Claim OwnershipCollect Call with Lawstache
Subscribed: 7Played: 8
Subscribe
© 2025 Collect Call with Lawstache
Description
Every week, Anton Vialtsin (California attorney and YouTuber) discusses legal cases from the Supreme Court, 9th Circuit, and California State Courts. We focus on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. We make predictions and scrutinize the law. Anton Vialtsin handled over a hundred federal criminal cases from initial client interviews through sentencing. He has an in-depth knowledge of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Federal Criminal Codes and Rules, mandatory-minimum sentences, the death penalty, and too many state laws to list.
167 Episodes
Reverse
In Part 6 of our Top 10 Criminal Supreme Court Cases series, we break down the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio (1961) — the decision that applied the exclusionary rule to the states. This case is one of the most misunderstood in criminal law. How is Don King connected to this case? Was it really about obscenity? Did it create new rights for defendants? And what myths about illegal searches still confuse lawyers and the public today? We’ll cover: ✅ The facts of Mapp v. Ohio ✅ Why the Supreme Court...
🚔 Can police search your car without a warrant? This episode of our Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths series dives into the history of the “automobile exception” under the Fourth Amendment. In this video, we’ll cover: ✅ The facts behind the Supreme Court’s landmark decision during Prohibition ✅ Why cars are treated differently from homes under the Constitution ✅ The biggest myths about car searches and your rights ✅ What “probable cause” really means for traffic stops ✅ How this case still...
Welcome to Part 4 of our series on the Top 10 Supreme Court Criminal Law Cases and the Myths Surrounding Them! In this episode, we break down Terry v. Ohio (1968) — the landmark case that created the legal foundation for stop-and-frisk. 🚔 What really happened in Terry v. Ohio? ⚖️ What did the Supreme Court actually hold? ❌ And what are the biggest myths people still believe about stop-and-frisk? We’ll cover the facts, the holding, and the lasting impact on the Fourth Amendment — separating ...
Think you know the story of Katz v. United States (1967)? Most people believe this landmark Supreme Court case gave everyone a guaranteed right to privacy—but that’s not the full truth. In this video, we break down the biggest myths and misunderstandings about Katz, from whether the Fourth Amendment protects all conversations, to what counts as a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” to how this case changed surveillance law forever. This is Part 3 of our Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths s...
Think you know the story of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)? Most people believe this landmark Supreme Court case guaranteed everyone a free lawyer—but that’s not the full truth. In this video, we break down the biggest myths and misunderstandings about Gideon, from whether lawyers are really “free,” to the limits of the right to counsel, to what happened when Clarence Gideon was retried. This is Part 2 of our Top 10 Criminal Law Cases and Myths series. If you thought Miranda was misunderstood, ...
We’ve all heard it on TV: “You have the right to remain silent…” But most people misunderstand entirely what Miranda rights actually mean. In this video, I break down the Top Miranda Rights Myths that could cost you in the real world. 🚨 Learn the truth about: ~Do police always have to read Miranda at arrest? ~Does your case get thrown out if they don’t? ~Can silence alone protect you? ~What happens if you talk before the warning? ~Do Miranda rights apply everywhere? By the end, you’ll know...
In this video, we break down the California Court of Appeal’s August 2025 decision in People v. Harlow, a case that redefines how courts handle mental health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36. 🔎 What you’ll learn in this video: ~The story behind People v. Harlow and why the trial court denied diversion ~How the 2022 amendment to Penal Code 1001.36 changed the rules ~The difference between eligibility vs. suitability for diversion ~Why the Court of Appeal said a diagnosis made three years...
The California Court of Appeal just delivered a major decision in Muñoz v. Regents (Aug. 5, 2025) — ruling that the University of California’s policy banning undocumented students without federal work permits from campus jobs violates California law. In this video, I break down: ~What this case is about ~Why UC’s “risk management” defense failed ~How California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects workers based on immigration status ~The potential impact on universities and und...
Can an honest—but unreasonable—mistake erase criminal intent? In People v. Hendrix (2022), the California Supreme Court tackled this exact question after a man was convicted of burglary for walking into a home he thought belonged to his cousin. ⚖️ This video breaks down the Supreme Court’s ruling that a mistake of fact doesn’t have to be reasonable to negate specific intent crimes like burglary. The justices reversed the conviction because the jury was incorrectly told that Hendrix’s mistake...
