Digital evidence is powerful in a courtroom but legally fragile. Every piece of it must have been lawfully obtained, properly preserved, and accurately interpreted. Our firm attacks all three. Our criminal defense attorney is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and has spent over 20 years defending clients against computer and internet crime charges at both the state and federal level in Los Angeles. When your case involves federal charges — which many computer crime prosecutions do — you need an attorney with actual federal court experience.

Fourth Amendment Suppression of Digital Evidence

Search warrants for computers, phones, and online accounts must describe the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. Warrants authorizing the wholesale seizure of entire devices or accounts without an adequate factual basis are frequently overbroad and subject to suppression. When key digital evidence is excluded, prosecutions often collapse entirely. Our firm scrutinizes every warrant in every case and files targeted suppression motions where constitutional grounds exist.

Challenging IP Address Attribution

An IP address identifies a network, not a person. Shared networks, open Wi-Fi connections, VPNs, and spoofed addresses all create reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was actually the user behind the alleged online activity. Our firm works with independent digital forensic experts to challenge the government’s attribution evidence and present alternative explanations consistent with innocence.

Entrapment in Undercover Sting Operations

Many computer and internet crime arrests result from undercover law enforcement operations. When government agents initiated the conduct, induced the alleged offense, or went beyond providing an opportunity into actively creating one, entrapment is a complete defense. Our firm investigates the conduct of every undercover operation and pursues entrapment defenses aggressively where the facts support them.

Challenging Intent and Authorization

Most computer crime statutes require proof that the defendant acted without authorization and with criminal intent. When access was reasonably understood to be permitted, when technical ambiguity surrounds the scope of authorization, or when the defendant lacked criminal intent, these elements can be effectively challenged. Our firm builds lack of intent and authorization defenses through technical evidence, communications, and expert testimony.