Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 10/21/21 Zak Goldstein 10/21/21

PA Superior Court: Police Must Obtain “Meaningful Consent” Before Searching a Cell Phone Without a Warrant

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Gallagher, holding that the trial court properly suppressed evidence collected from a defendant’s phone because the Commonwealth had not established that the defendant provided “meaningful consent to the invasive search it performed.” In this case, the defendant had actually consented to a search, but the Superior Court ultimately found that the extraction of the full contents of the phone exceeded the scope of the defendant’s consent. Therefore, the evidence should be suppressed.

Commonwealth v. Gallagher

An officer with the Adams Township Police Department responded to a 911 dispatch from a 16-year-old female caller reporting that she had been the victim of an attempted kidnapping and had escaped and was in hiding. She testified that she also had suffered a head injury. The officer drove to the complainant’s stated location and found her. According to the officer, she was “hysterical, panicky, and scared.” The complainant told the officer that she had been picked up in McKeesport by the defendant and his friend. They stopped at a gas station and at a cemetery where they drank alcohol. Afterwards, they went to meet a friend. She did not remember anything else. She claimed that she woke up on the side of a road with someone on top of her and their hand down the front of her pants. She also claimed that her pants and underwear were pulled down. She then ran away and hid in the woods.

The complainant said the defendant was the one on top of her. She was eventually transported to a local hospital to conduct a sexual assault examination. An unknown amount of time later, the defendant was arrested under suspicion for driving under the influence. He was given his Miranda rights and interviewed for about an hour and a half. During the interrogation, a detective asked the defendant if he could look at his cell phone. The defendant did not object and showed the detective a picture of the two girls he was with the previous weekend. The defendant also signed a consent to the search of stored electronic media. The relevant part of this statement said “I [defendant] having been advised of my rights by [the police] consent to having my computer hardware and all equipment which can collect, analyze, create, display, convert, store, conceal, or transmit electronic, magnetic, optical, or similar computer impulses or data.” The police then seized evidence from the defendant’s phone.

Police eventually arrested the defendant and charged him with attempted rape and other offenses. The defendant filed a pretrial motion seeking suppression of evidence from the “phone dump” conducted by the police during the interview. At the hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s pretrial suppression motion, suppressing all the evidence that was seized from the defendant’s cellphone. The Commonwealth filed an appeal and argued that this suppression order substantially handicapped its prosecution.

The Superior Court’s Panel Decision

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that “[c]ommon sense and a view of the surrounding situation would indicate to any reasonable, semi-intelligent person that if a request is being made of him, the converse option is also a possible right available to him.” The defendant argued that the consent form that he signed “did not advise him what his rights where, and [the detective] never told him that he was free to leave and free to withhold consent.” A three-member panel of the Superior Court agreed with the defendant and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Commonwealth then filed an application for re-argument with a full panel of the Superior Court.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s En Banc Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that “the Commonwealth did not establish that the defendant consented to the cell phone dump” and that the form used by detectives “fails to explain [the defendant’s] rights with regard to stored data.” Additionally, the form did not explain what the defendant was consenting to. Further, the detective asking the defendant “if he minded if we looked at his phone” did not make it clear that the police intended to do a complete data dump of his phone. Therefore, the defendant must still stand trial for the aforementioned charges, but the Commonwealth will not be allowed to use the evidence they obtained from his phone at trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

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. 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 8/24/21 Zak Goldstein 8/24/21

PA Superior Court: Consecutive Probation May Not Be Revoked While Defendant Still on Parole

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Simmons, holding that a trial court may not anticipatorily revoke a defendant’s probation sentence. This decision is a huge win for defendants. As a practical matter, if a defendant receives a jail sentence, they often receive a probation sentence that runs consecutive to their jail sentence. When they are released from prison, they are technically on parole, but have not yet begun serving their probation sentence. Simmons holds that if a defendant violates his or her parole, they cannot also be punished for violating their probation at the same time because they have not yet begun serving the probation sentence. Consequently, the worst-case scenario for a defendant is to receive the balance of their back time for their violation. This is significant because as a practical matter this means a defendant can usually only receive a county sentence for their violation, instead of a state sentence.

Commonwealth v. Simmons

In 2017, the defendant pleaded guilty to firearms not to be carried without a license and carrying firearms on the public streets of Philadelphia. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to a term of six to 23 months in jail, followed by three years’ probation. At some point, the trial court amended his sentence to have the probation sentence run concurrently to this jail sentence. It is unclear when this occurred, but it occurred more than 30 days after his sentencing hearing.

A few months after his sentencing, the defendant was arrested again and charged with firearms not to be carried without a license and possession of a controlled substance. The arrest occurred while the defendant was on parole, but before the term of the probation of his case had begun. On his new case, the defendant pleaded guilty to firearms not to be accrued without a license and possession of a controlled substance. The defendant was sentenced to six to 23 months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ probation. As a result of these new convictions, the judge on his original case anticipatorily revoked his probation and sentenced him to a term of two and one-half to five years in prison.

The Defendant’s Appeal

The defendant filed a timely appeal. The defendant argued that the trial court erred when it found that he had violated a condition of his probation because it had not yet begun. In other words, the defendant argued that he could not have violated his probation when his probation had not officially started. Additionally, the defendant argued that the trial court illegally modified his sentence, as the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify his sentence more than 30 days after its imposition.

Initially, the defendant was unsuccessful and the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied his appeal. Undeterred, the defendant filed for an application for re-argument en banc and the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed to rehear his appeal.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed the relevant sentencing statutes governing the imposition and revocation of an order of probation. It also reviewed prior appellate decisions concerning these issues. In its analysis, the Superior Court determined that a trial court is permitted to enter an order of probation and that it can impose this order consecutively or concurrently. Additionally, a trial court is permitted to terminate a defendant’s supervision at any time, but it can only revoke an order of probation when there is proof that the defendant violated the specified conditions of his probation. Finally, the Superior Court also found that prior precedent permitted trial courts to anticipatorily revoke a defendant’s probationary sentence.

As a preliminary matter, the Superior Court found that the trial court improperly changed the probation tail on the defendant’s sentence to run concurrently to his incarceration sentence from consecutively. Next, after reviewing the statutes and the relevant case, the Superior Court held that the case law that allowed anticipatory revocations of probation was “incorrect” and that they “contravene[d] the plain language of the relevant statutes.” The Superior Court stated that “under the Sentencing Code, a sentence of total confinement and a consecutive order of probation may not be aggregated and viewed as one.” Therefore, a defendant cannot be found to violate the terms of his probation before his probation begins.

So what does this all mean? The easiest way to explain it is to use the defendant’s case. Remember, on his first case, the defendant received a sentence of six to 23 months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ reporting probation. When the defendant picked up his new case, he was on parole and had not begun his probation sentence. Consequently, because of the Superior Court’s decision, the worst punishment he can now receive is the balance of his back time (i.e. the 23 months minus how much time he has served in jail). In the instant case, because the defendant was illegally sentenced (and because he received a sentence that exceeded his original sentence), he will get a new sentencing hearing. Had he been found in violation once the probation started, he would have been facing the maximum on the charge for which he was on probation. For an F3, that would be up to seven years in state prison.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein — Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Zak Goldstein 7/22/21 Zak Goldstein 7/22/21

Can you get your money back if the police take it illegally in Pennsylvania?

Return of Property Petitions in Pennsylvania

Following a recent ruling of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, it is now clear that people who have had their money or other items seized by police officers who did not have probable cause may file a motion to suppress in the Court of Common Pleas and ask that a Common Pleas Judge order the police to return the property. This is called filing a return of property petition. Previously, it was clear that if the police filed criminal charges in conjunction with taking the property, then the defendant could file a motion to suppress and would be entitled to a return of the property if the motion to success was successful in the criminal case. It was unclear, however, what remedy existed for a person who has had his or her cash taken by the police but where the police have not filed charges or an actual forfeiture action.

The Commonwealth Court has now clearly ruled that a person who has had property stolen by the police may file a return of property petition in the Court of Common Pleas and move to suppress the evidence if the police did not have probable cause to take the property or engage in the search that led to the forfeiture. If the judge finds that the police acted illegally, then the Commonwealth must return the money or other property. This rule obviously does not apply to pure contraband like drugs or illegal guns. The Commonwealth Court reached this conclusion in the case of In Re: $300,000 U.S. Currency.

What is a Return of Property Petition?

