Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 9/3/25 Zak Goldstein 9/3/25

Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Suppression of Cell Phone Evidence in Drug Case Because Police Looked at Phone Screen Without Warrant

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

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Carter, holding that the trial court properly suppressed a cell phone where the police looked at the cell phone’s screen during the execution of a search warrant for drugs without getting a warrant to look at the cell phone itself.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was under investigation by the Lycoming County Narcotics Enforcement Unit (“LCNEU”) for alleged crack cocaine sales. The officers allegedly conducted several controlled buys in June, July, and November 2023. The controlled buys involved using confidential informants to purchase drugs near the defendant’s residence in Williamsport, PA. Based on the information obtained from these controlled buys, the officers obtained search warrants for his home.

During the execution of one of the search warrants, the officers claimed that they saw the defendant’s cell phone screen light up. It apparently displayed a partial text message from a woman allegedly involved in some of the drug deals. An officer photographed the message and later used it to obtain another warrant to seize and search the phone itself. The initial warrant did not authorize searching or seizing the phone. The defendant was then charged with drug delivery offenses such as possession with the intent to deliver.

The Motion to Suppress

The defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the cell phone evidence, arguing that police conducted an unlawful search by looking at and photographing the phone’s screen without first obtaining a search warrant. The trial court agreed, finding that even a “small” intrusion into a cell phone, such as reading a text message notification, counts as a search under both Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Court law.

The court also doubted the police explanation, suggesting that the officers were not totally credible. The court was skeptical that the phone screen “lit up on its own” to reveal a six-hour-old message, concluding it was more likely that officers manipulated the phone given the age of the message. Because the phone evidence was unlawfully obtained in that police likely manipulated the phone before obtaining a warrant, the court ruled that the evidence from the phone was “fruit of the poisonous tree” and had to be suppressed. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that simply observing the phone screen fell within the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement. The police had the right to be in the house based on the first warrant, so there was no reason they could not look at the phone given that the phone was in plain view. The Superior Court rejected this argument. Relying on Riley v. California and Commonwealth v. Fulton, the court reaffirmed that cell phones are constitutionally protected spaces. Even minimal intrusions, like reading a text message, require a warrant.

The Superior Court also concluded that the trial court acted within its authority to question the credibility of the assertions contained in the affidavit and concluded that the “plain view” doctrine did not apply. As a result, the Court affirmed the suppression of the defendant’s phone and all evidence derived from it.

The Takeaway

This decision highlights how strongly Pennsylvania courts protect privacy interests in cell phones. Police cannot sidestep the warrant requirement by claiming that a text message or notification appeared in plain view. If officers want to read or use information from a phone, they must get a warrant.

For defendants, this ruling is a reminder that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches may be excluded, which may significantly weaken the prosecution’s case. For anyone facing drug charges in Pennsylvania, especially cases involving phones, texts, or social media, it is critical to have a defense lawyer who understands the latest case law and knows how to fight unlawful searches.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

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, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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.

Zak Goldstein 9/1/25 Zak Goldstein 9/1/25

PA Superior Court: A Defendant Can Conspire to Commit Second-Degree Murder

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Wellman, holding that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a cognizable offense under Pennsylvania law. The Court held both that the offense exists in Pennsylvania and that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the defendant’s conviction.

The Facts of Wellman

The case arose out of a violent robbery which occurred on October 5, 2019, in Philadelphia. The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant and his brother entered an apartment, brandishing a handgun and what appeared to be a rifle. They robbed several occupants of their wallets, phones, and valuables. When the decedent resisted, the defendant pressed a handgun to the decedent’s head and fatally shot him. Police later apprehended the brothers in a nearby alley. The police recovered stolen items, discarded clothing, and a revolver with gunshot residue in it.

The police arrested the defendant, and prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and firearms offenses. He went to trial, and the jury found him guilty. He received a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for the murder, as well as a consecutive five-to-ten year sentence for robbery.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the defendant’s attorney initially filed an Anders brief, which is a brief indicating that the attorney did not think the defendant had a single viable appeal issue. These should almost never be filed following a trial, especially in a murder case. Accordingly, the Superior Court rejected the Anders brief and directed the attorney to file a new brief for the appeal. The Superior Court had identified a potentially non-frivolous issue: whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. In a new brief, the defendant argued that he and his brother only agreed to commit a robbery, not murder. The Commonwealth actually went further and argued in its brief that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is not even a cognizable crime, meaning it does not exist. The Commonwealth did not move to vacate the substantive murder conviction, but it did argue that the Court should vacate the conspiracy conviction.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court rejected both positions:

Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court held that the robbery agreement, carried out with firearms and escalating violence, supported the inference that the brothers entered into a conspiracy that encompassed second-degree murder. Even without an express plan to kill, the inherently dangerous felony and Wellman’s use of a firearm made the risk of death foreseeable.
Cognizability of the Offense: Relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Fisher, 80 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2013), the Court concluded that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a legally valid offense. Just as one can conspire to commit third-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, one can conspire to commit felony murder by agreeing to engage in conduct that carries a wanton disregard for life.

