• Police Must UNDERSTAND LAWS, They Are Entrusted to Enforce and Obey. No Registration Sticker Needed
    May 14 2025

    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 did not check the windshield for the sticker. The information that he did gather—that there was no sticker on the rear or left windows—did not make it any less likely that Lopez–Soto was operating his car in conformity with the law.

    We have no doubt that Officer Hill held his mistaken view of the law in good faith, but there is no good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for police who do not act in accordance with governing law. See United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1006 (9th Cir.1999). To create an exception here would defeat the purpose of the exclusionary rule, for it would remove the incentive for police to make certain that they properly understand the law that they are entrusted to enforce and obey.

    Read the full case here: United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/205/1101/559308/

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    10 mins
  • Police Officer Claims He Could Hear Marijuana Being Loaded into a Car. Marijuana has Sound?
    May 7 2025

    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 unparticularized suspicion or `hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).

    Here, Jankowski testified that the dropping of marijuana packages -onto what surface he did not specify -made "a flat-sounding kind of thump" that, to him was "pretty" distinctive "at times." He could not describe the sound in any more detail, and he did not explain how it differed from thumps made by other kinds of packages.

    Marijuana has a distinctive appearance, taste, and odor, and perhaps even a feel, but it does not have a distinctive sound. This is true regardless of how it is packaged.

    A hunch may provide the basis for solid police work; it may trigger an investigation that uncovers facts that establish reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or even grounds for a conviction. A hunch, however, is not a substitute for the necessary specific, articulable facts required to justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion.

    Because the investigatory stop of Thomas violated the Fourth Amendment, the district court was required to suppress the evidence that resulted from the stop as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963). This evidence includes the marijuana, the shotgun, and Thomas's incriminating statements. It also includes the packages of marijuana found in the bathroom adjoining the garage at the residence under surveillance. As the district court found, " [t]he evidence obtained in the Thomas stop led Officers back to [the house at ] 5825 East 23rd." Because there is at least a reasonable possibility that the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful stop contributed to Thomas's convictions, we reverse those convictions and remand for further proceedings.

    Read the full case here: United States of America v. Andrew Charles Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2000), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/211/1186/582645/

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    13 mins
  • Can Police Stop a Car for Weaving WITHIN a Lane and Briefly Touching the Fog/Shoulder White Line?
    Apr 30 2025

    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 lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the left lane. Carmichael next observed the car drift to the left side of the left lane where its left wheels traveled along the solid yellow line for approximately ten seconds. The car then returned to the center of the left lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the right lane. Carmichael pulled the car over for possible violations of California Vehicle Code § 21658(a) (lane straddling) and California Vehicle Code § 23152(a) (driving under the influence).

    Appellant Efrain Estrada-Nava ("Estrada-Nava") was the driver of the car and appellant Eric Colin ("Colin") was his passenger. When Carmichael advised Estrada-Nava of the reasons for stopping him and asked for his license and registration, he noticed that both Estrada-Nava and Colin were nervous and shaking. He also noticed that the glove compartment contained a bottle of air freshener and a radar detector, that there were only three keys on Estrada-Nava's key ring, and that neither Estrada-Nava nor Colin owned the Honda. Suspecting that the car might have been stolen, Carmichael separately questioned Estrada-Nava and Colin about the ownership of the vehicle. On the basis of their slightly conflicting stories, their nervous appearances, and his own training and experience, Carmichael concluded they might be involved in drug trafficking. Estrada-Nava and Colin separately consented to a search of the Honda, which revealed marijuana and methamphetamine.3

    Colin filed a motion to suppress the narcotics evidence, in which Estrada-Nava joined, arguing that Carmichael illegally stopped the Honda and illegally detained the two of them thereafter. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding that Carmichael had reasonable suspicion to stop the car and that the evidence therefore was legally obtained. Estrada-Nava and Colin appealed.

    Read the full case here: United States of America v. Eric Col

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Can Police Pull Over Hispanic Males Because They Drove Careful Like "Didn't Want to Get Pulled Over"
    Apr 23 2025

    Few statements in the law are as often repeated: "[A]n investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith." ( In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957].) The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures dictates that traffic stops must be supported by articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the driver or a passenger has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law. ( People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 926 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785].) In this case, the police officer who conducted the traffic stop did so on a mere hunch that the defendant and his passenger were involved in criminal activity. In other words, the facts known to the officer were insufficient to support the objectively reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a detention under the Fourth Amendment.

    Read the full case here: PEOPLE v. DURAZO, 124 Cal.App.4th 728 (2004), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59147616add7b049343bbde7

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    12 mins
  • Immigration Pulled Over a Car Because the Occupants Were Hispanic and "Kind of Dirty Looking."
    Apr 16 2025

    The starting point for our analysis of whether the INS had reasonable suspicion to stop Serrano is United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment prohibits INS roving patrols from stopping vehicles in areas near but not at the Mexican border or its functional equivalent and from questioning a vehicle's occupants as to citizenship absent a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains illegal aliens.
    Id. at 882, 95 S.Ct. at 2580. Such a reasonable suspicion must be supported by “specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the vehicle contains illegal aliens. Id. at 884, 95 S.Ct. at 2582. Factors that may properly be considered include (1) characteristics of the area where the vehicle is encountered, such as proximity to the border, usual traffic patterns, and previous experience with alien traffic; (2) information about recent illegal border crossings; (3) erratic or evasive driving; (4) characteristics of the vehicle itself—whether it is among those types frequently used to transport aliens, whether it appears heavily loaded or has an unusually large number of passengers or its passengers are observed trying to hide; and (5), although not sufficient standing alone, the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants.
    Id. at 884–85, 887. The officer making the decision whether to stop is entitled to assess these factors in “light of his experience detecting illegal entry and smuggling.” Id. at 885, 95 S.Ct. at 2582 (citation omitted). Whether the INS had a reasonable suspicion requires a case-by-case analysis turning on the totality of the particular circumstances. Id. at 884 n. 10, 95 S.Ct. at 2582 n. 10.

    Read the full case here: United States v. Ortega-Serrano, 788 F.2d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 1986)

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    12 mins
  • Police Can't Enter a Home & Seize Firearms Without a Warrant Under "Community Caretaking Exception"
    Apr 9 2025

    Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440– 442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.

    Full Opinion here: CANIGLIA v. STROM, 593 US ___ (2021) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    10 mins
  • Can US Customs and Border Protection search your tech, including a cellphone and laptop?
    Apr 2 2025

    The panel reversed the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless searches of his cell phone by Customs and Border Protection officials, and vacated his conviction for importing cocaine.

    Applying United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9thCir. 2013) (en banc), the panel held that manual cell phone searches maybe conducted by border officials without reasonable suspicion but that forensic cell phone searches require reasonable suspicion. The panel clarified Cotterman by holding that “reasonable suspicion” in this context means that officials must reasonably suspect that the cell phone contains digital contraband. The panel further concluded that cell phone searches at the border, whether manual or forensic, must be limited in scope to whether the phone contains digital contraband; and that a broader search for evidence of a crime cannot be justified by the purposes of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The panel held that to the extent that a Border Patrol agent’s search of the defendant’s phone – which included the recording of phone numbers and text messages for further processing– went beyond a verification that the phone lacked digital contraband, the search exceeded the proper scope of aborder search and was unreasonable as a border search under the Fourth Amendment.

    The panel held that although the agents had reason to suspect the defendant’s phone would contain evidence leading to additional drugs, the record does not give rise to an objectively reasonable suspicion that the digital data in the phone contained contraband, and the border search exception therefore did not authorize the agents to conduct a warrantless forensic search of the defendant’s phone. The panel held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply because the border officials did not rely on binding appellate precedent specifically authorizing the cell phone searches at issue here.

    Read the full case here: United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002 (2019), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-50151/17-50151-2019-08-16.html

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    18 mins
  • Immigration Detentions Up, Federal Prosecutions Down: What's Going On Under Trump's Second Term?
    Mar 26 2025

    The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during January 2025 the government reported 3196 new immigration prosecutions. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 2.5 percent over the previous month.

    See the full reports here: https://tracreports.org/tracreports/bulletins/immigration/monthlyjan25/fil/

    Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
    LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
    https://lawstache.com
    (619) 357-6677

    Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
    https://lawstache.com/merch/

    Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

    Want to learn about our recent victories?
    https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

    If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

    *Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
    *Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
    *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
    *Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
    *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
    *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
    *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
    *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

    Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
    https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

    Based in San Diego, CA
    Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

    The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...

    Show more Show less
    13 mins
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_T1_webcro805_stickypopup