Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 10/1/19 Zak Goldstein 10/1/19

PA Supreme Court: Search Warrant Allows Police to Search Entire Apartment Even if Suspect Has Roommates

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Turpin, holding that having a roommate does not convert a single resident unit into a multi-resident unit for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. This decision is significant because so many people live with a roommate. Nonetheless, if the police have probable cause that one person is engaged in illicit activity in the residence, Turpin allows the police to search the entire residence even if the police know that the suspect has roommates who have their own rooms.

Commonwealth v. Turpin

On December 4, 2014, Detective Mellot of the Cumberland County Drug Task Force began investigating Mr. Irvin, the defendant’s roommate based on information received from a confidential informant regarding the sale of heroin. Detective Mellot contacted Mr. Irvin’s parole officer who informed him that he was living in Mechanicsburg, Pa. Based on this information, Detective Mellot conducted surveillance of the residence and observed an unusually high number of individuals making short visits there.

In mid-February 2016, Detective Mellot interviewed a second confidential informant who stated he purchased heroin from Mr. Irvin on a regular basis and had bought heroin from the defendant’s and Mr. Irvin’s residence. As this information had been corroborated by his surveillance, Detective Mellott arranged for the confidential informant to conduct a controlled buy from Mr. Irvin. While the confidential informant was arranging to meet Mr. Irvin at a nearby business, Detective Mellott surveilled the residence and observed multiple individuals enter and then quickly exit, which Detective Mellott believed was indicative of drug dealing. Detective Mellott then observed two people exit the residence and enter a black Cadillac that Mr. Irvin was known to drive. Detective Temple, who was surveilling the location of the controlled buy, observed the same black Cadillac at the buy location. A male and female then exited the Cadillac and then the male conducted a hand-to-hand transaction with an unknown individual. Afterwards, the male instructed the confidential informant to enter the business.

At this time, Detective Colare entered the business with the confidential informant and positively identified Mr. Irvin as the male with whom the confidential informant interacted. The detectives observed Mr. Irvin drive back to the residence and enter the property. The confidential informant then provided Detective Mellott with ten bags of heroin, stamped “Blue Magic,” that were purchased from Mr. Irvin. Based on the above information, Detective Mellot obtained a search warrant for Mr. Irvin and the defendant’s residence.

Police executed the search warrant in February 2015. The defendant was placed in a vehicle by Sergeant Curtis of the Mechanicsburg Police Department and the two discussed the living arrangements of the residence. The defendant told Sergeant Curtis that he and Mr. Irvin both lived there and each occupied one of the two bedrooms. Thereafter, Sergeant Curtis brought the defendant back into the house so he could get his shoes from his bedroom. There was no evidence that the defendant’s bedroom ever had a padlock on the door, and there was not a separate room number or mailbox on the outside of the bedroom door which would make it seem like an individual apartment.

The officers then searched the entire house, including the defendant’s bedroom. Recovered from his room were a firearm, ammunition, six bags of heroin including one bag stamped “Blue Magic,” a bag of marijuana, and $902 in cash. The police also recovered 37 bags of heroin, some stamped “Blue Magic,” and a case of $1,000 from Mr. Irvin’s room as well as 200 bags of heroin from the living room. The police then returned to the house on March 10, 2015 and recovered 80 bags of heroin from the second-floor bathroom, which was adjacent to the defendant’s bedroom. Based on the above, the defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance, and one count each of conspiracy to commit possession with the intent to deliver and receiving stolen property.

The Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

The defendant filed a motion to suppress claiming that the search warrant was overbroad because it did not limit the specific areas to be searched to those under the control of Mr. Irvin and the warrant was improperly executed because the police were made aware of its overbroad nature from the defendant’s conversations with Sergeant Curtis. At the suppression hearing, the above facts were put on the record. The defendant also testified at the hearing. He testified that he and Mr. Irvin occupied separated bedrooms at the residence, he would shut his bedroom door when he was not home; Mr. Irvin and he occupied separate bedrooms at the residence; he would shut his bedroom door when he was not home; and that Mr. Irvin was not permitted to enter his bedroom without permission.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial court held that the warrant was not overbroad and that a search warrant to a residence “need not specify each and every room of a residence to be searched.” Further, the trial court held that the search warrant was not improperly executed. After the denial, the defendant proceeded to a jury trial where he was convicted of all charges. The court then subsequently sentenced him to an aggregate term of one year less one day to two years less two days of county imprisonment to be followed by three years of probation. The defendant then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The defendant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which was granted.

