Your Law Podcast

In this Season 1 finale the question of "Can a search be allowed without consent?" is answered, while also keeping the 4th amendment in mind. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, this week our favorite lawyer returns to discuss the Exclusionary Rule and Truth in Evidence. These upcoming series of episodes were inspired by a question sent in to yourlawpod@gmail.com pertaining to evidence found in a warrantless search. Cases mentioned on this weeks episode listed below.

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this week we discuss the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and and how YOU can be protected! Andre also discusses his experience in cases where provisions in this Act were violated.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=1.5.&part=4.&chapter=3.&article=

Ladies and Gentlemen, this week's episode was inspired from a question sent in to yourlawpod@gmail.com. The question is in regards to providing a bilingual lease agreement, but we discuss more than just that this week. Listed below were sections discussed on this week's show.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1941.&lawCode=CIV

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1942.&lawCode=CIV

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1953

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1954

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1717

The most anticipated topic requested so far, Online Defamation. The previous three episodes (Defamation, Sec. 230, Anti-SLAPP) have led up this edition and provide some helpful information. Of course you can enjoy without listening to those episodes, but you wouldn't watch Back to the Future Part 3 without watching the first two, so, proceed as you wish.


https://casetext.com/case/vogel-v-felice 

Ladies and Gentlemen this week we return to discuss the Anti-SLAPP statute in California. Necessary information in this statute will key into understanding our next episode featuring Online Defamation. Included are links to articles and cases referenced on this episode. And you can still send your questions into yourlawpod@gmail.com

https://medialaw.org/component/k2/item/4916-rachel-maddow-wins-dismissal-of-oan-defamation-suit-under-anti-slapp-statute

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/oan-to-pay-msnbc-250-000-in-fees-after-losing-maddow-libel-suit

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/23/899.html (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr.)

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b439add7b0493476b135 (Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 941.)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1544271.html (Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1857269.html (Shantel Jackson v. Floyd Mayweather Jr.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/323 (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1053102.html (AMPEX CORPORATION v. CARGLE)

Ladies and Gentlemen we return and prep for our discussion regarding Online Defamation, we do so by discussing Section 230 of the Communications Decency act. This is definitely useful information to have before we tackle the topic of Online Defamation happening next week. And don't forget to send your questions to yourlawpod@gmail.com

Cubby v. Compuserve (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/776/135/2340509/)

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4540)

Sec. 230 of Communications Decency Act (https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-47-telecommunications/47-usc-sect-230.html)

Ladies and Gentlemen we return this week with Defamation. This has been a hot topic among requesters, and we dive head first by discussions CACI 1704 and CACI 1720, plus we touch on SLAPP Lawsuits and Anti SLAPP motions. And don't forget you can send in YOUR questions to YourLawPod@gmail.com.

This week we answer a listener question who was cited for Exhibition of Speed when screeching their tires after a red light. Our favorite Lawyer goes over a very similar case where an appeal gave him and his client the victory. And don't forget to send in YOUR questions to yourlawpod@gmail.com!

On this week's episode we discuss another question sent in to YourLawPod@gmail.com that simply asked "What is a Citizen's Arrest?". We also briefly discuss Shopkeeper Privilege. And don't forget YOU can send in YOUR questions to YourLawPod@gmail.com and they can be discussed on the show!

Items discussed:

-CA Penal Codes 837, 839, 841

-People v. Campbell (1972), 27 Cal. App. 3d 849

-Hill v. Levy (1953), 117 Cal. App. 2d 667

-CACI 1400, 1409

What can an employer legally ask you during a job interview? What can you do if your landlord throws away your stuff without your knowledge and consent while breaking an agreement? Both questions answered in deep detail on this week's episode!

This week, Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee discuss portions of the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act that specifically speak to regulations regarding repossessing property.

