Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/9/25 Zak Goldstein 12/9/25

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

Criminal Defense Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire — 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.

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.

Zak Goldstein 11/18/25 Zak Goldstein 11/18/25

PA Superior Court Holds Physician-Patient Privilege Does Not Apply to Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Introduction

In a recent decision, In the Interest of J.E., 2025 PA Super 245, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed a novel issue of statutory interpretation: whether juvenile delinquency proceedings constitute “civil matters” for the purposes of the physician-patient privilege under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5929. The Court ultimately ruled that while juvenile proceedings are not criminal in nature, they are also not "civil matters" as contemplated by the statute, meaning the privilege does not act as a bar to the admission of medical records in delinquency hearings. Under the statute, the physician-patient privilege only applies to civil matters, so it does not apply in juvenile criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from an incident that took place in November 2023, where J.E., a minor, was taken to Lankenau Hospital by his family for a gunshot wound to his left hand. During his treatment, J.E. made statements to both an emergency room physician and a surgeon indicating that he had accidentally shot himself with his own gun. These statements were recorded in his medical records.

J.E. was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm by a minor and possession of a firearm prohibited. Prior to his adjudicatory hearing, the defense filed a motion in limine to exclude the medical records, arguing that the statements in the records were protected by the physician-patient privilege. The defense contended that because Pennsylvania law has long held that juvenile proceedings are "civil inquiries" rather than criminal trials, the statutory privilege applicable to "civil matters" should apply. The trial court denied the motion, the records were promptly admitted, and J.E. was adjudicated delinquent. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Ruling on Appeal

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, relying on a strict statutory interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5929. The statute states that physicians shall not be allowed to disclose information in "any civil matter."

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument, reasoning that:

Distinct Legal System: The Juvenile Act created a unique, separate legal system that is neither wholly civil nor wholly criminal. Although the system aims for rehabilitation rather than punishment, it is a distinct statutory framework designed to hold children accountable. It does not result in a civil case.
Statutory Language: The legislature did not explicitly include juvenile proceedings in the text of § 5929. Furthermore, the Juvenile Act itself distinguishes between "civil matters" and juvenile proceedings, suggesting they are not synonymous.
Precedent: The Court noted that previous caselaw distinguishing juvenile proceedings from criminal ones did not automatically categorize them as "civil matters" for all purposes. The Court cited In re J.B. to show that the judiciary views criminal, civil, and juvenile proceedings as three distinct categories.

Key Takeaway

This decision clarifies that the physician-patient privilege in Pennsylvania is limited strictly to "civil matters" as traditionally defined (e.g., lawsuits for damages or equitable relief). It does not extend to the unique quasi-civil nature of juvenile delinquency court. Accordingly, incriminating statements made by minors to medical personnel for the purpose of treatment may be admissible in subsequent delinquency hearings.

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

Zak Goldstein Criminal Defense Lawyer — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense 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, including 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 8/5/25 Zak Goldstein 8/5/25

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules Non-Violent Felon Gun Ban Constitutional in Commonwealth v. Randolph

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

On July 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a new decision in Commonwealth v. Randolph, upholding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s felon-in-possession statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1). The Court rejected Randolph’s Second Amendment challenge to the law, finding that individuals with felony drug convictions such as PWID (Possession With Intent to Deliver) can still be lawfully prohibited from owning or carrying firearms even though PWID is generally a non-violent offense.

This ruling adds to the growing body of appellate decisions in Pennsylvania that interpret how the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark gun rights cases (Bruen, Heller, and Rahimi) apply to state gun control laws. If you or a loved one are facing a charge under § 6105 or any other firearm offense in Pennsylvania, it is important to understand the implications of this ruling and how it might affect your defense. Additionally, the Superior Court may not have the last word on the constitutionality of these statutes as the PA Supreme Court has granted review in a number of these cases.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Randolph?

The defendant was convicted in Allegheny County of two firearm charges:

Persons Not to Possess a Firearm under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1), and
Carrying a Firearm Without a License under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a).

The charges stemmed from an incident in which the defendant was seen with a handgun inside a bar. At the time, he was prohibited from possessing firearms due to prior felony drug convictions. specifically, he had two 2005 convictions for PWID.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the § 6105 charge, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights, both facially and as applied to him. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted him on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to four to eight years in state prison and appealed.

The Constitutional Challenge: Can Nonviolent Felons Possess Guns?

On appeal, the defendant argued that § 6105 is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that gun laws must be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. He also cited Range v. Attorney General, where the Third Circuit struck down the federal felon-in-possession statute as applied to a nonviolent offender convicted of food stamp fraud.

