Brandishing a Replica Firearm, Airport Court, Diversion
Our client, age 55, had an ongoing argument with his neighbor in Beverly Hills about the noise the neighbor created at regular parties at his house. Our client, a fashion photographer, bought a house in the area to get away from the noisy area where he lived earlier.
One day, after an especially noisy party at the neighbor’s house, which other neighbors also complained about, the neighbor accused our client of calling the police to shut down the party, when in fact he had not called the police. Other neighbors had.
The neighbor told our client over the phone that he would send over a “few friend to fix his hearing,” suggesting that our client might be beat up by the neighbor’s friends.
Several minutes later, our client heard a loud knock on his front door. Our client looked through the front door’s peep hole and saw two very large construction workers from a house being built nearby. Our client quickly understood that his neighbor had asked and probably paid such men to rough up our client.
Our client grabbed a fake gun he kept in a closet near the front door and opened the front door holding the fake gun at his side. The two large construction workers immediately saw the gun and believing it was real, walked away without beating up our client.
Our client did not point the run at the two men and did not tell them he would shoot them. He merely answered the door and said, “Good morning, may I help you?”
The two construction workers apparently reported back to the noisy neighbor that our client had a gun and so this was why they were unable to beat up our client.
The neighbor then called the Beverly Hills police, who immediately came to our client’s house and arrested our client. Our client explained that the “firearm” was a replica firearm and that he never pointed it at the two men.
Our client had no prior criminal record, but the police did not seem to listen to our client, as they arrested him and took him away to the Beverly Hills police station, which was quite confusing to our client.
Once at the police station, police explained that they had arrested him for brandishing a replica firearm, a violation of Penal Code § 417.4.
While the police may have understood there was such a crime, they obviously did not read it because the statute specifically exempts brandishing a replica firearm in self-defense, which is exactly what our client did. It was a textbook case of doing so.
The Los Angeles City Prosecutor’s Office at the Airport Courthouse also apparently did not read the statute, as they filed a misdemeanor case against our client for violation of § 417.4.
When the client contacted Greg Hill, he explained what had happened to him and how he was so confused why he would be arrested at all. Greg suggested that the police probably heard a different version of events from the construction workers and the noisy neighbor.
Greg then explained how such a case might be resolved. Greg described how judicial diversion was available and what the likely terms would be for the client. Greg told the client that he likely would be placed on judicial diversion for a period of six months to a year and that the judge would require he perform 20 to 40 hours of community service. Greg told the client that in prior cases he had similar to this, diversion terms had included taking a firearm safety course.
As Greg expected (usually Greg’s guess is not quite so accurate), the judge handling the case did agree to placing the client on judicial diversion on terms that included 40 hours of community service and taking a firearm safety course. The judge also specified that our client had to stay away from the two construction workers and obey all laws while on diversion.
The judge made the length, or term, of judicial diversion one year, but stated that if the client completed all terms completed all terms in six months, she would end it at that time.
The very next day, our client enrolled in and completed a firearm safety course. He also arranged where to perform his community service. He was extremely happy that the case was resolved so easily, although Greg told him his self-defense most likely would prevail at trial.
The client, however, did not want the stress of trial and the risk that the jury would instead believe the construction workers, who claimed our client walked over the construction site and drew his replica firearm, ordering the men to stop making so much noise.
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona