Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 9/8/20 Zak Goldstein 9/8/20

PA Superior Court: Consent to Search Defeats Motion to Suppress Even if Suspect Doesn't Speak English

Criminal Defense Lawyer.jpg — Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Carmenates. This decision is significant because it holds that a defendant does not need to completely understand a trooper’s directives in order to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to allow the police to search his property. This decision is especially troubling given the fact that there are so many people in the United States who either do not speak English or have a limited proficiency with the English language. As such, this decision could cause significant problems for non-English speaking individuals who are stopped by the police.

Commonwealth v. Carmenates

A Pennsylvania State Trooper stopped the defendant during a routine traffic stop because the defendant supposedly was not traveling a safe distance behind the truck in front of him. After he stopped the defendant, the trooper noticed that the defendant had a suitcase and several large duffle bags covered by a blanket in the backseat. Additionally, the trooper noticed a large teddy bear, fast food, air fresheners and religious paraphernalia in the car. According to the trooper, the fast food showed that the defendant had engaged in “longer” and “harder” travel. Further, the trooper claimed that the religious paraphernalia was common among drug traffickers because it was used to bring them good luck during their travels.

The defendant did not really speak English. Therefore, the trooper used Google Translate on his phone to communicate with the defendant even though he would later admit that it is not always accurate. The trooper asked the defendant for his license, registration, and proof of insurance, but the defendant was supposedly trembling when looking for that information. The trooper then asked the defendant to step out of his car while he ran his information. The trooper also acknowledged that because it was December it was chilly outside.

After reviewing his information, the trooper concluded that there were no issues with the defendant’s information. The Trooper then told the defendant he was going to be issued a digital warning. The trooper then asked if he could see the defendant’s luggage, and the defendant supposedly consented to the search. Upon searching the luggage, the trooper discovered that the duffle bags contained marijuana. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”) and possession of paraphernalia.

The defendant then filed a motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, the above facts were placed on the record. Additionally, the defendant testified that he felt that he had to follow the trooper’s orders. He said the reason he opened the bag was because the officer pointed at it and that he did not realize that he could decline to consent to the search. At the conclusion of the hearing, the defendant argued that he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily consent to the search. The suppression court agreed and suppressed the drugs and paraphernalia that were found in the defendant’s car. The Commonwealth, then filed a timely appeal.

Do you have to let the police search your stuff?

No, you do not. In general, you do not have to let the police search your belongings whether those belongings are in your house or in your car. If the police have a search warrant, then they can gain access to your house to search your things. With respect to the search of a car, the police typically do not need a search warrant, but they do no need probable cause. However, the probable cause requirement disappears if you tell the police that they have permission to search your things. Therefore, if you have a car full of marijuana, guns, dead bodies, or other contraband, it is usually a bad idea to give the police permission to search the car. Instead, it is usually advisable to tell them that they do not have your consent to conduct a search. If they have probable cause or believe that they have probable cause, they may search the car anyway, but you will have a better case for challenging the legality of the search in court. If you tell them they can search the car, then you will have a very hard time challenging the legality of the search. This advice generally applies even if you do not think you have anything illegal in the car as someone else who uses your car could have left some evidence of a crime in the car without your knowledge.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search is unreasonable unless an exception applies. A consent to search is a valid exception. In determining whether a consent to search is valid, there must be a finding that the defendant’s consent to search was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. In making its decision, the suppression court is supposed to look at a variety of factors in its decision. This is a very fact intensive inquiry and therefore the courts will consider any or all of the following: how many officers are present; whether there was physical contact, the officers’ demeanor; whether the defendant was informed that he did not have to consent to the search; whether the police directed the defendant’s movements; the defendant’s maturity, intelligence and education; and any other relevant factors.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court reversed the suppression court’s decision. In its decision, the Superior Court found that the defendant’s consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Specifically, the Superior Court found that the defendant was legally stopped because he was following the truck too closely. Additionally, the Superior Court found that the trooper was not aggressive, did not draw his weapon, and that this was an “even tempered interaction.” Further, the Court found that it was of no significance that the defendant “felt” that he needed to open the baggage.