The defendant claimed that his prior convictions for nonviolent drug offenses should not disqualify him from owning a firearm and that the Commonwealth failed to prove a historical tradition of disarming people like him.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected Randolph’s arguments and upheld his conviction. Applying the Bruen two-step test, the Court first held that Randolph was part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment even as a convicted felon. However, the Court went on to conclude that Pennsylvania’s firearm ban for even non-violent felons is constitutional because:

There is a long-standing historical tradition of disarming individuals considered dangerous or a threat to public safety.
Drug trafficking is inherently dangerous and often associated with the use of firearms.
The statute does not impose a lifetime ban without recourse. Individuals convicted under § 6105 can, in some cases, petition the court for restoration of their firearm rights.

The Court emphasized that Bruen does not require a "historical twin" to justify modern firearm laws. Instead, it only requires a sufficiently analogous tradition. Citing colonial laws that disarmed vagrants, outlaws, and those deemed threats to public order, the Court found § 6105 to be consistent with that historical framework.

What This Means for People Facing Gun Charges in Pennsylvania

This case makes clear that Pennsylvania courts are continuing to uphold the constitutionality of § 6105 even after federal decisions such as Bruen, Rahimi, and Range. This is particularly true in cases involving felony convictions for drug offenses or violence. While there is ongoing litigation in both state and federal courts challenging the law (and defendants have done better in federal court than in state court), defendants with serious prior convictions may still be prohibited from possessing firearms under current Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court has also granted review in at least two cases, and that litigation is still ongoing.

However, these constitutional issues are evolving, and every case is fact-specific. There are still strong constitutional arguments available in many cases, particularly where the prior conviction is nonviolent, less serious than PWID, and remote in time.

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

Philadelphia Gun Charges Dismissed – Motion to Quash Granted

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire of Goldstein Mehta LLC recently won a major victory for one of his clients in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Attorney Zak T. Goldstein successfully argued a Motion to Quash (Habeas Corpus Petition) in a firearms case, resulting in the complete dismissal of all charges prior to trial. This case highlights why an aggressive and experienced Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer can make the difference when facing VUFA (Violation of Uniform Firearms Act) charges.

Background: Gun Charges After a Medical Emergency

The client, D.F., was charged with two serious offenses:

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 – Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License (F3)
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 – Carrying Firearms on Public Streets in Philadelphia (M1)

The case began when D.F., a security guard, experienced a medical emergency while at work. He was transported to Einstein Hospital by ambulance. Hospital security later discovered a backpack near him that contained a firearm. The Philadelphia Police learned that he did not have a license to carry a firearm and charged him with these offenses.

Importantly, there was no evidence that D.F. had carried the gun on a public street, in a vehicle, or that he intentionally brought the firearm to the hospital. Instead, the only evidence was that he had been transported to the hospital from work and that a gun was found in the bag. The Municipal Court nonetheless held the case for trial after a preliminary hearing.

Defense Strategy: Challenging Weak Gun Cases at the Preliminary Hearing Stage

Attorney Goldstein filed a Motion to Quash (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) arguing that the case should be dismissed because:

Lawful possession at work – The Commonwealth’s own evidence established that D.F. was employed as a security guard and had been picked up at work during a medical emergency. Pennsylvania law allows a security guard to have a firearm at a fixed place of employment without a license to carry. It is recommended, however, that the guard obtain an Act 235 license or license to carry before doing so, but that is not a requirement of the statute.
No voluntary act or criminal intent – D.F. did not choose to transport the firearm; instead, he was taken to the hospital involuntarily by ambulance. There was no evidence of a voluntary act or intent required to sustain a prosecution under §§ 6106 or 6108.
Reliance on hearsay – The Commonwealth relied heavily on hearsay statements from a hospital security guard and D.F.’s own statement without offering non-hearsay evidence of possession. Under Commonwealth v. McClelland and Commonwealth v. Harris, a prima facie case cannot be made out solely with hearsay.

The Court’s Ruling: Charges Dismissed

The judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein’s arguments and granted the motion to quash, dismissing all charges. This ruling means that D.F. will not face trial for these unfounded gun charges.

Why Early Defense Matters in Philadelphia Gun Cases

This case underscores the importance of having an experienced Philadelphia gun charge attorney as early as possible. Motions to Quash and preliminary hearings are critical opportunities to challenge weak evidence and avoid the risks of a jury trial.

At Goldstein Mehta LLC, we have a proven track record of winning motions to suppress, motions to quash, and trials in Philadelphia gun and firearms cases. Our lawyers know the law and fight aggressively to protect our clients’ rights.

Charged With a Gun Offense in Philadelphia?

If you are facing VUFA charges, 6106/6108 charges, or any other gun-related offense in Philadelphia, call the experienced Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys at Goldstein Mehta LLC at (267) 225-2545. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session and will fight to protect your freedom.