Does a Search Warrant Have to Be Specific?

Yes. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the issuance of any search warrant except one that is specific and particular to the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. As such, the police are limited to searching in those areas where the suspected contraband could be found. Usually, the police are searching for guns and drugs and therefore the police have a broad scope of places that these items could be found. However, let’s say hypothetically that the police have a search warrant for a missing tuba. Obviously, tubas are very large and heavy and probably would not fit in a shoebox. So, in this hypothetical, if the police were searching only for a tuba and they looked into a shoebox and found contraband, then the defendant could have a valid argument at suppressing this contraband because the police went beyond the scope of the search warrant.

I Live in an Apartment Building. If the Police Get a Search Warrant for My Neighbor’s Apartment, Can They Search Mine Too?

No. In prior decisions, the Pennsylvania appellate courts have been very clear that a search warrant has to be particularized to the residence that is being searched. To give an example of this, let’s assume that a defendant lives at 123 Broad Street and that it is a multi-tenant building. If the police were to get a search warrant for only 123 Broad Street and they search every apartment in 123 Broad Street and the police find contraband in the defendant’s apartment, then he will have a very good argument for suppressing that contraband because the search warrant was not specific enough for the defendant’s house. However, this was not the issue in the instant case. In the instant case, the residence in question was a single living unit, not a multi-tenant unit as stated in the above hypothetical.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the defendant’s appeal. In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the federal rule which allows the police to search the entire residence even if the target of the search warrant has roommates. The Court went on to say that a roommate can obtain relief if it is shown that his particular room was a separate and independent unit. It is not enough that the roommates are prohibited from entering the other’s room without permission. As such, the defendant will not be entitled to relief and therefore he will not get a new trial.

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. 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 9/28/19 Zak Goldstein 9/28/19

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Abused Discretion in Dismissing Case Due to Witnesses Being Late

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Ligon, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a criminal case due to the late arrival of witnesses despite the fact that the prosecutor indicated that he was ready to begin the trial and that they were on their way.

Commonwealth v. Ligon

Philadelphia police arrested the defendant in March 2012 and charged him with multiple crimes, including charges of robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, and various violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. The charges stemmed from an alleged incident that took place in September 2011 involving a Mr. Brady and his grandmother Ms. Martin.

The defendant’s case would be subsequently continued five times before his preliminary hearing was held and the municipal court judge found that there was enough evidence to go to trial on the charges. After his preliminary hearing, his case was then assigned to a Court of Common Pleas judge. When it reached the trial room, his case again was continued a “copious” amount of times. Eventually, his case again was continued and then reassigned to a different trial judge. This trial judge then granted two more continuances, one due to a court conflict and one because the assigned prosecutor had another trial.

The trial finally began on December 5, 2016 and on that day, the parties picked a jury. The following morning, before the jury came into the courtroom, the assigned prosecutor told the trial court that the complaining witnesses had not arrived. The prosecutor stated that although she had arranged a ride for the complaining witnesses, they did not answer the door. The prosecutor further stated that she had been in constant contact with them, having spoken with both the day before trial and having met with one of them on the Friday preceding trial. Based on these conversations, the prosecutor asked for “a little bit more time” for the witnesses to arrive. The trial court said that it could “probably give [the Commonwealth] till 11 [AM].”

When the court reconvened at 11:00 AM, a different prosecutor addressed the court and explained that the probation officer of Mr. Brady was attempting to contact him and that the Commonwealth had arranged for additional transportation to get him because Mr. Brady was in a wheelchair. The trial court then stated that it would recess the proceedings until 11:45 AM. At 12:00 PM, the assigned prosecutor stated that the witnesses were “on their way” and that she was ready to proceed with trial and asked if she could begin with her opening statement. The trial court replied that the witnesses were supposed to be there at 9:30 AM. The prosecutor then repeated that the witnesses were on their way. She then stated that she could do the opening statement and then put on another witness by the end of which she was “absolutely certain” the complaining witnesses would arrive. The trial court declined to allow the prosecutor to proceed with her case and discharged the case against the defendant. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it discharged the case against the defendant.

What is the Abuse of Discretion Standard?

