CHARGE REDUCED TO DISTURBING THE PEACE FROM PC 273a(b) (Willful Cruelty to Child) (PEOPLE Vs. A.O):
It was supposed to be a special night for our client, a time to relax and celebrate with her family. She decided to stay at home with her husband, sharing a few drinks to mark the occasion. But as the night went on, things got a little out of hand. Concerned about her behavior, the husband asked their daughter to call 911 for help. In the heat of the moment, our client tried to grab the phone from her daughter to prevent the call—but not with any intention to harm. Unfortunately, the daughter misinterpreted the situation, claiming that her mother was hitting her.
When law enforcement arrived, the client was arrested for PC 273a(b) Willful Cruelty to a Child, a charge that, in the client’s mind, seemed far too severe for what happened. She knew her behavior was wrong, but it didn’t rise to the level of cruelty. Realizing she needed help, the client reached out to Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm.
Mr. Shaw took on the case, carefully working with the District Attorney’s office. After skilled negotiations, he was able to get the Willful Cruelty to a Child charge dismissed and secured a plea to a much lesser charge of Disturbing the Peace. Even better, the client avoided jail time and any fines or fees.
The client was relieved and grateful to move forward with her life, knowing she had the right help when she needed it most.
CHARGE REDUCED TO WET-RECKLESS DRIVING (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Facing two DUI charges can be daunting, especially for someone who’s never been in trouble before. That’s exactly where our client found himself—scared and in need of legal help. He reached out to DUI Lawyer Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm, who stepped in with confidence. After a thorough evaluation of the case, Mr. Shaw skillfully negotiated with the District Attorney during the very first hearing. The result? The charges were reduced to a Wet Reckless, and the two standard DUI charges were dismissed—without any jail time! The client was thrilled with the outcome, feeling relieved and grateful for Mr. Shaw’s expert representation.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A) (DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE) & CVC 23152(B)(DRIVING WITH A BAC OF .08% OR HIGHER). (PEOPLE Vs. R.P): Our client, a Resident Physician at one of the nation’s top teaching hospitals, had always been law-abiding—until one fateful night. After delivering an impressive presentation at a medical conference, he decided to celebrate with a few colleagues. After just one sip of alcohol, he drove back to the hotel, only to be pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. To his shock, law enforcement launched a DUI investigation and arrested him, putting his promising medical career and reputation on the line.
Feeling overwhelmed and desperate, he reached out to DUI Lawyer Walter Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm. Mr. Shaw quickly sprang into action, uncovering significant flaws in the investigation and evidence suggesting the traffic stop may have been racially motivated. With this information, he effectively communicated with the District Attorney and the judge, ultimately filing a Motion to Suppress Evidence. At the hearing, the case was dismissed!
Our client breathed a sigh of relief, grateful to have his future back on track and ready to continue his journey in medicine. Thanks to Mr. Shaw’s tenacity and expertise, he was able to overcome a potentially life-altering setback!
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) LICENSE SUSPENSION ‘SET ASIDE.’ DRIVER’S LICENSE REINSTATED. CASE DISMISSED. (DUI ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE (APS) HEARING): (DMV v. A.S): The client was stopped by law enforcement for allegedly exceeding the speed limit. Due to perceived bias from the police officer, a DUI investigation was initiated, which concluded that the client had alcohol in their system at or above the legal limit at the time of driving. The client retained Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm to represent them in the DMV DUI hearing. Mr. Shaw engaged an expert to argue that it was improbable the client’s blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit at the time of driving. The DMV Hearing Officer concurred with this argument, resulting in the reinstatement of the client’s license. Case successfully resolved!