What is troubling about the Court’s decision is that it appeared to only focus on the lack of coercion by the trooper. The Court barely focused on whether the defendant made a knowing and intelligent decision to consent to searching his property. The Court found that it was not significant that the defendant and the trooper had a language gap and that Google Translation was not always accurate. Therefore, the Commonwealth will now be able to use the drugs and paraphernalia against the defendant at his trial. This is particularly alarming because the trial court, as the finder of fact which was able to actually view the testimony of the witnesses, had concluded that the consent was not really voluntarily given. The Superior Court appears to have substituted its own judgment for that of the trial court without having had the opportunity to observe the 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, 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 9/1/20 Zak Goldstein 9/1/20

PA Superior Court: Police Emergency Lights Mean Stop Under 4th Amendment

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Wilson, holding that a defendant is stopped for purposes of the Fourth Amendment if the police activate their overhead lights. This decision is significant because it recognizes the common-sense principle that most people would not feel free to leave/continue driving once an officer activates his or her lights. Therefore, the police must have probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion before they activate lights and sirens in an attempt to stop a person.

Commonwealth v. Wilson

A Pennsylvania State Trooper was driving on I-83 when he noticed a white Ford pickup truck with a Maryland registration in front of him. The truck, which was being operated by the defendant, was going less than 60 miles per hour, but above the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The defendant was in the left lane. The trooper then positioned himself behind the defendant. The defendant was “barely” passing traffic, but he was still traveling faster than the vehicles in the right lane.

The Trooper then “chirped” his siren to indicate his desire for the defendant to go to the right lane because he felt that the defendant was not driving fast enough. The defendant did not pick up on this cue, and he continued to drive in the left lane. The trooper then activated his lights and turned on his siren. The trooper did this because he was trying to get past the defendant so he could get back to his station. In response to this, the defendant pulled over to the left side of the highway. According to the trooper, the defendant could have pulled over to the right lane and his failure to do so violated the law.

The trooper then candidly admitted that he experienced an episode of road rage against the defendant. He began to yell and swear at him. As he was yelling at the defendant, the trooper supposedly detected the odor of marijuana. He then instructed the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, but the defendant was not able to perform some of them due to his bad hip. He failed those that he was able to try to perform. The defendant was then placed under arrest for DUI. He was then given a blood test which indicated that he had marijuana and oxycodone in his system.

The defendant then filed a motion to suppress. At the hearing, the trooper testified to the above facts, and the trial court denied the suppression motion. The trial court stated that because the defendant did not comply with the trooper’s initial “chirp,” the trooper had probable cause to stop the defendant. After his motion was denied, the defendant proceeded by a stipulated bench trial where he was found guilty and sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence. The defendant then filed a timely appeal arguing that the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop him. Therefore, he was illegally seized and his motion to suppress should have been granted.

Is Every Interaction with a Police Officer a Seizure?

No, for purposes of Fourth Amendment law, not every interaction with a police officer is considered a seizure. There are three types of police interactions: mere encounters, investigative detentions, and arrests. Prosecutors frequently argue that every interaction is a mere encounter so that a defendant cannot claim that his constitutional rights were violated. The crucial factor in determining whether a mere encounter has evolved into an investigatory detention (or an arrest) is whether the individual would have reasonably felt free to terminate the interaction between himself and the police. In other words, if a reasonable person would not have felt free to end the encounter, then it is not a mere encounter. The reason this is significant is because the police need reasonable articulable suspicion that a defendant is engaged in criminal activity before they can stop him for an investigatory detention or probable cause if they wish to arrest him.

As such, when a defense attorney litigates a motion to suppress, they are often trying to elicit facts to suggest that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. This may involve soliciting facts such as: the placement of the officers, what they were wearing, whether their weapons were visible, how many officers were involved, the tone of questioning, whether they touched the defendant, whether he was in handcuffs, etc. At the conclusion of the hearing, the defense attorney will then argue that based on the facts of the particular case this was not a mere encounter, but rather an investigatory detention and/or arrest and therefore the police needed reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop him in the first place.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the lower court and held that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The Superior Court held that when the trooper activated his lights, this constituted a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The Court went on to say that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or in this case keep driving once an officer activated their overhead lights. Further, the Superior Court held that the Trooper had no reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The trooper testified that he pulled the defendant over so he could get by the defendant to return to his station. The trooper had not pulled the defendant over to investigate a crime or motor vehicle code violation. Consequently, the court vacated the defendant’s conviction for DUI and ruled that the trial court could not admit the majority of the evidence against him as almost all of it occurred after the trooper illegally stopped him.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Zak Goldstein 8/25/20 Zak Goldstein 8/25/20

PA Superior Court: Megan's Law Registrant May Challenge Retroactive Changes to Registration Laws Outside of PCRA Process

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Duncan. This decision did not make any substantive changes in the law. Rather, it dealt with some of the procedural difficulties that defendants have had in challenging their sex offender registration status following recent changes in the law stemming from Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Superior Court decisions. In this case, the court held that the defendant should have been appointed counsel to represent him when he was challenging the requirement that he register as a sex offender despite being a juvenile when he committed the crimes which triggered registration. This decision makes it clear that registrants may bring challenges to their registration status in the trial court in many cases even when the time for filing a post-conviction relief act petition has expired.

Commonwealth v. Duncan

The defendant entered into a negotiated guilty plea to the charges of robbery, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful restraint, recklessly endangering another person, and carrying firearms without a license. The defendant received a sentenced of 4-10 years’ imprisonment. Notably, the defendant was a juvenile when he committed his offenses, even though he was charged as an adult. The defendant did not file a direct appeal from his judgment of sentence.

More than a decade after his plea, the defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The defendant alleged that right before he was to be released from prison, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections told him that he must register as a sex offender upon his release pursuant to the then-effective version of Megan’s Law. This would be due to the kidnapping of a minor conviction. The defendant argued that requiring him to register as a sex offender violated the Ex Post Facto principles of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz. Further, the defendant argued that the Commonwealth was in breach of their agreement because he had never agreed to register as a sex offender. At the time that he pleaded guilty, that charge did not require sex offender registration.

The court initially treated his petition as a Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. At first, the PCRA court agreed with the defendant and ordered that he be removed from the sex offender registry. However, the PCRA court later vacated its decision to allow the Commonwealth an opportunity to respond to his petition. The Commonwealth responded that his request should be denied because it was an untimely filed PCRA petition. The PCRA imposes very strict deadlines and if a defendant misses a deadline they will often not be afforded any relief. Consequently, because the PCRA court thought the PCRA governed the defendant’s petition, it denied his request due to his petition being untimely. The defendant was subsequently appointed counsel, and he then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant only argued that he should have been appointed counsel to help him litigate his claim.

The Ex Post Facto Clause of The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions

Both the United States and the Pennsylvania Constitutions prohibit Ex Post Facto laws. Those are laws that criminalize past behavior. The reason behind is that individuals have the right to adequate notice and should not be punished for actions that were legal when they did took them. In order to qualify as an Ex Post Facto law, the law must 1) apply retroactively and 2) negatively impact the offender.

In the late ‘90s and early 2000’s, states across the country began passing laws that required individuals convicted of sexual offenses to register as sex offenders. These early Megan’s Law statutes imposed onerous requirements on defendants that were often seemingly punitive in nature. These laws were frequently challenged as violations of the Ex Post Facto clause because they applied to defendants retroactively (i.e. defendants were required to register as sex offenders even though they committed their crimes before the passage of these statutes).

Pennsylvania and many other states would argue that these Megan’s Law requirements were not punitive and therefore the Ex Post Facto clause of their respective constitutions did not apply. And, unfortunately, some of these governments had some success. For example, the state of Alaska was successfully able to defend its Megan’s Law statute all the way to the United States Supreme Court. However, in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Muniz that Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law statute violated the Ex Post Facto clauses of both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a new Megan’s Law (SORNA) statute in the aftermath of the Muniz decision which certainly guarantees that this fight is far from over.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed with the defendant that he should have been appointed an attorney to represent him when he litigated his PCRA petition. The Court further stated that the PCRA court was not required to treat the defendant’s petition as a PCRA petition. Specifically, the Superior Court cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Lacombe which held that because he was raising Ex Post Facto claims, the PCRA court was not required to treat his filing as a PCRA petition and therefore he was not subjected to the stringent filing deadlines of the PCRA. Further, the Superior Court stated that the defendant “might have a valid Ex Post Facto and due process claim” and therefore remanded his case for consideration. This is an important decision due to the deadline issues. The PCRA requires a defendant to file his or her post-conviction relief act petition within one year of his or her sentence becoming final. Obviously, when the legislature passes a new law ten years later imposing new sex offender requirements on someone who did not have to register at that time that they were convicted, that person should have some procedural mechanism for challenging the law. By imposing the one-year deadline for filing a PCRA petition on these petitioners, the courts were able to block them from ever challenging these unconstitutional laws. By recognizing that these filings are not really PCRAs, the appellate courts have removed some of the deadlines for filing them and allowed these important issues to be resolved on the merits.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Zak Goldstein 8/13/20 Zak Goldstein 8/13/20

