Motion to Suppress Assault Rifle Granted
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the suppression of an assault rifle. In the case of Commonwealth v. WM, police charged WM with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person as a felony of the first degree. Prosecutors alleged that when police went to execute a search warrant at WM’s house, someone threw a bag out the window as the police entered the home. Police subsequently secured the home and recovered the bag from the lower roof area. Inside the bag, the police found an assault rifle.
The officers then questioned the occupants of the home. Two of them had no criminal history, and one one of them even had a license to carry a firearm. WM, however, was on state parole for a serious offense, so police immediately suspected him of possessing the long gun and throwing it out the window. WM eventually confessed to throwing it outside on video, so the police arrested him. Prosecutors charged him with a violation of the uniform firearms act (VUFA § 6105) for possessing a firearm while having a criminal record which makes gun possession illegal. WM was facing up to 20 years in prison and additional time in custody for a parole violation.
Fortunately, WM retained Attorney Goldstein for his case. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the search warrant and determined that the search warrant for the home was defective because police acted on stale information in applying for the warrant. As the warrant was defective, the subsequent entry into the home was illegal, and but for the illegal entry, no one would have thrown the gun outside. Therefore, Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress the gun and confession, arguing that the four corners of the warrant did not contain legitimate probable cause to search the house.
In summary, the police were investigating a shooting and carjacking which took place on May 16, 2022. They conducted an extensive investigation which led them to believe that a certain juvenile had committed the shooting. The issue, however, was whether police had conducted enough investigation to conclude that the juvenile or evidence relating to the shooting would be found at WM’s home. The evidence that they had that the juvenile lived there was very limited. About a year prior to the execution of the warrant, the police encountered the juvenile outside of the house, and he stated that he lived there. They checked arrest records and found his mother’s name. They also found that his brother had reported living there about two months prior to the execution of the search warrant. Thus, the information they had was that the juvenile reported living there over a year ago and that his brother may have lived there two months ago. Accordingly, Attorney Goldstein argued that while it appeared that they had probable cause to search for the juvenile, they did not have current probable cause to believe that he lived at the address in question. There was also no reason to believe that evidence of the crime would be found about two months later as someone would be likely to get rid of the proceeds of a crime within two months.
In general, information must not be stale in order for it to amount to probable cause. The age of the information supporting a warrant application is a factor in determining probable cause. When the information is too old, he warrant is stale, and probable cause may not exist. Age is not the only factor, however. Instead, the age of the information must be compared against the nature of the crime and the type of the evidence for which the police are looking. For example, probable cause to search for electronic evidence may exist for much longer than probable cause to search for drugs. This is because computers often retain even deleted evidence for years, whereas drugs can be sold or disposed of within hours or days.
In this case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that police may have had probable cause to believe that the juvenile lived there a year ago, but without doing any background checks shortly before obtaining the search warrant, they had no reason to believe that he still lived there. They also had no reason to believe that even if he did live there, he would still be storing evidence of the crime at the house about two months after the crime took place. The Common Pleas judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The Commonwealth was therefore forced to withdraw the charges, and WM will be released.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Criminal Defense Attorney 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 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.