In Pennsylvania, a Return of Property Petition may be filed when law enforcement officers have seized money or other valuable personal property like cars and watches on the suspicion that the property may be related to criminal activity. If the police do not file criminal charges or a defendant wins a related criminal case, then the return of property petition allows the defendant to ask a judge to order that the property be returned. Return of property litigation is very similar to a forfeiture action. In a forfeiture action, the government moves for a court order directing that it be allowed to keep seized property because the property was obtained through some illegal means. Forfeiture actions often accompany criminal charges. For example, if police officers find a large quantity of money while conducting a search that results in the discovery of drugs, the police will likely keep the money. Prosecutors should then file a forfeiture action if they do not plan to return the money. In many cases, however, the government does not necessarily file the separate forfeiture case. The forfeiture order could come along with a criminal sentence, or the government may simply keep the money.

If there is no criminal conviction, however, or the money is really unrelated to the conviction, then the person who had the money taken by the police can file to have that money returned. Prior to the Commonwealth Court’s recent decision, it was clear that a defendant in a forfeiture action or criminal case could file a motion to suppress and challenge the procedures by which the police recovered the property. If the police acted illegally, then the property should be returned. It was unclear whether a motion to suppress could be filed in a return of property case where the defendant initiated the litigation and the government never filed criminal charges or a forfeiture action.

Rule 588

Rule 588. Motion for Return of Property.
(A)  A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return of the property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful possession thereof. Such motion shall be filed in the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the property was seized.
(B)  The judge hearing such motion shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision thereon. If the motion is granted, the property shall be restored unless the court determines that such property is contraband, in which case the court may order the property to be forfeited.
(C)  A motion to suppress evidence under Rule 581 may be joined with a motion under this rule.

In Re: $300,000

An individual was stopped in Union County, Pennsylvania by a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper while he was driving his vehicle. During the search, the Trooper found $300,000 and seized the money. Despite this seizure, the individual was not charged with any crimes. Approximately a month after he was stopped and had his money taken from him, the individual brought a stand-alone return of property action in Union County Court of Common Pleas seeking the return of his property. A few weeks after this filing, the individual then filed a motion to suppress, seeking suppression of the property found in his car and all statements that were made to the police.

The Commonwealth opposed the Individual’s motion to suppress. The government argued that the individual could not bring a stand-alone motion to suppress in a return of property action prior to the Commonwealth filing criminal charges or initiating a forfeiture action. The trial court denied the individual’s motion to suppress arguing that a motion to suppress was “premature.”

The individual then filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the Commonwealth Court. In his petition, he asked for the Commonwealth Court to decide whether an individual aggrieved by the seizure of property could file a motion to suppress in conjunction with a motion to return property when the Commonwealth has not filed a forfeiture petition and no criminal charges have been filed. The Commonwealth Court agreed to hear his appeal. It should be noted that approximately six months after the trial court denied his motion to suppress, the Commonwealth filed a forfeiture petition against the individual. Consequently, the Commonwealth argued that the individual’s appeal was now moot because he now had the ability to file a motion to suppress evidence. In response, the individual argued that it was not moot because the Commonwealth could just “sit” on evidence it seizes “until the Commonwealth decides to provide an opportunity to the aggrieved individual to suppress the evidence.”

The Commonwealth Court’s Decision

The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s decision. Regarding the Commonwealth’s argument that the individual’s appeal was moot, the Commonwealth Court found that this issue was capable of repetition, yet likely to evade appellate review. Further, this issue involved an issue important to the public interest and consequently the Commonwealth Court declined to deny the individual’s appeal because of mootness.

Turning to the merits of his appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that an individual can file a motion to suppress regardless of whether or not the Commonwealth has filed criminal charges or a forfeiture action. In making its decision, the Commonwealth Court first emphasized that though forfeiture hearings are “civil in form,” they are also “in their nature criminal.” As such, even though an individual is not entitled to all the rights that criminal defendants receive, they do have some rights. One of those rights is that they are entitled to the exclusionary rule of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore individuals can file motions to suppress when their property has been unlawfully seized by the government. The United States Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue and has held that “the Commonwealth may not permanently acquire derivative contraband which it has initially seized unconstitutionally.”

