evidence doesn't show you substantially moved the alleged victim;
5. There simply isn't enough evidence to prove the case.

Experienced Orange County juvenile defense laweyrs, know it is important in cases like this for law enforcement to refrain from overreacting to a heightened perception of danger, due to other school killings.

In this instance, prosecutors were able to halt the case, in which there clearly wasn't enough evidence, from moving forward any further.

According to The L.A. Times, a 16-year-old Notre Dame High School student had reportedly threatened a teacher who had given him a poor grade as well as two fellow classmates who had bullied him.

The teen was arrested on a recent Friday. By the following Wednesday, he had been freed and prosecutors declined to move forward with the case.

Police reported that the teen was also upset about the death of his grandmother and coping with certain medical issues. He reportedly told a friend he planned to kill three people. Another student overheard this discussion and told a parent, who then contacted police.

Detectives said the teen confessed when questioned.

Despite the rarity of school shootings across the country, it's a phenomenon that is given a great deal of coverage in both the local and national media. Take for instance the shooting in Chardon, Ohio, in which a teen opened fire on classmates in the cafeteria, wounding five and killing three.

Given that the Notre Dame High School case was reported just a few days later, it's no surprise that police pushed for an arrest.

While it is certainly important for fellow classmates and teachers to be vigilant about legitimate threats, what is oftentimes overlooked is the fact that teenagers are impulsive. As such, they say things without thinking. That doesn't make them criminals.

Much research has been conducted about this issue. A report by CBS news detailed a study from the American Psychological Association that found unequivocally that teens' brains are not mature. In fact, teens' ability to maturely reason and judge are still developing well into their 20s. This research was the catalyst for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to outlaw the death penalty for accused offenders under the age of 18.

As Dr. David Fassler, psychiatry professor at the University of Vermont's College of Medicine pointed out, it doesn't mean that teens are incapable of differentiating right from wrong. What it does mean is that especially when confronted with stressful or emotional situations, they are far more likely than an adult to act on instinct, without fully grasping the consequences of those actions - or in this case, the consequences of their words.

In fact, at ages 16 and 17, research has shown that when compared to adults, juveniles are more:

--aggressive;
--reactive to stress;
--vulnerable when it comes to peer pressure;
--impulsive;
--likely to overlook the long-term consequences, instead focusing on the short-term pay-offs;

An experienced juvenile criminal defense attorney will understand all of this, and can fight to ensure teens accused of serious crimes are treated fairly, in accordance with the law and with consideration for the facts of each specific case.