It can often be difficult for an appellant to win a case on an abuse of discretion standard. The abuse of discretion standard requires appellate courts to give great deference to the trial court in making its decision. As stated in a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, an abuse of discretion only occurs “where the trial court misapplies the law, or where the judgment is exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Further, appellate courts are not supposed to step in the shoes of the trial court. As such, this standard can be very difficult to win under, and usually the appellate courts will defer to the trial court. It is worth noting that it is usually defendants who, on appeal, argue that the trial court abused its discretion.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it discharged the case against the defendant. In its brief opinion, the Superior Court stated that a trial court must take into account the public interest when determining whether to dismiss a case. The Superior Court stated that the trial court did not do this. The Superior Court’s opinion omits any real discussion on why the public interest was harmed by the dismissal of this case. Further, the Superior Court essentially stated that trial courts are to assume that prosecutors are telling the truth when they say they will be ready for a case.

Further, the Superior Court cited Commonwealth v. Carson in support of its position that the trial court abused its discretion. Carson is easily distinguishable from the instant case. In Carson, the trial court stated the reason the case was discharged was because of its court schedule and specifically chastised the Allegheny District Attorney’s Office for its tardiness and its excuses. In the instant case, the trial court did not state its schedule was the reason why the case was being discharged. It stated that the case had not gone to trial in the 1,782 days after the complaint had been filed. Further, it ignored the fact that the Commonwealth offered no corroborative evidence that their witnesses were actually coming to court. As such, the only evidence to support this was the Commonwealth’s representations. Nonetheless, the Superior Court still found that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case and therefore the defendant will have to face trial for these charges (assuming the witnesses actually show up to court).

Facing criminal charge? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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 state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. 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 9/16/19 Zak Goldstein 9/16/19

PA Superior Court: No New Trial Even Though Judge Was Stealing Cocaine from Evidence Storage

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Urwin, holding that the defendant should not receive a new trial in his Murder case despite the fact that the trial judge was later convicted of stealing cocaine from evidence around the time that the judge presided over the case. The Court found that the defendant failed to successfully prove that the judge was actually under the influence at the time of the trial, and therefore the judge’s ongoing thefts did not necessarily mean that the judge was unfair during the trial.

Commonwealth v. Urwin

The decedent’s body was discovered in a field in Washington County in February 1977. The police determined that the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. The investigators were able to locate her clothing which was scattered nearby and the police seized it as evidence. The victim was last seen with the defendant and a Mr. Davoli, however the charges against Mr. Davoli were dismissed at the preliminary hearing. At the time, the defendant was not charged with her death.

The case remained unsolved for several decades until the victim’s clothing was submitted for DNA testing in 2009. The results of the testing contained the profiles of both the defendant and Mr. Davoli. The police then questioned Mr. Davoli, and he confessed to his and the defendant’s involvement in the victim’s death. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree murder. The defendant was very concerned about proceeding by way of jury trial because he thought that female jurors would not be sympathetic to him. As such, the defendant elected to have a bench trial in front of the Honorable Paul Pozonsky.

At his trial, Mr. Davoli testified against the defendant. He testified that he and the defendant each had sex with the victim and then the defendant dragged her from the vehicle and beat her with a car tool. The court convicted the defendant of third-degree murder and sentenced him to 10-20 years’ incarceration. The defendant then appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed his sentence and, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal.

The PCRA Petition

The defendant then filed a timely Post-Conviction Relief Act (hereinafter “PCRA”) petition. In his PCRA petition, he raised several claims based on trial counsel’s alleged errors. He also asserted that Judge Pozonsky had been convicted of theft of cocaine and that he had been using cocaine during the trial. Specifically, Judge Pozonsky would order police to deposit cocaine in the evidence locker in his courtroom and then take it it for his personal use. The defendant therefore argued that he had an incompetent tribunal which violated his right to due process. A different judge presided over the PCRA litigation, and that judge ordered a hearing at which the defendant’s trial counsel and other witnesses testified.

During the hearing, the witnesses were asked about Judge Pozonsky’s behavior during the trial. The defendant’s sister testified and said that Judge Pozonsky was “acting funny” and “not paying attention to the proceedings.” Additionally, the defendant’s trial counsel stated that although Judge Pozonsky acted not as one might expect a judge to act, he dismissed it “because he always appeared that way.” Further, the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the defendant’s case stated that Judge Pozonsky’s behavior was “consistent” with the other experiences he has had with the judge over the years. Ultimately, the defendant’s PCRA petition was denied because he failed to adequately show that Judge Pozonsky was under the influence of cocaine during his trial. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

Can You File a PCRA Petition Because of a Judge’s Actions?