PA Supreme Court: Commonwealth Bears Burden of Disproving Claim of Self-Defense in Gun Case

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lineman, reaffirming its decision in Commonwealth v. Torres. The Supreme Court again held that if a criminal defendant properly raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden of disproving that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, it is not adequate for the fact-finder to merely disbelieve the defendant’s evidence of self-defense. The Commonwealth must produce actual evidence to counter a defendant’s self-defense claim. The Lineman decision is significant because it applies the logic of Torres to a possessory offense rather than just a crime of violence.

Commonwealth v. Lineman

A Philadelphia Police officer was on routine patrol when he received a radio call indicating that a male was screaming for assistance. The officer arrived on scene and observed the defendant and another male struggling on the ground. The defendant was lying on the ground with the other male on top of him. The officer ordered the male to get off the defendant. As the defendant began to stand he heard the sound of metal scraping the ground. The officer then looked at the defendant’s hand and saw that he was holding an Uzi. According to the officer, the defendant appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance and was bleeding. The defendant was subsequently arrested for Violation of the Uniform Firearm Act § 6105 (“VUFA 6105”), Persons Prohibited from Possessing a Firearm.

The defendant elected to proceed by way of bench trial. At his trial, he testified in his own defense. Specifically, he testified that he and the other male had been drinking. Eventually, the other male became violent towards him and hit him in the face with the gun, which broke the defendant’s nose. The two then began to wrestle for the gun. The officer arrived while they were wrestling and this is what caused the fight to end. During closing arguments, defense counsel argued that the defendant was entitled to an acquittal because he raised the issue of self-defense and the Commonwealth did not present any evidence to rebut this claim as required by the case of Commonwealth v. Torres.

The trial court disagreed. The trial court stated that because this was a possessory offense, he could not raise a self-defense argument. The trial court did state that the defendant could raise a duress defense, but because he did not believe the defendant’s story it was not applicable to him. As such, he found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to three to seven years’ incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. In its decision, the Superior Court found that because the defendant was still in possession of the firearm after the police officer broke up the fight, this was sufficient to convict him of the charge of VUFA 6105. Undeterred, the defendant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Which side has to prove self-defense in Pennsylvania?

Commonwealth v. Torres is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that was decided in 2001. The basic facts of the case were that the police arrived at a house in Philadelphia, PA after they received a radio call. When the police arrived on scene, they met with the complainant who said that the defendant had hit him in the head with a wrench. The defendant was about a half block away from the scene when the police arrived. While investigating the scene, the police were unable to locate a wrench. The defendant was then subsequently arrested and charged with simple assault.

The complainant never appeared to court. Nonetheless, the Commonwealth still elected to prosecute the case against the defendant by calling the police officers who arrived on scene. The officers testified that the complainant said the defendant hit him with a wrench. In response, the defendant testified on his own behalf and stated that he was acting in self-defense. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court stated he disbelieved the defendant and found him guilty. The defendant then filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court which affirmed his conviction. He then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and vacated the defendant’s conviction. The Court stated that when a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Court, the Commonwealth must produce some evidence to dispute this claim. Further, the Court specifically stated that it is not sufficient for the trial court to not believe the defendant. Therefore, because there was no evidence on the record to contradict the defendant’s claim that he was acting in self-defense, the defendant’s conviction could not stand and thus was vacated. It is important to note that the defendant in Torres was not charged with a possessory offense (i.e. possessing a gun).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a slip opinion decision vacating the defendant’s conviction. In its opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically cited Commonwealth v. Torres as the reason why it was reversing the lower courts’ decisions. The Court did not provide any additional justification for its decision. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that the Court has now expanded Torres to include possessory offenses as well. As a matter of common sense, this decision makes sense. If someone is in danger and uses a weapon to protect themselves in self-defense, they should also be able to avoid a conviction for the possession of said weapon. Regardless of the logic of the decision, this decision is obviously favorable to the defendant because his conviction is now vacated, and he will be released from prison.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta