Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds Admission of Google Maps Timeline Data Without Requiring Expert Testimony

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Jones, holding that the Commonwealth need not call an expert witness to introduce Google Maps timeline data recovered from a defendant’s cell phone. The Court held that no expert is required so long as the testifying witness does not offer their own technical opinion and instead simply replays what the app automatically displays. This decision makes it easier for either side to introduce cell phone location data obtained from various Google apps and records.

The Facts of Jones

At around 2:00 a.m. on June 18, 2024, a masked man robbed a Turkey Hill convenience store in Lancaster County. The store clerk later identified the defendant based on his eyes, dreadlocks, and voice after seeing his Facebook profile. The police obtained a search warrant. After obtaining the warrant, the police seized the defendant’s cell phone and tablet. Both devices were synchronized with and linked to his Google account.

A detective accessed the defendant’s Google Maps “Your Timeline” feature, which automatically logs a user’s past movements when enabled. The Timeline showed:

• The defendant leaving home at 1:35 a.m.,

• The defendant arriving at a hotel directly next to the Turkey Hill at 1:47 a.m.,

• The defendant remaining there until 2:01 a.m., which was the time of the robbery, and

• The defendant then traveling to a nearby Sheetz convenience store, where surveillance video confirmed the defendant’s presence.

At trial, the Commonwealth introduced screenshots of the defendant’s Google Maps data through the detective’s testimony. The defendant objected, arguing that an expert witness from Google or a digital forensics specialist was required to explain how the timeline information was generated. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant of robbery, theft, and simple assault. He received a lengthy state prison sentence.

The Issue on Appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court

The defendant argued on appeal that the Google Maps Timeline contained inaccuracies, including suspicious travel distances and impossible driving times, and that only an expert could explain those discrepancies. Therefore, he claimed, allowing the detective to testify as a layperson about the data violated Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 701 and 702.

The Superior Court’s Holding

The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, concluding:

Google Maps Timeline data may be introduced through a lay witness when the witness is simply describing the information displayed on the app and is not explaining any underlying technical processes.

The Court emphasized several key points:

1. The detective did not provide technical or scientific testimony. He accessed Google Maps the same way an ordinary user would. He opened the app and clicked “Your Timeline.” He did not testify about how Google calculates GPS coordinates or how the software functions internally.

2. The data was automatically generated by Google, not manually interpreted by police. Because the app itself creates and stores the Timeline, the officer was merely relaying what he saw on the screen, much like reading business records or phone-company logs.

3. Any inaccuracies went to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility. The defendant pointed to anomalies such as a twelve-minute trip to travel 0.2 miles, but the Court held these issues were for the jury to consider, not grounds for exclusion. The detective freely acknowledged the inconsistencies on cross-examination.

4. Lay testimony is proper when interpreting data within common understanding. The Court compared the case to Commonwealth v. Grubbs, where a detective testified to cell-site location data without expert qualification because he merely relayed coordinates already calculated by service providers. In contrast, cases where expert testimony was required, such as interpreting technical IP address data, were distinguishable because they involved complex digital processes. In reality, it is not so clear what the difference is.

This opinion signals that Pennsylvania courts will generally treat Google Maps data as non-technical user data, similar to ordinary phone records, so long as:

• The witness does not attempt to explain how the data is generated,

• The witness only describes the app’s output, and

• The prosecution can authenticate the device and account.

It also underscores that defendants may need their own expert if they wish to challenge the reliability of such location data.

The Takeaway

The Superior Court held that Google Maps GPS Timeline screenshots are admissible through lay testimony, and any questions about their accuracy go to the weight of the evidence, not whether the jury may consider them.

This ruling will likely make it easier for prosecutors to introduce Google-based location evidence in robbery, homicide, and gun cases without needing specialized experts, while placing the burden on the defense to identify and challenge inaccuracies through independent expert analysis when appropriate. It does, however, also make it easier for the defense to introduce this evidence should the evidence be helpful to the defendant. In general, this case follows a trend of courts making it easier for the Commonwealth to introduce electronic evidence without requiring much in the way of safeguards.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

No Forced Abandonment: Superior Court Upholds Recovery of Gun Discarded During Police Chase

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

In a recent published opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a Philadelphia trial judge’s decision to suppress a firearm that the defendant discarded while fleeing from police. The case, Commonwealth v. Joyner, clarifies the line between a mere encounter and an investigatory detention, and it reinforces that evidence abandoned during flight is admissible where police had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant before they discarded some kind of contraband.

The Facts of Joyner

The defendant faced charges including prohibited possession of a firearm (VUFA § 6105), carrying without a license (VUFA § 6106), carrying on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA § 6108), and possession of a controlled substance. Before trial, he moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that his abandonment of the gun was coerced.

At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that while patrolling a high-crime area, he observed the defendant walking with his right arm stiffened against his side and a heavy, square-shaped object in his pocket that the officer believed was a firearm. When the defendant saw the marked police vehicle, he turned and walked in the opposite direction. The arresting officer pulled alongside him and asked whether he had a gun. The defendant twice said no even though the officer could see an object that looked like a gun and kept walking. As the officer opened his door to get out, the defendant ran. The police chased him, heard the sound of metal hitting the ground, and ultimately recovered a firearm and oxycodone pills.

The defense argued that the defendant had been forced to abandon the contraband by an illegal stop. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer’s questioning escalated the interaction into an unlawful investigatory detention under Commonwealth v. Hicks. It also found that the officer’s conduct coerced the defendant into discarding the gun, requiring suppression under Commonwealth v. Barnett. The prosecution appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court disagreed. It held that the interaction remained a mere encounter up until the moment the defendant fled. The court emphasized several factors:

• The interaction occurred in daylight on a public street.

• Police did not activate lights or sirens.

• No officer exited the car or blocked the defendant’s path until after he ran.

• Asking whether someone is carrying a gun does not by itself create a detention.

Because the defendant remained free to leave and in fact chose to leave, the questioning did not constitute a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Once the defendant fled, however, the legal calculus changed. The court held that the arresting officer then had reasonable suspicion to pursue him based on the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances included:

• The officer’s observation of a heavy, square object consistent with a firearm.

• The high-crime nature of the area.

• The defendant’s evasive behavior when he saw police.

• His immediate, unprovoked flight when approached by police.

Under well-established Pennsylvania law, unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can supply reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors. Because the officers had reasonable suspicion at the moment of pursuit, the defendant’s abandonment of the gun was not coerced. The firearm was therefore admissible, and the court reversed the grant of the motion to suppress.

The Superior Court distinguished Barnett, noting that in that case police lacked reasonable suspicion when they attempted to stop the defendant. Here, the officer had already developed reasonable suspicion before formal pursuit began.

The Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Joyner reinforces several key principles for suppression litigation in Pennsylvania:

• Police may question a person about a firearm without necessarily creating a detention.

• Hicks limits firearm-based seizures but does not apply to consensual encounters.

• Flight, when combined with other factors, can create reasonable suspicion.

• Evidence discarded during a legally justified pursuit is admissible, not forced abandonment.

The case now returns to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings, including potential litigation on an unresolved Miranda issue.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Public Record Presumption and Orders Hearing on Juror Bias Claim in Commonwealth v. Blakeney

Criminal Defense Laweyr Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued an important decision in Commonwealth v. Blakeney, vacating the dismissal of a third Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the PCRA court improperly relied on the discredited “public records presumption” and applied an unreasonably high diligence standard when it dismissed the petitioner’s serial petition as untimely. The decision continues the Supreme Court’s recent trend of reinforcing the fact that petitioners must be given a fair opportunity to prove newly discovered facts under the PCRA.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for the 2000 killing of his girlfriend’s two-year-old child in Dauphin County. During jury selection, one juror, identified as Juror #7, initially marked “yes” on her juror questionnaire in response to the question of whether she or a close family member had been charged with a crime, then crossed out “yes” and marked “no.” More than twenty years later, new post-conviction counsel investigating potential juror bias discovered an obituary listing Juror #7’s family members. Counsel determined that the juror’s nephew had been charged with attempted murder and related offenses involving his own infant child. The juror’s nephew’s own preliminary hearing occurred on the very day that the juror was being questioned during voir dire in the defendant’s trial.

The defendant, whose prior appeals and PCRAs has been denied, filed a third PCRA petition arguing that this information constituted newly discovered facts that could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence. He contended that Juror #7 provided a misleading answer during voir dire and that he was therefore denied his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury.

The PCRA Court’s Ruling

The PCRA court issued a notice of intent to dismiss under Rule 907 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and ultimately denied the petition without a hearing. The PCRA court held that the claim was untimely because the nephew’s criminal case had been reported in a 2002 newspaper article, meaning that the information was publicly available and could have been discovered earlier. The court concluded that the defendant had not exercised due diligence and that his claim therefore failed to satisfy the PCRA’s timeliness exception for newly discovered facts under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The defendant appealed, and because he had received the death penalty at sentencing, the appeal went directly to the state Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The Court emphasized that the PCRA court erred by invoking the “public record presumption,” a doctrine that previously held defendants responsible for facts contained in public sources such as newspapers or court filings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly disapproved of that presumption in recent years, explaining that it is inconsistent with the plain language of the PCRA. The PCRA requires only reasonable diligence, not omniscience. It also recognizes that many petitioners are in custody and do not have normal access to public records.

In the defendant’s case, the Court found that the 2002 newspaper article did not specifically identify Juror #7 or establish any connection between her and her nephew’s case. The article merely reported the nephew’s charges and provided no reason for defense counsel in 2002 to link that case to a juror from the defendant’s trial. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the lower court erred in holding the information was discoverable simply because it existed in the public domain. The proper inquiry, the Supreme Court reiterated, is whether the petitioner could have discovered the fact earlier through reasonable diligence, not just whether the fact appeared somewhere in public records.

Because the defendant’s petition presented specific, potentially verifiable claims about juror bias and newly discovered evidence, the Supreme Court ordered a remand for further factual development. The PCRA court must now conduct a hearing to determine whether the information indeed qualifies as newly discovered and whether it entitles the defendant to relief.

The Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Blakeney reaffirms that Pennsylvania courts may not deny PCRA petitions by assuming defendants should have discovered facts merely because they were once published or theoretically accessible. The Supreme Court continues to reject the public record presumption and to clarify that reasonable diligence is a practical, case-specific standard. Petitioners are not required to scour every public source in existence, and when a claim of newly discovered evidence is plausible, a hearing is often necessary before dismissal.

Facing criminal charges or under investigation?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia, PA

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Superior Court: Jurisdiction Exists for Out-of-State Access Device Fraud When Complainant Lives in Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Washington, holding that the Commonwealth could prosecute the defendant for allegedly committing fraud out of state when the complainant and the complainant’s financial accounts were based in Pennsylvania.

The Facts of the Case

In Commonwealth v. Washington, 2025 PA Super 183, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Pennsylvania courts have jurisdiction to prosecute access device fraud committed outside the Commonwealth when the complainant resides here and the affected financial account is maintained in Pennsylvania. The Court rejected the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge.

The defendant was charged in Montgomery County, PA with one count of Access Device Fraud under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4106(a)(1)(ii). While physically in New York, the defendant used an altered check and fake identification belonging to a Pennsylvania resident. Using the forged documents, he cashed a counterfeit $3,500 check and withdrew $5,000 from the complainant’s KeyBank account.

The complainant lived in Lower Salford Township in Montgomery County, and KeyBank operated branches there. After the transactions, a New York branch manager contacted the complainant, who confirmed that he had not authorized the withdrawals. Surveillance footage identified the defendant, who was arrested and extradited to Pennsylvania. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine to twenty-three months in jail. On appeal, the defendant argued that Pennsylvania lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and venue because the fraudulent conduct occurred entirely in New York State.

The Superior Court’s Analysis

The Superior Court rejected that argument and affirmed the conviction. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102, Pennsylvania courts may exercise jurisdiction if either the conduct constituting an element of the offense or the result of that conduct takes place within the Commonwealth. Access Device Fraud under § 4106(a)(1)(ii) criminalizes using another person’s access device without authorization. The Court held that an essential element of the offense—the failure to obtain the owner’s consent—occurs where the victim resides. Because the complainant lived in Montgomery County, the defendant’s unauthorized use of the complainant’s financial information constituted conduct occurring within Pennsylvania even though the defendant was in New York.

The Court also concluded that venue was proper in Montgomery County under § 4106(e), which provides that such offenses may be deemed committed “at the place where the property or services were received or provided, or at the place where the lawful charges for said property or services are billed.” Because the complainant’s account and the relevant KeyBank branch were located in Montgomery County, that county was the proper venue.

Citing similar reasoning from courts in Massachusetts and Florida, the Superior Court confirmed that Pennsylvania may exercise jurisdiction over out-of-state access device or identity-theft offenses when the complainant resides in Pennsylvania and the loss is tied to a Pennsylvania account.

The Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Washington establishes that Pennsylvania courts can prosecute financial crimes committed elsewhere if the victim lives in Pennsylvania and the affected funds are drawn from a Pennsylvania account. Even remote, out-of-state conduct can support Pennsylvania charges when the harm and loss occur within the Commonwealth.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.