Sometimes. Typically, PCRA petitions allege either after-discovered evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the PCRA statute is not limited to just those two avenues of relief. 42 Pa C.S.A. § 9543 (a)(2)(i) allows a defendant to get relief if “[a] violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States, which in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.” In the instant case, the defendant argued that he should receive a new trial because Judge Pozonsky was using cocaine during his trial and this undermined the reliability of his conviction.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The Superior Court agreed with the PCRA court that the defendant had not met his burden. The Superior Court found that Judge Pozonsky was not addicted to cocaine even though he would regularly order police officers to deposit cocaine in an evidence locker in his courtroom and would use this cocaine for his personal use. The Superior Court cited Judge Pozonsky’s disbarment opinion as evidence that he was not addicted to cocaine. Therefore, the Superior Court determined that the defendant’s claim that Judge Pozonsky was high during his trial as “speculative at best.” As such, the defendant was not entitled to relief, and he will have to serve his sentence barring further appeals.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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, PWID, Rape, and Murder. 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 9/14/19 Zak Goldstein 9/14/19

Attorney Goldstein Wins New Trial In Sexual Assault Case On Appeal of PCRA Petition

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a new trial for a client who had been convicted of rape and related charges for allegedly molesting his step-daughter.

In Commonwealth v. R.S., the defendant had been charged with rape of a child and related charges for allegedly sexually assaulting his step-daughter. The client was represented by a different attorney at trial, and at trial, the complainant testified to the details of the alleged abuse. The Commonwealth also called a number of witnesses to testify to the complainant’s disclosure of the allegations as well as the investigating detective.

In response, the defendant’s attorney called his then-wife to testify that she did not believe the allegations and had never seen anything suspicious. He also called the defendant to testify, and the defendant adamantly denied the allegations. The Commonwealth introduced no physical or forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations, and there were no other witnesses who had ever seen anything even remotely inappropriate. Nonetheless, the jury convicted R.S. of the charges based solely on the testimony of the complainant. R.S. was sentenced to 40 years’ incarceration, and his direct appeals were denied.

The Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition

After the Superior Court denied the direct appeal, R.S. retained Attorney Goldstein to file a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the transcripts and immediately noticed that the trial attorney had made a number of critical errors during the course of the trial. Most importantly, the trial attorney had failed to call character witnesses on R.S.’s behalf.

In Pennsylvania, character evidence is extremely important and may be the basis for reasonable doubt on its own. A defendant who has no prior criminal convictions may call witnesses to testify on his or her behalf and to tell a judge or jury that the defendant has an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, non-violent person. A defendant who produces that type of testimony is then entitled to a special jury instruction which informs the jury that the character testimony, if believed, may provide the basis for reasonable doubt even if the jury otherwise believed the allegations.

Here, R.S. had no prior convictions, but his defense attorney failed to introduce any character evidence at trial. Therefore, one of the main claims in the PCRA Petition was that the defense attorney provided the ineffective assistance of counsel by neglecting to call character witnesses on R.S.’s behalf and thereby failing to obtain this critical jury instruction. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and eventually credited the attorney’s testimony that he felt that character evidence was not relevant because the defendant’s wife had testified that she did not believe the complainant. The trial court then denied the PCRA Petition, finding that trial counsel had provided the effective assistance of counsel.

The Appeal of the PCRA Petition’s Denial

PCRA Petitions can be difficult to win in the trial court because they are typically heard by the judge who presided over the trial. Naturally, many judges do not want to overturn a conviction for a case where they sat through the trial, particularly if the judge agreed with the result. Fortunately, the improper denial of a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition may be appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Supreme Court if necessary. Judges may also simply disagree with the claims raised in the Petition.

After the trial judge denied the PCRA Petition, Attorney Goldstein immediately filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In a lengthy opinion, the Superior Court overruled the trial court and ordered a new trial. Superior Court concluded that based on a century of precedent, trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call character witnesses on R.S.’s behalf, and the mere fact that he had called fact witnesses as part of the defense did not eliminate the requirement that he provide effective representation by calling the character witnesses. The Court noted that this entire case came down to the testimony of two witnesses - the complainant who said that this happened, and R.S. who said that it did not. R.S. suffered prejudice from the fact that the jury was not informed of his outstanding reputation in the community and the instruction that that reputation alone could provide a reasonable doubt.

Fortunately, the Superior Court reversed the conviction and awarded R.S. a new trial at which he will be able to call the character witnesses.

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, DUI, PWID, Rape, and Murder. 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.