The Court therefore affirmed Wellman’s life sentence and rejected the Commonwealth’s somewhat unexpected argument to vacate the conviction.

Takeaway

This decision settles an open question in Pennsylvania law: conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a cognizable offense. Defendants charged under this theory cannot avoid liability by arguing that felony murder is “unintentional.” If conspirators agree to commit a dangerous felony like armed robbery, they may be held liable not just for the robbery, but also for any resulting deaths. This is true even where no specific intent to kill is proven.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Zak Goldstein 8/4/25 Zak Goldstein 8/4/25

Superior Court Reverses Denial of PCRA Relief for Attorney Goldstein’s Client in Internet Contraband Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a significant victory for his client, M.D., in the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In a detailed, 18-page opinion issued in July 2025, the Superior Court reversed the PCRA court’s order dismissing M.D.’s Post Conviction Relief Act petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that the PCRA court erred in concluding that trial counsel was effective despite trial counsel’s decision to repeatedly tell the jury that the client had asked to speak with a lawyer and declined to give a statement to the police when the police executed a search warrant at his house.

The client had been convicted following a second jury trial of possession and dissemination of child pornography and sentenced to five to ten years in state prison. His first trial ended in a mistrial after the first jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The Superior Court denied his direct appeal, and the client filed a PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed a different lawyer, who amended the petition, and the PCRA court denied that petition. The client then hired Attorney Goldstein for the appeal from the denial of the first PCRA petition.

On appeal, Attorney Zak Goldstein raised layered claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—arguing both that the client’s trial counsel mishandled crucial aspects of the defense and that PCRA counsel failed to raise those issues in the first petition. For example, PCRA counsel failed to argue that the trial attorney was ineffective for introducing evidence of her own client’s post-Miranda silence.

The Superior Court agreed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before the trial judge, who also presided over the PCRA proceedings. The judge heard from the attorneys who represented the client at the second trial that ended in a conviction as well as the first PCRA lawyer and again denied the petition. Attorney Goldstein filed an appeal, and the Superior Court reversed yet again.

This time, the Superior Court held that trial counsel acted unreasonably and to her client’s detriment by repeatedly referencing the client’s post-Miranda silence during trial. Although trial counsel claimed that this was a strategic decision designed to convey innocence, the Superior Court found the strategy lacked a reasonable basis and was more likely to cause the jury to infer guilt. As the Court noted, “most laymen view an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege as a badge of guilt,” especially when invoked during the execution of a search warrant for devices suspected of containing illicit content.

The Court further found that this improper strategy created a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial, thereby undermining confidence in the verdict. As a result, the Court concluded that the client had satisfied all three prongs of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance and that the PCRA court erred in rejecting his claim. The Superior Court therefore vacated the order denying the PCRA petition and remanded for further proceedings.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

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, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client, and we frequently spot issues and defenses that other lawyers miss. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 7/24/25 Zak Goldstein 7/24/25

PA Supreme Court: Vehicle Registration Alone Does Not Defeat Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Anderson, holding that a driver may have a reasonable expectation of privacy even where they are pulled over driving a car belonging to someone else. The mere fact that the car is registered to or belongs to another person does not mean that the Commonwealth automatically wins a motion to suppress for lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead, the Commonwealth would have to introduce additional evidence to show that the driver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle in under to win on this basis.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose after the defendant was stopped by Chester police in Delaware County, PA for several Vehicle Code violations. During the stop, officers discovered a firearm in the vehicle’s center console and marijuana in the passenger area. The defendant was ultimately charged with various offenses including carrying a firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106). He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police violated his constitutional rights when they stopped him and searched the car.

The Commonwealth argued that because the car was registered to the defendant’s aunt rather than the defendant, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in it and thus could not challenge the search. The trial court agreed, as did the Superior Court, holding that registration to another person alone was enough to shift the burden to the defendant to prove he had lawful possession or permission to drive the car. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted review.

The Supreme Court Appeal

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Dougherty clarified that under Commonwealth v. Enimpah, the Commonwealth bears the initial burden to produce evidence that negates a reasonable expectation of privacy before a defendant must respond. The Court found that the mere fact a vehicle is registered to someone else does not, without more, establish that the driver lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Lawful possession and control—regardless of registration—can give rise to protected privacy interests under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Court emphasized that there are many plausible and lawful scenarios under which a person may be driving a vehicle registered to someone else. Therefore, registration alone is insufficient to meet the Commonwealth’s burden of production in terms of disproving reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court declined to address whether other facts in the case might satisfy the burden under a totality of the circumstances analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This ruling strengthens protections for drivers in Pennsylvania, reinforcing that the Commonwealth must do more than cite vehicle registration records to justify a warrantless search. Defendants charged with possessory offenses retain automatic standing to challenge searches and seizures, and they are not required to affirmatively prove privacy interests unless and until the Commonwealth meets its initial evidentiary burden of disproving the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers