Where an officer challenged the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in an action brought by a plaintiff who alleged that a traffic stop was initiated unconstitutionally, the order is reversed in part because the officer was entitled to qualified immunity since the officer was relied on facts similar to those in prior cases in which reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking was found and the extension of the traffic stop was upheld. Judgment is reversed.
DeLaRosa v. White, 15-3399, appealed from U.S. District Court, Nebraska, Gerrard, J.
Ms. Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.
Where a defendant challenged his 41 month sentence for trafficking in counterfeit goods, the trial court did not err in including the full amount of the value of the goods seized in the relevant sale and in applying a 12 level enhancement because he was in charge of the event, and denial of a two level reduction for the acceptance of responsibility was proper because he defendant did not voluntarily stop his involvement in criminal conduct. Judgment affirmed.
U.S. v. Jawad, 16-1596, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Reade, J.
Ms. Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.
Gun rights restoration win together with discharge from probation
Gun rights restoration attorney Lynne Torgerson recently achieved an amazing victory in a metro area court. Her client was on felony probation, after being convicted of a felony. The original plea agreement provided that if her client performed well on probation, that upon discharge from probation, the Court would restore his gun rights. Her client did perform very well on probation. He then brought a motion to be discharged from probation early, and, for restoration of his gun rights. The State vehemently fought the restoration of gun rights, in opposition to what he had originally been promised. Ultimately, the Court ordered that Ms. Torgerson’s client be discharged from probation and that his gun rights be restored. Her client recently received his permit to purchase. Bravo! State v. AW.
Criminal Defense Lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, her client was charged with 1st degree possession of 82 grams of methamphetamine. He/she had a lengthy criminal history, with criminal history points of 6 or more. A conviction for same would thusly result in a very lengthy prison sentence. A lengthy contested omnibus hearing was litigated, with several witnesses, about 10, testifying. A squad video was also introduced as evidence, which shows the initial encounter of the vehicle containing 4 occupants, the stop seizure, the searching of the car, the arrests, the seizure of the container containing 82 grams of methamphetamine. Ms. Torgerson raised issues of probable cause for the charge, and, Fourth Amendment suppression issues. The Court took the matter under advisement. The Court then issued an opinion dismissing the 1st degree controlled substance crime charge on the grounds that the State had failed to establish probable cause to believe Ms. Torgerson’s client possessed the methamphetamine. This result has removed the threat of many years in prison for her client.
whereby the case must be dismissed. Ms. Torgerson’s client should sleep easier this weekend.
The facts essentially were that Ms. Torgerson’s client, due to prior felony convictions, was ineligible to possess a firearm. In 2016, a fire occurred in the attic where her client was sleeping. Client had some personal property stored in the attic and was sleeping in the attic when the fire occurred. However, other people also had access to the attic. The home had been inherited by the client’s mother, who also lived in the home. Years before, the grandparents had lived in the home, and the grandfather was known to own firearms. The Fire Department responded and put out the fire. During the process of putting out the fire, a good number of items were thrown around. After the fire was extinguished, a firearm wrapped in plastic was found in the attic. Client was charged with felon in possession of a firearm. Because the evidence was circumstantial, and because there existed a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with the client’s guilt, the case was dismissed for lack of probable cause. Bravo Ms. Torgerson!
Over 50 years after his conviction , expungement lawyer Lynne Torgerson secures an expungement for Grady Shockley, a wonderful gentleman nearly 80 years old. Watch this heart warming story.
Expungement law update, good news
Lynne Torgerson, Esq., expungement lawyer, criminal defense lawyer, has been practicing law for over 26 years. She has been handling expungements for nearly as long, with good success.
Additionally, there is good news for people who want to obtain expungements. As of January 1, there is a new expungement law. Petitioners can now get get both judicial and executive branch records expunged even if they were convicted of an offense. For a number of years, people were barred from obtaining an expungement if there was a conviction in their case. The new law has waiting periods for when a person can seek an expungement, depending on the severity of the offense. Please note that to obtain an expungement of a conviction, you need to remain crime free, after you have been convicted, and after you have been discharged from probation. You must also go back to the county of conviction. If you have a conviction in more than one county, you must go back to each county in which you have a conviction you wish to have expunged. This is a new wonderful “second chance” law benefiting you. Ms. Torgerson would love to help you obtain an expungement. Expungements also help obtaining employment and housing. Ms. Torgerson has extensive experience obtaining expungements and she can help you on your case.
Ms. Torgerson has obtained expungements of judicial and executive records of misdemeanors and felonies, theft convictions, drug charges, assault cases, aggravated robbery, homicide, adult and juvenile cases, etc., for her clients. Call Lynne Torgerson, Esq., expungement lawyer, a lawyer of excellence! (612) 339-5073!
DISCLAIMER: Throughout this website, there are statements on various laws. Please note that this is not legal advice, and no reliance should be taken thereon, and an attorney client relationship is not established hereby. Further, please note that these legal statements may not currently be up to date, because the laws can change daily, and this website does not. Thus, you will always need to actually retain a lawyer to establish an attorney client relationship, to rely upon any advice, and to obtain up-to-date legal research. Thank you.