Srai Law Office

September 2012: Client charged with 484 misdemeanor (petty theft) for allegedly stealing from Walmart. Our office was able to convince the District Attorney to offer informal diversion. After the Client completed 40 hours of community service all charges were dismissed.

August 2012 A young Client was charged with reckless driving as a misdemeanor. The initial offer by the District Attorney’s Office was for the client to serve one day in jail and remain on 3 years of probation. After doing a thorough investigation and providing the findings to the District Attorney the offer was changed to a speeding infraction, which carried a minimal fine and no probation. The Client was able to attend traffic school to avoid any points on his driver’s license.

August 2012 Cases: Client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Our office was able to get the charge reduced to a wet reckless with a Helmandollar. Initially, the Client was facing jail time and also a one year license suspension on his Class A driver’s license. The Helmandollar prevented the DMV from suspending the client’s driver’s license and the wet reckless offer carried no jail time.

July 2012: Class A driver charged with allegedly violating VC 22348(c), Driving out of Designated Lane. A conviction on this charge would lead to Client’s insurance rate to increase because California Law does not allow Class A drivers to attend traffic school for moving violations. Further, Client’s employer signaled that any increase in points would put his employment at risk with the company. On day of trial, Officer indicated he lacked any independent recollection of the alleged violation. Client found not guilty.

July 2012: Client was charged with allegedly violating 243(e), misdemeanor domestic battery. The District Attorney’s original offer was 10 days in county jail. However, after prolonged negotiations with the District Attorney the offer was changed to 6 month plea in abeyance and a requirement that the Client enroll in a 16 week anger management course. After providing proof of successful completion of the course the District Attorney dismissed the case.

June 2012: Client charged with driving on suspended driver's license as a misdemeanor and a failure to appear. These charges carried significant fines and mandatory probation. Also, the charge was "priorable" which meant increased penalties for any further offenses. Our office was able to get the charge reduced to an infraction, driving without a valid driver's license. This infraction carried a small fine, no probation, and is not priorable.

July 2012: Client was charged with VC 21453(A), not stopping his vehicle at a red light. The only evidence in this case was a video from a red light ticket enforcement camera. The Officer faced several issues in regards to introducing the red light camera findings into evidence. Also, the Officer had to establish that this automatic enforcement met the requirements of VC 21455.5(A) and VC 21455.6. On the day of trial, the court dismissed the case. If you are facing a similar situation, be sure to review People v. Borzakian 203 Cal.App.4th 525 (2012).

June 2012: Client charged with misdemeanor 415 (disturbing the peace) during an alleged bar fight. Original offer included jail time and probation. Case was set for trial and the District Attorney dismissed the case during readiness conference.

May 2012: Client charged with a misdemeanor for driving with a suspended motor operator permit and faced possible jail time, and a fine of 11,000 dollars. DA dismissed misdemeanor charge and client plead no contest to an infraction and paid a minimal fine.

April 2012: DMV hearing victory. Client charged with DUI with .20 blood alcohol level. Our office won the DMV hearing and the client suffered no license suspension.

April 2012: Client charged with second DUI with a high blood alcohol level. Our office was able to get the charges reduced to a wet reckless in which client served no jail time.

We have updated our recent cases section: http://www.srailawoffice.com/lawyer-attorney-1723678.html

We have finally updated our recent cases section on our website. http://www.srailawoffice.com/lawyer-attorney-1723678.html

California Expungement You are NOT eligible to file for a petition to expunge the convictions under California Penal Code 1203.4(a) for the following convictions: Any misdemeanor within the provisions of Vehicle Code section 42001(b). Any violation of Penal Code section 286(c), 288, 288a(c), 288.5, or 289(j).... A felony under Penal Code section 261.5(d). Any infraction. See more

One plausible avenue to contest these citations is to object to the officer’s testimony on the grounds of hearsay. In most cases the officer lacks the foundation (does not know the operation of the camera) and personal knowledge (was not present at the scene when the violation occurred), and thus the officer's testimony would be inadmissible.

Many traffic cameras in California are managed and operated by private companies. The citations that individuals receive are issued and mailed by these companies. Generally, when an individual chooses to contest a traffic citation a police officer will testify in support of the photo evidence.

www.srailawfirm.com