Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 11/7/25 Zak Goldstein 11/7/25

Attorney Goldstein Wins Federal Suppression Motion in Electronic Contraband Case

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, of Goldstein Mehta LLC recently secured a major victory in federal court when a judge granted his motion to suppress all evidence in a serious federal criminal case. The ruling, issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, resulted in the exclusion of every item seized by investigators and effectively ended the government’s case.

The client had been charged in federal court with offenses involving the alleged possession and production of unlawful digital material. The prosecution’s entire case depended on evidence taken from a series of search warrants that allowed agents to seize and examine the client’s computers, phones, and other electronic devices.

Attorney Goldstein challenged the legality of those searches in a “four corners” motion, arguing that the warrants were unconstitutional because they were not supported by probable cause. In particular, he demonstrated that the affidavits failed to draw any meaningful connection between the conduct being investigated and the belief that illegal material would be found on the client’s electronic devices. Instead, the government relied on a boilerplate assumption that people accused of sexual misconduct are likely to possess such material on their electronics. Attorney Goldstein argued that this “profile-based” reasoning violated long-standing Third Circuit precedent, which requires a clear factual nexus between the alleged crime and the evidence sought.

The federal judge agreed, ruling that the affidavits were too speculative to support probable cause and that the warrants were so deficient that the “good faith” exception did not apply. The court found that no reasonable officer could have believed that the affidavits established a sufficient basis to search the client’s home and devices. Because the subsequent search warrants were based on evidence obtained from the initial unconstitutional searches, all of the evidence in the case was suppressed.

This outcome is a tremendous win and a relatively rare event in federal criminal litigation. Federal suppression motions are extremely difficult to win. Courts often defer to the government’s investigative process, and they routinely apply a good faith exception where, as here, investigators obtain a search warrant even if the warrant itself turns out to be lacking. Attorney Goldstein’s success demonstrates the value of a deep understanding of constitutional law and the willingness to challenge law enforcement overreach through careful, methodical, and aggressive litigation.

Facing federal criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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 6/21/20 Zak Goldstein 6/21/20

PA Superior Court: Car Stop in High Crime Area at Night Not Enough to Justify Search of Defendant's Vehicle

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Arrington, holding that the police cannot search a person or car for weapons solely because they stopped that person at night in a high-crime area. Instead, there has to be something about the person’s behavior more than the timing and location of the search that would justify such an intrusion on someone’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Commonwealth v. Arrington

On October 25, 2016, Pittsburgh Police officers were on patrol in the Homewood neighborhood of Pittsburgh. At around 2:00 AM, the officers observed the defendant’s vehicle driving towards them in their lane of travel. The defendant’s vehicle remained in the incorrect lane of travel for several seconds before returning to the correct side of the road. The officers suspected that the defendant was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and conducted a traffic stop.

When the officers approached the defendant’s vehicle, they witnessed the defendant exhibit several signs of intoxication. The defendant did provide the officers with his driver’s license. However, because of his alleged intoxication, the officers asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle. The defendant did not immediately respond, so the officers physically removed the defendant from the vehicle, conducted a pat down search of him, and placed him in handcuffs. Once the defendant was detained, the officers ran the defendant’s name through the National Crime Information Center (hereinafter “NCIC”). This NCIC search revealed that the defendant had a revoked concealed-carry permit.

The officers then asked if the defendant if he was in possession of any weapons to which the defendant replied he was not. The officers subsequently searched the defendant’s car, without a search warrant, and found a handgun in the backseat. The handgun’s serial number was run through NCIC, and it came back that the weapon had been reported stolen. Police arrested the defendant. The officers then searched the vehicle again as well as the defendant. Upon searching the vehicle, the officers discovered 81 bags of heroin, U.S. currency, a digital scale, and four cell phones. After searching the defendant, they discovered additional U.S. currency and another bag of heroin.

Prosecutors filed various charges for firearms and drug trafficking offenses. Specifically, they charged the defendant with firearms not to be carried without a license (VUFA 6106), possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, possession with the intent to deliver, and various traffic offenses. Notably, the defendant was not charged with DUI.

Prior to his trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress arguing that the search of his vehicle was illegal. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant then elected to proceed by way of a non-jury trial where the court found him guilty of the previously mentioned offenses. He received fifteen months of probation. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

Are the Police Allowed to Search My Vehicle for Weapons?