The Commonwealth Court then analyzed the relevant statutes at issue. Specifically, it looked at Rules 581and 588 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. In its analysis of these rules it found that motions to suppress were intended to be used by individuals to reclaim their property. Further, the Commonwealth Court also held that a person does not have to be a criminal defendant to initiate the proceedings. Instead, the Commonwealth Court found that it was the intent of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to allow any person who has had their property unlawfully seized be allowed to file a motion to suppress to regain their property. The reason is because if an individual was forced to wait until a criminal complaint or forfeiture petition was filed then the Commonwealth could hold someone’s unconstitutionally seized evidence in perpetuity. This was not acceptable to the Commonwealth Court and therefore it held that, in the future, individuals can file motions to suppress in conjunction with their motions to return property, regardless if a criminal proceeding or a forfeiture action has been initiated against them.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Zak Goldstein 7/12/21 Zak Goldstein 7/12/21

PA Superior Court: Police May Not Prolong Traffic Stop by Asking Unrelated Questions About Guns

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Malloy, holding that the police may not prolong a traffic stop to go on a fishing expedition regarding whether the passenger in the vehicle has a license to carry a firearm. This case is significant because police officers will routinely extend traffic stops to see if they can find evidence of additional crimes. The decision in Malloy provides a powerful check to this intrusive process by the police.

Commonwealth v. Malloy

A Philadelphia Police officer was on routine patrol when he noticed an automobile that did not have a license plate. The officer activated his lights and sirens and pulled the vehicle over. As he walked towards the vehicle, he noticed that there was a license tag on the car’s rear windshield, but it was not properly displayed and secured. This was a violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. The officer also noticed that there were several occupants within the car, including the defendant, who was seated in the rear behind the driver. The officer approached the driver and told him that he did not have a license plate on the back, to which the driver responded that he just got the car two days prior and still needed to get screws for the license plate. The officer seemed satisfied with this explanation and did not issue the driver a citation.

The officer then asked the defendant to roll down the passenger window. He asked the defendant for identification, and the defendant responded by pulling a lanyard out from his hooded sweatshirt. When the officer saw the lanyard, which suggested the defendant worked as a security guard, he immediately asked the defendant if he had a firearm on him. In the officer’s experience, it was common for people who worked in armed security positions at local bars to keep their identification badges in lanyards. The defendant responded that he did have a firearm because he worked in a security position at a local bar. The officer then asked where the firearm was, to which the defendant responded that it was on his right hip.

At that point, the officer asked the defendant to give him the firearm and to exit the vehicle so that he could secure the firearm before continuing his investigation. The defendant was then asked for his “identification documents.” The defendant gave him his “Act 235” card, but the card had expired. The defendant then told the officer that he had another card at his home. The officer then proceeded to contact the Pennsylvania State Police where it was determined that the defendant’s certification had actually expired. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress to suppress the firearms and the statements made to the officer. At his suppression hearing, the above facts were entered into the record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The defendant then entered into a stipulated trial where he was found guilty of both charges. At his sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced to five years of reporting probation. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant argued that his statements and firearm should have been suppressed because the police illegally prolonged a routine traffic stop to conduct an unrelated investigation into whether he was legally allowed to carry a firearm.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed prior appellate decisions including United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) decisions. Specifically, the Superior Court reviewed Rodriguez v. United States, where SCOTUS held that when the police stop a vehicle for a motor vehicle violation, the stop may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose.” In Rodriguez, SCOTUS did say that police officers are also allowed to ask a driver for his driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance, and other questions that are “aimed at ensuring the safe and responsible operation of vehicles on the highway.”

However, the Superior Court found that asking for a passenger’s documented authority to carry a firearm was not a permitted incidental inquiry during a traffic stop. Further, the Superior Court held that just because the defendant admitted to possessing a firearm did not mean that the officer was justified in prolonging the traffic stop to detain and investigate the defendant. The Superior Court cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision Commonwealth v. Hicks, in which the PA Supreme Court held that the police cannot detain and investigate an individual simply because he is possessing a firearm. Further, the record at the defendant’s motion to suppress did not show any evidence that he was involved in any criminal activities or had engaged in any furtive movements. As such, the officer was not lawfully justified in detaining and investigating the defendant. Therefore, the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress is vacated as well as his conviction. The defendant will get a new trial where the Commonwealth will not be allowed to use the firearm or the statements made to the police against him.