Yampolsky & Margolis

Current Laws On Medical And Recreational Marijuana

The laws related to medical and recreational marijuana in the state of Nevada are constantly evolving. Presently, Nevada’s medical marijuana program allows cardholders (18 and older) to possess up to two and a half ounces of marijuana for medical purposes. In order to obtain a medical marijuana card, the patient must be prescribed it by a physician to treat illnesses such as cancer, PTSD, AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, and other similar conditions. The card lasts one to two years with the option to renew it. Cardholders and their caregivers must adhere to vigorous rules and regulations regarding their marijuana purchasing, consumption, and cultivation. Otherwise, there are possibilities for criminal charges for possession and other offenses.

Recreational marijuana users over the age of 21 are now permitted to purchase, possess and consume marijuana without a medical card. However, there are restrictions that exist for recreational users. A person can legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana in the state of Nevada in their residence, but possessing a larger quantity is considered a crime unless you are a licensed vendor. Using marijuana in public is a misdemeanor, with a $600 fine involved. Possession of more than one ounce and less than fifty pounds of marijuana is considered a felony, as it is categorized as possession with an intent to distribute. Possession of more than fifty pounds is a trafficking offense, with penalties ranging from one year to life imprisonment depending on the amount involved.

Punishments For Drug Paraphernalia In Nevada

In the city of Las Vegas, drug paraphernalia possession is against the municipal court statutes and is considered a misdemeanor with up to six months in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $1,000. Typically, if an individual is convicted of drug paraphernalia possession, they will not end up in jail. A competent drug crimes attorney will play a large role in ensuring that this type of offense is resolved with the least severe consequences possible. Because paraphernalia is not a drug crime, these cases can be dismissed due to the low level of the offense. The best way to defend against drug paraphernalia charges include factors such as lack of intent and police misconduct.

Can Law Enforcement Search Vehicles Or Homes For Drugs Or Drug Paraphernalia?

In most cases, law enforcement must have a warrant to search homes for drugs or drug-related materials. This would have to involve probable cause, meaning there must be information involved that leads the police to believe that there are illegal substances in the home.

Vehicles are slightly different. If an officer pulls over a motorist and asks permission to search, and the individual gives them permission, this is considered a legal search. Otherwise, they must also obtain a warrant, unless they have probable cause which can be obtained by things such as odors or drug-sniffing dogs. It is important to note that police need an additional search warrant in order to search the trunk.

For more information regarding marijuana and possession laws in Nevada, contact Yampolsky & Margolis Criminal Defense today.

Common Legal Defense Strategies Used Against Drug Cases

The main priority of any attorney representing a criminal defense drug case is to do everything they can to keep their client out of prison. Additionally, avoiding a felony charge is an important goal, which can be done by getting the charges dismissed, or getting the case acquitted in the trial process. Many times in drug cases, minimizing exposure plays a large role in how the case is resolved. Explaining the circumstances that the defendant was in when they were arrested for drug possession can allow the case to take on a different element, perhaps convincing the prosecuting party of an alternate perspective.

Negotiating for lesser convictions is crucial for the ultimate sentencing of the defendant, and a skilled attorney can use several different angles to do so. Obtaining the best offer for their client is the cornerstone of any successful lawyer, and it is their job to ensure the legal security being imposed, and that due process is being followed. A skilled legal representative analyzes elements of the case such as:

• How law enforcement constructed the case
• The defendant’s intent
• Insufficient evidence

Bringing aspects of the case to light that may decrease the criminal charge is very important to a criminal drug case. Arriving at a plea bargain that minimizes the penalties and recognizes the legal autonomy of the defendant is an important objective for any attorney to work towards. Each case is different, and the strategy is to minimize any exposure that the client has and get them the best possible deal.

If you have any questions regarding the legal representation of a drug case, please do not hesitate to contact Yampolsky & Margolis Criminal Defense today for an initial consultation.

Antonin Scalia died. I didn’t agree with him often but he was an intellectual force for the conservative wing of the US Supreme Court. When I argued to him in Riggins VS Nevada, Riggins v. Nevada (90-8466), 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (click here to read the argument), he was my most hostile questioner. I still remember when I said I wanted my client unmedicated so that he would appear in his natural demeanor. Scalia asked, if it was OK for a defendant to put on a clown suit. I felt like saying YES, if he borrowed one of yours, your Bozo-ness. But, I won 7-2, OF course Scalia voted against me. Take that your Bozoness.