The police are only allowed to search your vehicle for weapons during a car stop (also known as a protective sweep) if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous. To conduct this search, the officer must reasonably believe that his safety or the safety of others is threatened. If the search is found to be unreasonable, the judicial remedy is to exclude all evidence that derived from this illegal search.

In making this determination, the court will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the officer’s actions were legally justified. Some of the factors that courts will consider are: whether the stop occurred at night; whether the defendant appeared to conceal something; whether the defendant was nervous during the interaction; whether the area the stop occurred is considered a high crime area; whether weapons are in plain view; and other factors that the trial court may deem appropriate.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the contraband and weapons found in the defendant’s car should have been suppressed. In making its decision, the Superior Court held that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the officers reasonably believed that the defendant was armed and dangerous. Although the stop did occur at night, the defendant did not make any furtive movements nor did he display any nervousness. Further, the defendant provided the officers his driver’s license and no weapons were visible when he was initially stopped. According to the Superior Court, the only factors that supported reasonable suspicion was that the stop occurred at night and in a high-crime neighborhood. Therefore, because the defendant “posed no threat to the officers’ safety” the Superior Court reversed the trial court and ordered that the contraband seized from his car should have been suppressed. As such, the defendant’s conviction will be vacated, and he will get a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers in Philadelphia

Zak Goldstein 4/7/20 Zak Goldstein 4/7/20

US Supreme Court: Police Have Reasonable Suspicion to Stop Car Where Owner Has Revoked Driver’s License

The United States Supreme Court has decided the case of Kansas v. Glover, holding that a Kansas deputy sheriff had reasonable suspicion to pull over a car after running the car’s license plate and learning that the registered owner had a revoked driver’s license. This is an absolutely disastrous decision for privacy and civil rights as it almost goes without saying that the mere fact that the car is registered to a particular owner tells the police absolutely nothing about whether or not the owner is actually driving the car or whether the driver of the car has a valid driver’s license. This decision continues a trend of anti-fourth amendment rulings from the United States Supreme Court in the context of automobile stops.

The Facts of Glover

Glover had an unusual set of facts in that instead of actually calling live witnesses for a motion to suppress hearing, the parties stipulated to a certain set of facts. In this case, the defendant was charged with driving as a habitual violator under a Kansas traffic law. He moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the stop of his car. At the motion to suppress, the parties stipulated to the following facts:

Deputy Mark Mehrer is a certified law enforcement officer employed by the Douglas County Kansas Sheriff’s Office.
On April 28, 2016, Deputy Mehrer was on routine patrol in Douglas County when he observed a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck with Kansas plate 295ATJ.
Deputy Mehrer ran Kansas plate 295ATJ through the Kansas Department of Revenue’s file service. The registration came back to a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck.
Kansas Department of Revenue files indicated the truck was registered to Charles Glover Jr. The files also indicated that Mr. Glover had a revoked driver’s license in the State of Kansas.
Deputy Mehrer assumed the registered owner of the truck was also the driver, Charles Glover Jr.
Deputy Mehrer did not observe any traffic infractions, and did not attempt to identify the driver [of] the truck. Based solely on the information that the registered owner of the truck was revoked, Deputy Mehrer initiated a traffic stop.
The driver of the truck was identified as the defendant, Charles Glover Jr.

Obviously, this is not the normal way that a motion to suppress is litigated. Normally, the Commonwealth or Government would be held to the burden of proving that a stop occurred in a constitutional manner. In order to do so, the Government would have to call live witnesses to testify as to what happened, and the credibility and observations of those witnesses would be subject to attack on cross-examination. Here, the parties agreed to the above stipulations, leaving only the narrow legal issue of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a car where the registered owner’s license was suspended and where the officer had not seen anything to suggest that the driver was not in fact the owner.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Kansas Supreme Court reversed again, finding that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion without taking any steps to determine who the actual driver was before pulling over the car.

The United States Supreme Court’s Decision

The United States Supreme Court accepted the appeal and reversed again, finding that the sheriff had reasonable suspicion to stop the car despite the fact that the sheriff based his decision solely on the fact that the driver’s license of the registered owner was listed as revoked. The sheriff had obtained no other evidence, did not know who was actually driving the car, and had seen no other traffic violations. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found that it was reasonable for the sheriff to assume that Glover was driving the car and make the stop.