Codes Cited: 

15 U.S. Code 1692e

15 U.S. Code 1692f

CA Bus & Prof Code 9609 

CA Bus & Prof Code 7508.2d

CA Civil Code Section 2983.3b

CA Civil Code Section 2983.3c

This week, Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee discuss Andre's belief that Miranda Rights should be applied to traffic stops. Listen for some very useful information that every motorist should have.

Cases and Codes Cited:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)

CA Penal Code Section 632(a)

CA Penal Code Section 632(d)

CA Penal Code Section 633(a)

42 USC 1983

CA Penal Code Section 1054

This week, Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee discuss an ongoing case where some circuits have ruled that Chalk on your Tires (to verify how long you've been parked in one spot) is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Also, it wasn't the sniffles, it was the COVID.

Article regarding Lawsuit: https://www.lajollalight.com/news/story/2020-11-20/san-diego-police-using-new-system-for-detecting-parking-violations-after-city-is-sued-over-chalking-tires?fbclid=IwAR2ulOazKFUWgenY46gyWKL7RAZ0LrexAJcjInIfbUhUNDIcQrBJzYgEdSo

Cases Cited: 

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Jones v. United States, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee discuss California Civil Code Section 1950.5 pertaining to Security Deposits. As always feel free to send in questions to YourLawPod@gmail.com

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee discuss Late Fees as it pertains to Renters Rights in California. Most Late Fees as we know them, are actually illegal.

Statute cited: CA Civil Code Section 1671(d).

Cases cited: Orozco v. Casimiro, (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7, Knight v. Marks, 183 Cal. 354, 357 (1920)

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee go over election results with 55% - 60% of precincts reporting, finishing up discussing CA Propositions 14 - 25 and their impact on the State moving forward.

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee go over the recent Berkeley IGS Poll conducted for California Propositions 15, 16, 21, and 22. Poll results are from October 16-23 compared to results from September 9-15.

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee wrap up The 2020 California Proposition Series with discussions on CA Propositions 14 through 25, with time stamps provided! Send any questions to YourLawPod@gmail.com

-Prop 14 (14:45)

-Prop 15 (22:03)

-Prop 16 (28:04)

-Prop 17 (32:09)

-Prop 18 (34:56)

-Prop 19 (37:49)

-Prop 20 (44:21)

-Prop 21 (54:38)

-Prop 22 (01:01:39)

-Prop 23 (01:13:48)

-Prop 24 (01:23:40)

-Prop 25 (01:31:27)

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee continue The 2020 California Proposition Series with discussions on CA Proposition 17 (which, if passed, would restore the right of voting to Parolees), and CA Proposition 18 (which, if passed, allows 17 year old citizens who will be 18 at the time of the General Election to Vote in Primaries and Special Elections).

Lawyer Andre Verdun and Host Ozzy Vee continue The 2020 California Proposition Series with discussions on CA Proposition 15 (which, if passed, would require Commercial and Industrial properties be taxed based on their Market Value rather than their Purchase Price), and CA Proposition 19 (which, if passed allows more Tax Assessment Transfers as well as requiring non - principal residences that are inherited be reassessed at Market Value when transferred). 

Host Ozzy Vee and Lawyer Andre Verdun begin by discussing the impact and aftermath of the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The 2020 California Proposition Series continues with a discussion on CA Proposition 21 which, if passed, would grant local communities the ability to pass Rent Control for their cities on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago.

Host Ozzy Vee and Lawyer Andre Verdun continue the "2020 California Proposition Series" and break down CA Proposition 25 which, if passed, would eliminate Cash Bail. As with anything regarding Law, it's never that simple, we look at both sides of this Proposition looking at the Pros and Cons of each side. Still feel free to send any questions to YourLawPod@gmail.com

In this debut Episode, Host Ozzy Vee and Lawyer Andre Verdun kick of the "2020 California Proposition Series" and break down CA Proposition 22 which, if passed, would reclassify App-Based Drivers as Independent Contractors and not Employees or Agents. (Recorded late August)