In this video, attorney Anton Vialtsin breaks down the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 ruling in United States v. Robert Louis Carver — a major case on how California expungements under Penal Code §1203.4 are treated in federal court. Spoiler: they still count! If you thought your old convictions were wiped clean, this case might change your mind. Learn what this means for criminal history scores, sentencing, and anyone with a “dismissed” state record. 📚 Full Opinion: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datas...
🚨 USA v. Bejar-Guizar (2025) – Border Patrol Stop & 9th Circuit Immigration Ruling Explained 🚨 In this video, we break down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Bejar-Guizar, a key 2025 immigration case involving a border patrol stop near San Diego, California. The court upheld the legality of the stop based on reasonable suspicion as it related to immigration charge under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). 👮♂️ Was the Border Patrol stop constitutional? 📍 What evidence is ...
Can a misdemeanor conviction really strip you of your Second Amendment rights? In this video, we break down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' major decision in United States v. Michael Blake DeFrance (No. 23-2409), where the court reversed a federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) — the law that prohibits firearm possession after a domestic violence misdemeanor. You’ll learn: ~What § 922(g)(9) actually says ~Why the court ruled Montana’s DV statute was overbroad ~How this decision cou...
The Fifth Amendment’s privilege against selfincrimination generally applies only to those who “claim it.” Saechao, 418 F.3d at 1077 (quotation omitted). However, this general rule does not apply when an individual is “denied the free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.” Id. This can occur when the government creates a situation where “an individual’s refusal to answer incriminating questions subjects him to a penalty.” Id. In a “penalty situat...
While “knock and talks”—as defined by the United States Supreme Court—are considered constitutional, “knock and talks”—as defined and executed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)—are not. Considering the policies and practices governing how ICE conducts its “knock and talks,” the more accurate title for certain law enforcement operations would be “knock and arrests.” This Order serves to vacate those unlawful policies and practices. Read more here: https://www.aclusocal...
“The automobile exception provides ‘police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’” (People v. McGee(2020) 53Cal.App.5th 796, 801, quoting People v. Evans(2011) 200Cal.App.4th 735, 753.) The scope of a warrantless search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to...
The panel affirmed the district court’s revocation of Jackson Daniel Bowers’ supervised release in a case in which Bowers argued that Article III, section 2 of the Constitution affords supervisees the right to a jury trial in revocation proceedings held under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). In Bowers’ view, Article III and the Sixth Amendment are independent from each other and the Sixth Amendment trial-by-jury rights are more limited than those rights under Article III. Joining the Seventh Circuit, the...
The latest government case-by-case records reveal that as of March 31, 2025, federal efforts to prosecute white-collar crimes have continued to decline – down more than 10 percent from FY 2024 in the last full year of the Biden administration. The FBI is the lead investigative agency in many of these investigations. Thus, this decline is likely to grow even larger given a series of recent federal moves impacting cuts to the FBI and directing how FBI agents should spend their time. News cover...
What Officer Hill reasonably suspected, namely that Lopez–Soto had not affixed a registration sticker to his rear window, simply was not a violation of Baja California law. This cannot justify the stop under the Fourth Amendment. Nor is it possible to justify the stop objectively, as did the court in Sanders, with the facts available to Officer Hill when he made the stop: in his mistaken belief that Baja California law required the registration sticker to be visible from behind, Officer Hill ...
The government argues that we should credit Jankowski's testimony because of his nineteen years of experience as a police officer and thousands of hours of "stash house" surveillance. But while courts analyze the facts leading to an investigatory stop in light of a trained officer's experience, these facts must be "more than the mere subjective impressions of a particular officer." Hernandez-Alvarado, 891 F.2d at 1416. Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than an officer's "inchoate and...
On November 12, 1999, at approximately 2:05 a.m., Sergeant Thomas Carmichael observed a blue Honda traveling at 70 m.p.h. northbound in the right lane on Interstate 15. Carmichael first observed the Honda from his patrol car, which was positioned 75 yards behind it. He observed the car drift onto the solid white fog line on the far side of the right lane and watched the car's wheels travel along the fog line for approximately ten seconds. The Honda then drifted to the left side of the right l...
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States