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) LICENSE SUSPENSION ‘SET ASIDE.’ DRIVER’S LICENSE REINSTATED. CASE DISMISSED. (DUI ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE (APS) HEARING): (DMV v. G.V): The client was observed driving by the Riverside CHP, who reported a vehicle code violation that led to a traffic stop. During the investigation, it was determined that the client’s Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) exceeded the legal limit of 0.08%. As a result, CHP arrested the client and the client’s license was suspended by the DMV. The client subsequently contacted Walter Shaw of Shaw 3 Law Firm for assistance with the APS Hearing. Mr. Shaw intervened by challenging the license suspension at the DMV Hearing, arguing that the client’s BAC was below 0.08% at the time of driving. The DMV Hearing Officer was persuaded by Mr. Shaw’s argument and decided to overturn the suspension, resulting in the reinstatement of the client’s driving license.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (DMV) LICENSE SUSPENSION ‘SET ASIDE.’ DMV CASE DISMISSED. (NEGLIGENT OPERATOR HEARING): W.M: Client is a Commercial Driver, where he is employed as a Trucker. The client’s family was emotionally and financially dependent on him. The client then received an Order of Probation/Suspension from the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV), which declared the client as a Negligent Operator for accumulating multiple points on his driving record within 12 months. Since the client was declared a Negligent Operator, the DMV determined the date where his license was going to be suspended. A license suspension could have affected his life as well as his family’s life. The Client wanted to fight. The Client contacted Mr. Shaw at Shaw 3 Law Firm to prevent his license from being suspended. Mr. Shaw appeared and handled the client’s Negligent Operator DMV Hearing. After the Negligent Operator DMV hearing, the DMV Hearing Officer decided to set aside the suspension and decided not to suspend the client’s commercial license. In other words, the DMV dismissed his case and the client’s license is not going to suspended. Client can now go on with his life and keep his Commercial License.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 422 (CRIMINAL THREATS): (PEOPLE Vs. A.S): Client was charged with PC 422 (Criminal Threats). After extensive litigation and negotiation with the District Attorney, the case was able to be dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 594 (VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs. L.C): Client was charged with Vandalism under PC 594. Was able to pitch Judicial Diversion where the client did community service and paid back any deductibles. Case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 12500 (UNLICENSED DRIVER): (PEOPLE Vs. L.I): Client was charged for driving unlicensed. Mr. Shaw noticed that there was a Speedy Trial Rights violation. Mr. Shaw filed the Speedy Trial Motion (Serna). Case was argued and the judge granted the motion, therefore, case being dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 537(A)(1) (DEFRAUDING IN-KEEPER):(PEOPLE Vs. C.H.): Client was charged with PC 537(A)(1) Defrauding In-keeper. Mr. Shaw explained the conduct was only $35 where the client did not know her credit card would decline. The District Attorney understood the facts of the case and the case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) (HIT AND RUN DRIVING): (PEOPLE Vs. A.B.): Client was charged with CVC 20002(A) Hit and Run Driving. Client admitted to hitting the alleged victim’s car with his car. After the collision with the victim, the client fled the scene. Eventually the officers found him and arrested him. Mr. Shaw spoke to the client and believed the client’s story. Mr. Shaw prepped the case for trial. However, before the case was sent out to go to trial, the case was dismissed.
1538 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE. MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE)& CVC 23152(B) (DRIVING WITH BAC LEVEL OF .08% OR HIGHER): (PEOPLE Vs. J.F.): Client was charged with two counts of DUI. Client was at a parking lot arguing with her boyfriend. Boyfriend got mad and called the police and told the police about a domestic violence taking place. Once police arrived, the police determined there was no domestic violence taking place. The police then later decided to unlawfully conduct a DUI Investigation. Mr. Shaw filed a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress the evidence due to the illegal questioning and/or detention. The judge agreed with Mr. Shaw’s argument. Motion was granted and the whole DUI case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE)& CVC 23152(B) (DRIVING WITH BAC LEVEL OF .08% OR HIGHER)(PEOPLE Vs. J.F.): Client was charged with two counts of DUI. The day of the alleged DUI took place on 2011, but the District Attorney prosecuted the case in 2023. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case and weakness in the case. After the discussion, the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(2)(A)(VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs. A.C.): Client was charged with Vandalism. Mr. Shaw spoke to the judge regarding the client partaking in a court program for dismissal called, Judicial Diversion. The judge allowed the client to be admitted. After the client completed the necessary terms, the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED: PC 273.5(A)(DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH TRAUMATIC INJURY)(PC 236)(FALSE IMPRISONMENT): (PEOPLE Vs. J.G): Client was charged with hurting her boyfriend after a heating argument, which led the client to prevent her boyfriend from going anywhere. However, the argument was instigated by the boyfriend causing the client to do what she believes was legally allowed. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding the facts and the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to resolve the case. The case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. G.U): Client stole beauty supplies from Sephora totaling $197. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the judge for the client to come up with ways to resolve the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the district attorney. The case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) (HIT AND RUN DRIVING): PEOPLE Vs. G.D): Client got into a car accident with the alleged victim. Client was scared and drove away. They did not exchange any information. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw was able to provide mitigation to resolve the case. The case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(G)(FRAUDULENT USE OF CREDIT CARD)& PC 496(A) (RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY): PEOPLE Vs. G.M.: Client received and used someone’s else credit card to purchase items. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and provided the DA with mitigation. The case to later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs J.N.): Client stole gift cards from Amazon and used the gift cards to purchase merchandise. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and provided the DA with mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed.
CHARGE REDUCTION: (PEOPLE Vs. J.C.): Client was charged with HS 11350 possession of drugs and PC 25400(A)(3)(Carrying a Concealed Weapon). Client was facing a potential felony. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the DA and client pled to a reduced charge of HS 11350. The PC 25400(A)(3) charge was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 597(A) CRUELTY TO ANIMAL: (PEOPLE Vs. M.D): Client was charged for killing a possum and thought it was a rat. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney to explain the case and the case was eventually dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) GRAND THEFT:(PEOPLE Vs. J.R): Client was an employee worker for Home Depot and reasonably thought he can use the Home Depot pre-paid card as he did. Home Depot alleged the pre-paid card was used without their permission. Mr. Shaw spoke with the District Attorney to explain the case. The case was eventually dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. HS 11364 (POSSESSION OF METH PIPE): (PEOPLE Vs. D.C): Client was caught with possession of meth pipe. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney’s office for a dismissal due to the nature of the case. The case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 148(A)(1)(RESISTING ARREST) & HS 11550(A) (UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES)PC 243(B) (BATTERY ON PEACE OFFICER): (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Client was charged with resisting arrest from a police officer. Mr. Shaw realized that on the day of the incident the client was under the influence and could not form the specific intent to commit the violation. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the judge that the drugs was affecting the client’s mindset, preventing him from actually having the intent to commit the crime. The judge agreed. After the client completed the necessary terms requested by the judge, the case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. M.N): Client was charged for stealing items with a co defendant at Wal-Mart. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the Judge and explained that the Co-Defendent is the main suspect. Mr. Shaw’s representation was valid. The case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT):(PEOPLE Vs. S.R): Client was charged for stealing at a local store. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT), HS 11364(A) (POSSESSION OF METH), HS 11364(A): (PEOPLE Vs. T.E): Client was caught stealing but also determined to be under the influence of meth. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(1)(VANDALISM): (PEOPLE Vs.A.S): Client was caught damaging someone else’s property. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney for dismissal after a civil compromise. The DA agreed. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CITY CODE VIOLATION 9.04.090 (CLOSING HOURS FOR PARK): (PEOPLE Vs. D.D): Client was at the park minutes after it was closed. Client was on the way out of the park, but the Police officer detained, and arrested the client for being at the park after hours. Mr. Shaw spoke to the City Attorney. After discussion of the case with the City Attorney, the case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 148(A)(1)(RESISTING ARREST): (PEOPLE Vs. S.B): Client was charged with 2 counts of resisting arrest from a police officer. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and the Judge about the case. The client was required to do an Anger Management class. After the client completed the Anger Management class, the case was then dismissed.
CHARGE REDUCTION. PC 22210 (POSSESSION OF BILLY, BLACKJACK) , HS 11364(A)(POSSESSION OF METH): (PEOPLE Vs. J.W): Client was charged with having possession of a Billy. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. The District Attorney agreed to reduce the charge. Client plead to an Infraction of PC 415 (Disturbing the Peace) and dismiss the PC 22210 (Possession of Billy) and HS 11364 (Possession of Meth).
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A)(HIT AND RUN DRIVING):(PEOPLE Vs. A.R): Client was charged for colliding with another vehicle and leaving the scene. Mr. Shaw spoke with the District Attorney for a civil compromise. The case was resolved, which led the case to being dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): PEOPLE Vs.S.B): Client was charged for kicking a pregnant women. Mr. Shaw pitched a court program for the case to be dismissed. The judge granted the client to be in the program. After the client completed what she needed to do, the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(1)(VANDALISM), PC 166(A)(4)(VIOLATING A PROTECTIVE ORDER): PEOPLE Vs. C.C: Client was charged with going to ex girlfriend house and throwing the ex girlfriend’s phone out the window causing it to shatter. The client then ripped the ex girlfriend’s ring camera from her door. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding the facts of the case. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT)(PEOPLE Vs. M.R): Client stole some items. Client did theft class. Mr. Shaw provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed.
CHARGE REDUCED TO WET RECKLESS (PEOPLE Vs. P.S): Client was charged with 2 counts of DUI and driving on a suspended driving license with a prior DUI conviction. Mr. Shaw negotiated with the District Attorney regarding the weakness in the case. The 2 DUI counts and driving on suspended license was dismissed, and client pled to a lesser charge of Wet Reckless.
CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550 (UNDER THE INFLUENCE): PEOPLE V. J.A): Client was charged with being under the influence. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided the DA with mitigation. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(A) (DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE), CVC 23152(B)(DRIVING WITH A BAC OF .08% OR HIGHER), CVC 20002(A)(HIT AND RUN DRIVING) (PEOPLE Vs. P.G): Client was charged with Hit and Run and DUI. Client was driving back home from work an event. As he was driving back home to Chino hills, he hit a light pole. There were 2 witnesses who saw client hit the light pole. The two witnesses also saw the client walk away from the client’s car hit the light pole. Client’s blood alcohol concentration level was almost triple the legal limit. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw realized that the chemical test that was performed was by the a Breath Chemical Test. Mr. Shaw discovered the potential faults in the machine. Mr. Shaw filed necessary motions to invalidate the Breath Chemical Test. Prior to the case going to trial, the District Attorney realized the weakness of the case. Both counts of DUI and the Hit and Run Driving charged was all dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) HIT AND RUN DRIVING. (PEOPLE Vs. V.S): Client was charged with using her mother’s car and got into a car accident. Client fled the scene of the accident due to her fear of getting in trouble with her mother as well as the police officer. Mr. Shaw explained the story with the District Attorney. We provided the District Attorney with mitigation for dismissal. The DA agreed. Case dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. S.V): Client was charged for stealing. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and provided their office with mitigation. Case was later dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 2800.1(A)(EVADING THE POLICE). (PEOPLE Vs. J.T): Client was charged for evading the police while driving. Mr. Shaw pitched Judicial Diversion with the judge.The judge required the client to do Traffic Safety Class and Community Service. In 6 months, after all terms were completed, the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 475 (POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT ITEMS). (PEOPLE Vs. D.G): Client was selling fake Universal Studios ticket and people bought them and realized the tickets were fake. Client was charged with possession of counterfeit items. Mr. Shaw told the District Attorney the weakness in the case. The case was dismissed on the first pretrial hearing.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 243(E)(1)(BATTERY ON SPOUSE/DOMESTIC BATTERY)(PEOPLE Vs. M.Z): Client was at home with her husband. Husband wanted to have sex with the client but client did not want to. The husband forced himself onto the client, but the client resisted. The client defended herself by pushing and punching the husband to get him away. Client was charged with Battery on a Spouse. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw explained the facts of the case to the District Attorney. Mr. Shaw provided the District Attorney with mitigation for dismissal. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 20002(A) HIT AND RUN DRIVING. (PEOPLE Vs. T.S): Client was charged with Hit and Run driving. However, client was not the one driving the vehicle. Mr. Shaw explained the case to the District Attorney. The case was then dismissed.
CHARGE REDUCED TO DISTURBING THE PEACE FROM CVC 23110(A)(THROWING AN OBJECT AT MOTOR VEHICLE). (PEOPLE Vs. D.S): Client was in his car and as he was driving he threw a Monster Energy Drink at another car. The person in the other car got mad and called the police. Client was later arrested and charged. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney and explained the case. The charged was then later reduced to disturbing the peace.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): (PEOPLE Vs. A.A): Client was charged with battery. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney for dismissal. The case was then dismissed.
SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 647.6(A)(1) ANNOY/MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18: (PEOPLE Vs. H.L): Client was facing a serious crime and also Immigration consequences. Mr. Shaw reviewed the case and filed the necessary motion because the case violated his speedy trial right. The judge agreed. The motion was granted. The case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A)(PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. P.C): Mr. Shaw pitched a court program to the judge for the case to be dismissed. The judge granted the client into the program. After the client completed the terms the judge required, the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 594(B)(2)(A)(VANDALISM). (PEOPLE Vs. S.G). : Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney for a civil compromise based on the nature of the facts. Client paid $450 and the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT). (PEOPLE Vs. M.J): Client was going through a divorce and having a tough time with his life and resulted to using drugs. The use of drugs caused client to steal items from Home Depot. Mr. Shaw pitched court diversion and it was granted with terms. After completion of those terms, the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 14601.2 (DRIVING WITH SUSPENDED DRIVING LICENCE WITH A PRIOR DUI CONVICTION), CVC 22450 (RUNNING A STOP SIGN)(PEOPLE Vs. A.R): Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney for dismissal. The case was then dismissed.
SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/ SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 273.5(A)(DOMESTIC BATTERY ON PARTNER LEADING TO TRAUMATIC INJURY)(PEOPLE Vs. D.S): Client was accused of slapping, hitting and chocking the alleged victim. However, Mr. Shaw noticed the issue with the timeliness of the case being filed. Mr. Shaw filed the motion indicating that there was a Speedy Trial Right violation. The judge agreed. The motion was granted and the case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 602.1(A) OBSTRUCTING OR INTIMIDATING BUSINESS (PEOPLE Vs. M.L): Client was a former Police Officer. The witnesses at the scene fabricated the case against the client. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney provided mitigation for the case to be dismissed. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484 (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. I.S): Mr. Shaw Spoke with the client and spoke to the district attorney. The client completed terms that was requested by the district attorney. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. HS 11364(A) POSSESSION OF METH PIPE: (PEOPLE Vs. J.C): Mr. Shaw spoke to the DA in the case regarding the facts of the case. The case was dismissed on the first pre-trial.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23109(A) SPEED CONTEST, CVC 23103 (RECKLESS DRIVING):(PEOPLE Vs. J.M): Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the District Attorney. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 484(A) (PETTY THEFT): (PEOPLE Vs. F.P): Client was caught stealing items from a beauty supply store.Mr. Shaw spoke to the DA. Mr. Shaw then provided mitigation to the DA. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. HS 11550(A)(UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE): (PEOPLE Vs. D.C): Client was found to be under the influence. Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney about the case. Mr. Shaw provided mitigation to the DA. The case was then dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. CVC 14601.2(A) (DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED DRIVER LICENSE WITH PRIOR DUI CONVICTION): (PEOPLE Vs. J.G): Mr. Shaw spoke to the District Attorney regarding having the case dismissed due to the facts of the case. The case was dismissed.
1538.5 MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 25400(A)(1)(CARRY CONCEALABLE WEAPON IN VEHICLE): (PEOPLE Vs. K.K): Client was unlawfully stopped by Law Enforcement. Upon the illegal stop, Law Enforcement conducted an unlawful search of client’s vehicle. Upon the search law enforcement found a gun. Mr. Shaw filed the 1538.5 Motion to Suppress Evidence, which if granted would dismiss the case. The Court agreed that the client was unlawfully searched. The motion was granted. Therefore, the case was dismissed.
1538.5 MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. CVC 23152(F)(DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS): (PEOPLE Vs. F.R): Client was being followed by law enforcement. Law enforcement conducted a traffic stop for speeding. Without Law Enforcement having any additional information besides speeding, law enforcement unlawfully decided to conduct a DUI Investigation. The DUI investigation exceeded the purpose of the stop. The client was arrested and charged with DUI with Drugs. A chemical test revealed the client had at or around 1,000 ng of meth in his system. Mr. Shaw came onto the case and spoke to the client and spoke to the District Attorney. Mr. Shaw informed the District Attorney of the weakness of the case and needed to be dismissed. The District Attorney refused to dismiss the case. Mr. Shaw filed a 1538.5 Motion to Suppress. The court agreed with Mr. Shaw and granted his motion. The whole case was dismissed.
SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 273A(B)(WILLFUL CRUELTY TO CHILD):(PEOPLE Vs. D.G): Client was charged with Willful Cruelty to Child. Mr. Shaw noticed the case was not timely filed within the compliance of the speedy trial rights of client. Mr. Shaw filed the Speedy Trial Motion/Serna Motion. The court agreed and granted the motion. The case was dismissed.
CASE DISMISSED. PC 242 (BATTERY): (PEOPLE Vs. J.P): Client was being wrongfully accused of hitting his daughter. Mr. Shaw spoke to the client and it was revealed that the daughter was not telling the truth on what happen on the day of the incident. Mr. Shaw prepped the case for trial as he was very confident what the outcome of the case would be. On the day of the trial, the district attorney dismissed the case.
SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION/SERNA MOTION GRANTED. CASE DISMISSED. PC 148.9(A)(FALSELY REPRESENTED ID TO PEACE OFFICER), PC 22610(A) FELON IN POSSESSION OF A STUN GUN: (PEOPLE Vs. A.S): Client was charged with providing false information to the police authorities when she was pulled over. Client was also found with a stun gun in her vehicle. Mr. Shaw took on the case. Mr. Shaw evaluated the case and realized there is a constitutional violation of client’s rights. Mr. Shaw filed the righteous motion to dismiss the case. The court agreed with the motion and granted the motion. The case was dismissed.
CHARGE REDUCED TO DRY RECKLESS DRIVING (PEOPLE Vs. D.F): Client was charged with CVC 23152(G), which is driving while under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. Mr. Shaw took on the case and evaluated the case. After evaluating the case, Mr. Shaw was able to negotiate and reduce the DUI charge to Dry Reckless Driving due to an obvious weakness in the case.