This is a terrible decision. Reasonable suspicion typically requires an individualized, reasonable belief based on all of the facts and circumstances that some sort of criminal activity is afoot. Here, the sheriff clearly did not have that because he had not seen who was driving the car and any number of people could have borrowed Glover’s car. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled against the defendant.

Despite this ruling, there are still ways to litigate a motion to suppress in Philadelphia, PA based on similar facts. First, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that reasonable suspicion would not have existed had the officer observed that someone else was driving the car or that the person driving the car could not have been Grover based on age, race, or other physical characteristics. Second, the concurrence noted that reasonable suspicion existed in this case in part due to the nature of the Kansas statute which led to Glover’s license revocation. Glover’s license had been revoked due to repeated violations of Kansas’s traffic laws, which may give rise to an inference that he is the type of person who is likely to continue driving despite having a suspended license. Had the license been revoked solely for one traffic infraction, reasonable suspicion may not have existed. This inference also could have been challenged through the user of statistics regarding the likelihood of driving with this type of suspended license in that jurisdiction. Finally, Pennsylvania law and the Pennsylvania Constitution provide greater privacy protections than the United States Constitution. Therefore, a criminal defense attorney in Pennsylvania should make sure to bring a motion to suppress under both the federal and state constitutions as a Pennsylvania appellate court could (and previously has) find that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not allow this type of stop.

The ultimate mistake here by the criminal defense lawyer was likely not conducting any cross-examination of the sheriff. Had the defense lawyer litigated a normal motion to suppress, he or she may have been able to establish that the sheriff knew or should have known that it was not Glover driving the car or that the officer had credibility issues which would have provided an alternative basis for granting the motion to suppress. Nonetheless, this is a very bad decision for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights.

Facing criminal charges in Philadelphia, PA? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 12/11/19 Zak Goldstein 12/11/19

Can My Probation Officer Search My House Without a Warrant?

Can A Probation Officer Search My House While I Am On Probation or Parole?

An issue that frequently comes up when litigating motions to suppress in drug and weapons cases is whether the police or probation department need a search warrant to search the house of a someone who is on probation or parole. In general, both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions require law enforcement officers to get a search warrant before conducting a search of a private residence. However, there are a few limited exceptions to this rule, and two of those exceptions apply to people who are on probation or parole.

Probation Officers May Conduct Limited Home Visits

First, a probation or parole officer may conduct a limited home visit of a probationer’s home without a warrant as part of the conditions of probation or parole. The probationer may be lawfully compelled to show the probation officer around the house, and if the officer sees anything incriminating in plain view, these items can be used against the probationer. Evidence such as drugs, guns, or other contraband may be used to establish violations of the terms of the supervision or to bring new criminal charges.

Probation Officers Do Not Need A Search Warrant - But They Do Need Reasonable Suspicion

Second, the probation officer may conduct a full search of a probationer’s house where the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there may be contraband in the house. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, and the officer is not first required to obtain a warrant before conducting the search. Instead, the officer must simply get authorization from a supervisor. Although probation officers may use these exceptions either to conduct a home visit or search based on reasonable suspicion, they are not allowed to act as a “stalking horse” for or at the direction of the police department or other law enforcement agencies who wish to use the probation as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search.

For both types of searches, probation officers may typically search the entire house. The search is not limited to the room in which the probationer stays. This is because the owner of the house will generally sign a release prior to the probationer or parolee being allowed to stay in the house. In some cases, however, it may be possible to challenge the scope of an overly broad search with respect to a defendant other than the probationer.

Recent Caselaw on Probation and Parole Searches in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently considered these exceptions in the case of Commonwealth v. Parker, 2016 Pa Super 280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). In Parker, the Superior Court upheld the ability for probation officers to search a probationer’s home without any prior allegation of wrongdoing by the probationer, reversing the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress crack cocaine which was allegedly found in Mr. Parker’s home.

When Parker was released from custody on a prior case, he agreed to the standard terms and conditions of probation to which many defendants must agree in counties through Pennsylvania. Specifically, he agreed to allow his probation officer to visit his home at any time to confirm compliance with the conditions of supervision. He also agreed that he would not possess any contraband and that he would permit the officer to search his home and vehicle based upon reasonable suspicion that contraband could be found.

The case began when probation officers arrived at Parker’s home to conduct a home visit. Upon entering the house, they noticed, “apparently in plain view, clear, empty, corner-cut baggies; cigar packages, which were opened and discarded on the floor; and small rubber bands.” The officers believed from past experiences that such items are commonly used for drug distribution, and they also observed a shotgun in an open closet in the kitchen. The officers then went up to Parker’s room, where they found bullets, knives, and a bong all in plain view. The probation officers contacted police officers. The police officers came to the scene, but they opted not to obtain a warrant and left. The probation officers then contacted a supervisor, who authorized a search of the home, and the probation officers proceeded to find cocaine in the refrigerator. At that point, the officers called the police back to Parker’s home, and the police arrested Parker.

Grounds for the Motion to Suppress the Results of the Probation Search

Parker moved to suppress all the items, arguing that the probation officers conducted an illegal search by entering his home without reasonable suspicion and that they should have obtained a warrant before searching the refrigerator. Parker also alleged that the probation officers had used their authority to evade the warrant requirement and act as a “stalking horse” for the local police department. Parker’s attorneys suggested that the police wanted to conduct a search but did not have the probable cause necessary for a warrant.

The trial court rejected the argument that the probation officers could not enter the home to conduct a basic tour and observe any contraband in plain view, but the trial court ruled that the officers should have obtained a search warrant before searching the refrigerator. Because the officers had already called the police to the scene, they did, in effect, act as agents of the police department, and therefore, they should have obtained a warrant before finding the cocaine in the refrigerator.

Standards for Probation Searches

The Superior Court reversed the suppression of the cocaine and reaffirmed the prior decisions which set these standards. The Superior Court concluded that first, under existing caselaw, probation officers may lawfully conduct a home visit, tour the house, and seize any evidence of contraband which is in plain view. Second, once the probation officers find drug packaging, weapons, and bullets which have been left out in the open, the officers do not have to obtain a warrant to search the rest of the house because they have reasonable suspicion that other contraband might be found. Third, the court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the probation department had acted as a stalking horse for the police department because there was no evidence at the motion to suppress that the police had in any way directed the search. Accordingly, the court ruled that the full search of the house was permitted despite the absence of a warrant.

There Are Limits on Probation and Parole Officers

Although the Superior Court ultimately ruled against Mr. Parker, the decision does show that even though defendants who are on probation at the time of a search have fewer rights than people who are not on probation, there are still real limits on the ability of a probation officer to search a house. First, the probation officer is limited to walking through the house and viewing only items which are in plain view. The officer cannot show up for a home visit and begin tearing the house apart. Second, the officer must have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a full search without a warrant. This standard requires the officer to point to specific and articulable facts for why the officer believed contraband might be found. The officer cannot conduct a search for drugs simply because the defendant was under supervision for drugs.

Can the Police Search My House If I Am On Probation?

Although probation officers do not need a warrant to search the house of a probationer or parolee, the police cannot use the probation department to evade the warrant requirement and engage in a warrantless search. Unless the evidence is first uncovered by probation officers because it was in plain view during a home visit or because the officers had legitimate reasonable suspicion, police officers must still obtain a search warrant prior to searching the home of someone who is on probation. When the police or probation department violate these rules, the evidence could be excluded following a successful motion to suppress. This rule is called the “stalking horse doctrine.”

Our Philadelphia Probation Lawyers Can Help With Probation Violation Hearings

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Probation Violation Lawyer

Different standards apply to probationers, but law enforcement must still follow the law. If you or someone you know are facing narcotics or weapons charges for drugs or other contraband found in your house, car, or on or near your person, you need the advice of a skilled criminal defense lawyer immediately. Critical exculpatory evidence and witnesses could be lost due to delay, and there may very well be defenses ranging from a motion to suppress due to an illegal search to a lack of evidence of constructive or actual possession. We have even won motions to suppress significant quantities of drugs and guns due to illegal parole searches. Contact the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC at 267-225-2545 for a free, confidential, and honest case evaluation.