Summary to the case:

“RIGGINS v. NEVADA

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA No. 90-8466. Argued January 15, 1992-Decided May 18, 1992

When petitioner Riggins, while awaiting a Nevada trial on murder and robbery charges, complained of hearing voices and having sleep problems, a psychiatrist prescribed the antipsychotic drug Mellaril. after he was found competent to stand trial, Riggins made a motion to suspend the Mellaril’s administration until after his trial, arguing that its use infringed upon his freedom, that its effect on his demeanor and mental state during trial would deny him due process, and that he had the right to show jurors his true mental state when he offered an insanity defense. after hearing the testimony of doctors who had examined Riggins, the trial court denied the motion with a one-page order giving no indication of its rationale. At Riggins’ trial, he presented his insanity defense and testified, was convicted, and was sentenced to death. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held,inter alia, that expert testimony presented at trial was sufficient to inform the jury of the Mellaril’s effect on Riggins’ demeanor and testimony.

Held: The forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins’ trial violated rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 133-138.

(a) The record narrowly defines the issues in this case. Administration of Mellaril was involuntary once Riggins’ motion to terminate its use was denied, but its administration was medically appropriate. In addition, Riggins’ Eighth Amendment argument that the drug’s administration denied him the opportunity to show jurors his true mental condition at the sentencing hearing was not raised below or in the petition for certiorari and, thus, will not be considered by this Court. P.133.

(b) A pretrial detainee has an interest in avoiding involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs that is protected under the Due Process Clause. Cf.Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210; Bell v.Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 545. Once Riggins moved to terminate his treatment, the State became obligated to establish both the need for Mellaril and its medical appropriateness. Cf. Harper, supra, at 227. Due process certainly would have been satisfied had the State shown that the treatment was medically appropriate and, considering less intrusive alternatives, essential for Riggins’ own safety or the safety of others. The State also might have been able to justify the treatment, if medically appropriate , by showing that an adjudication of guilt or innocence could not be obtained by using less intrusive means. However, the trial court allowed the drug’s administration to continue without making any determination of the need for this course or any findings about reasonable alternatives, and it failed to acknowledge Riggins’ liberty interest in freedom from antipsychotic drugs. Pp. 133-137.

(c) There is a strong possibility that the trial court’s error impaired Riggins’ constitutionally protected trial rights. Efforts to prove or disprove actual prejudice from the record before this Court would be futile, and guesses as to the trial’s outcome had Riggins’ motion been granted would be speculative. While the precise consequences of forcing Mellaril upon him cannot be shown from a trial transcript, the testimony of doctors who examined Riggins establishes the strong possibility that his defense was impaired. Mellaril’s side effects may have impacted not only his outward appearance, but also his testimony’s content, his ability to follow the proceedings, or the substance of his communication with counsel. Thus, even if the expert testimony presented at trial allowed jurors to assess Riggins’ demeanor fairly, an unacceptable risk remained that forced medication compromised his trial rights. Pp. 137-138.

(d) While trial prejudice can sometimes be justified by an essential state interest, the record here contains no finding to support a conclusion that administration of antipsychotic medication was necessary to accomplish an essential state policy. P. 138.

107 Nev. 178,808 P. 2d 535, reversed and remanded.

O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 138. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined except as to Part II-A,post, p. 146.

Mace J. Yampolsky argued the cause for petitioner

You can also listen to the oral argument here.

There is a fight over who should name his successor. Obama or the next President. Expect a bloody battle!

Domestic Violence (DV) Classes are an educational program that is required in the state of Nevada by the court if you are convicted of a DV. For a first offense, it is a 26-week course. For a 2nd offense, it is a 52-week course.

Domestic Violence Classes meet national standards and are recognized by Las Vegas courts and organizations that allow distance learning. The program provides meaningful content intended to meet court, legal, or employer requirements. We also recommend the Domestic Violence Class in Las Vegas for personal growth.

The Court requirements in the state of Nevada

The state of Nevada does not allow online classes for domestic violence.  However, due to Covid 19, the courts are flexible and will allow you to take the course online.  It is unclear if this online component will remain after Covid-19 clears up.

Different courts, like the Las Vegas justice court and municipal courts, may have slightly different requirements for domestic violence or batterers intervention classes. Sometimes a shorter length class might be required, like a 13-hour program that you can do online. Please check with your local court to ensure that a distance learning class will be acceptable and meet your specific requirements.

What is Domestic Violence?

NRS 200.485  Battery which constitutes domestic violence: Penalties; referring child for counseling; restriction against dismissal, probation, and suspension; notice of prohibition against owning or possessing a firearm; order to surrender, sell or transfer firearm; penalty for a violation concerning firearm; definitions. [Effective through June 30, 2020.]

1.  Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsections 2 to 5, inclusive, or NRS 200.481, a person convicted of a battery which constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018:

(a) For the first offense within 7 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to:

(1) Imprisonment in the city or county jail or detention facility for not less than 2 days, but not more than 6 months; and

(2) Perform not less than 48 hours, but not more than 120 hours, of community service.

The person shall be further punished by a fine of not less than $200, but not more than $1,000. A term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph may be served intermittently at the discretion of the judge or justice of the peace, except that each period of confinement must be not less than 12 consecutive hours and must occur at a time when the person is not required to be at his or her place of employment or on a weekend.

(b) For the second offense within 7 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to:

(1) Imprisonment in the city or county jail or detention facility for not less than 20 days, but not more than 6 months; and

(2) Perform not less than 100 hours, but not more than 200 hours, of community service.

The law recently changed for DV cases. In Nevada that law is that you do not get a jury trial for misdemeanor cases. However, since the law changed for domestic violence and a conviction will affect your gun rights now you do get a jury trial. What we try to do is resolve the cases so it is not a DV conviction and avoid the DV classes because if you are ordered to do the DVB classes and do not complete them the judge could hold you in contempt of court and make the violator do jail time.

For more information on how Criminal lawyers can help you with Nevada Domestic Violence Classes, please contact us at (702) 385-9777, or visit us here:

Yampolsky & Margolis Criminal Defense Las Vegas

625 S 6th St Las Vegas, NV 89101

(702) 385-9777

Domestic Violence Lawyers Nevada

A probation revocation hearing is different from a criminal trial in several ways. Simply put- a probation revocation hearing occurs when you are charged with violating the terms of your probation and are ordered to appear before a judge who will decide, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether you have violated the terms of your probation.

To get a better understanding of what happens during a probation revocation hearing, let’s break down each of those components.

Violating Probation Terms

As you are probably aware, your probation is subject to conditions you must adhere to. These conditions often include:

• Follow all local, state, and federal laws.
• Do not use any controlled substances, except with medical prescription.
• Submit to testing for use of controlled substances.
• Submit to breathalyzer tests.
• Consent to searches of your premises, vehicle, and personal property.
• Do not change jobs or place of residence without informing your probation officer.
• Do not travel outside the state without permission from your probation officer.
• Do not possess any firearms.
• Obey any and all special conditions of your probation.

Hearing Before a Judge

Unlike a criminal trial, which involves a jury making findings of fact, a probation revocation hearing is before a judge. The judge will hear arguments from both sides and render a decision.

Burden of Proof

In a probation revocation hearing, the prosecutor does not need to prove to the judge that you violated the terms of your probation “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecutor need only prove that you violated the terms of your probation “by a preponderance of the evidence.” This is a lower burden of proof, which means it’s an easier job for the prosecution than the burden they normally have during a criminal trial to prove each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

“By a preponderance of the evidence” basically means that one side is more likely true than not. Therefore, if the prosecution can persuade the judge that there is a 51% likelihood that you violated the terms of your probation, they will be successful.

Outcome of the Hearing

If the judge finds that you violated the terms of your probation, the judge may impose stricter limitations on your probation or revoke your probation, which might result in imprisonment.

If the judge finds that you did not violate the terms of your probation, the current length and terms of your probation will continue.

As mentioned, the prosecution has a lower burden of proof in a probation revocation hearing than in a criminal trial, therefore, being represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney during a probation revocation hearing is crucial to protect your rights and freedom.