Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 6/18/25 Zak Goldstein 6/18/25

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Erred in Quashing Charges From Online Sting Operation Run by Private Citizen Based on Factual Impossibility

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

In Commonwealth v. Aguilar, 2025 PA Super 118, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the order of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas dismissing criminal charges against a defendant who had been caught in an online sex sting operation run by a private citizen. The Superior Court held that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress because a motion to suppress was not even the correct type of motion for a defendant to bring. The Court also ruled that even if the trial court properly construe the motion as a motion to quash, the trial court erred in granting it based on factual impossibility as factual impossibility is not a defense in Pennsylvania.

Background

The defendant was targeted by a group called LC Predator Catchers. Posing as a 15-year-old boy on dating apps, a private citizen allegedly engaged in explicit conversations with the defendant. According to the affidavit of probable cause, the defendant sent sexual messages and photos, offered to be “fuck friends,” and invited the fake minor to his home. The private citizen allegedly showed up at the defendant’s house, confronted him, and then notified the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department. Police later conducted a Mirandized interview, during which the defendant allegedly acknowledged the sexual intent of his messages.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with:

Criminal Attempt – Corruption of Minors (both as a misdemeanor and felony under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)),
Criminal Use of a Communication Facility (18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a)).

Suppression and Trial Court Proceedings

The defendant filed a pretrial “motion to suppress,” arguing that all charges should be dismissed because his communications were with an adult civilian rather than an actual minor or police officer. He relied on the text of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6318 (the Unlawful Contact with a Minor statute), which explicitly requires the involvement of a real or undercover minor. Although the defendant was not actually charged under that statute for that reason, the trial court accepted his argument and reasoned that it was factually impossible for the defendant to have committed the charged offenses.

The trial court then sua sponte treated the suppression motion as a motion to quash and dismissed the criminal information in its entirety based on this impossibility argument. In its opinion, the trial court also concluded on its own that the Commonwealth failed to present a prima case at the preliminary hearing that the defendant committed a crime. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed after concluding that the trial court made a number of mistakes.

Suppression Inapplicable: Because the communications were with a private citizen, not law enforcement, there was no Fourth Amendment or Pennsylvania constitutional violation. Thus, suppression was not a proper remedy.
Improper Sua Sponte Quashal: The defendant never filed a motion to quash. Under Pennsylvania law, quashal must be specifically requested in an omnibus pretrial motion, and sua sponte dismissal is generally improper. The Court emphasized that a suppression motion cannot be repurposed into a dispositive ruling on legal guilt.
Factual Impossibility Is Not a Defense: The Superior Court reaffirmed that under Pennsylvania law, factual impossibility is not a defense to an attempt charge. So long as the defendant believed he was communicating with a minor and took a substantial step toward completing the offense, he could be charged with attempt—even if the "minor" turned out to be an adult vigilante.
No Minor Required Under Charged Statutes: The Superior Court rejected the defendant’s argument that a minor or police officer was required to establish a violation of the statutes at issue. The Corruption of Minors statute, unlike § 6318, does not require the involvement of a real or fictitious minor. Likewise, the offense of Criminal Use of a Communication Facility requires only that the facility be used to facilitate a felony or attempted felony.
Prima Facie Case Was Established: The court found that the Commonwealth had produced sufficient evidence to support each element of the offenses charged. Chat logs, photographs, the defendant’s confession, and the arrangement to meet in person all constituted a prima facie case. Because no preliminary hearing had yet been held, the trial court’s ruling on evidentiary sufficiency was premature. Therefore, the Court reversed.

Conclusion

The Superior Court reinstated all charges and remanded the case for further proceedings. It emphasized that the charges did not require the involvement of an actual or undercover minor and that the trial court overstepped its role by misapplying both suppression doctrine and the law of attempt. Accordingly, the Court effectively held that private-citizen stings—though controversial—can lead to viable prosecutions in Pennsylvania.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 6/17/25 Zak Goldstein 6/17/25

PA Supreme Court Finds Statute Allowing Police to Tell Hospital Staff to Draw Blood Without Warrant in Potential DUI Cases Unconstitutional

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 3755 as Facially Unconstitutional in DUI Blood Draw Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

In Commonwealth v. Hunte, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a trial court ruling finding that 75 Pa.C.S. § 3755, the “emergency room blood draw” statute, violates both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court found the statute facially unconstitutional because it authorizes warrantless blood draws from DUI suspects in the absence of a valid exception to the warrant requirement.

The Facts of Hunte

Police officers responded to a single-vehicle crash in Cumberland County in which the defendant and a passenger were ejected from the vehicle. The passenger died, and the defendant was unconscious when the police arrived. The scene contained alcohol containers and fentanyl patches, and first responders reported that the defendant admitted to drinking. At the hospital, without obtaining a warrant or consent, a Pennsylvania State Trooper invoked Section 3755 and directed medical personnel to draw the defendant’s blood.

Although a separate blood sample had already been taken for medical purposes, the blood tested by the Commonwealth was drawn specifically at the trooper’s request under Section 3755. The hospital even used a special form tailored to that statute. Of course, the police had not obtained a warrant authorizing them to order that blood draw. Accordingly, the defendant later moved to suppress the blood results, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.

Section 3755

The statute allows the police to direct medical personnel to conduct a warrantless blood draw in certain circumstances. It provides:

§ 3755.  Reports by emergency room personnel.
(a)  General rule.--If, as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the person who drove, operated or was in actual physical control of the movement of any involved motor vehicle requires medical treatment in an emergency room of a hospital and if probable cause exists to believe a violation of section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) was involved, the emergency room physician or his designee shall promptly take blood samples from those persons and transmit them within 24 hours for testing to the Department of Health or a clinical laboratory licensed and approved by the Department of Health and specifically designated for this purpose. This section shall be applicable to all injured occupants who were capable of motor vehicle operation if the operator or person in actual physical control of the movement of the motor vehicle cannot be determined. Test results shall be released upon request of the person tested, his attorney, his physician or governmental officials or agencies.
(b)  Immunity from civil or criminal liability.--No physician, nurse or technician or hospital employing such physician, nurse or technician and no other employer of such physician, nurse or technician shall be civilly or criminally liable for withdrawing blood or obtaining a urine sample and reporting test results to the police pursuant to this section or for performing any other duty imposed by this section. No physician, nurse or technician or hospital employing such physician, nurse or technician may administratively refuse to perform such tests and provide the results to the police officer except as may be reasonably expected from unusual circumstances that pertain at the time of admission.

The Statute Is Unconstitutional

Writing for the majority, Justice Wecht held that Section 3755 violates the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania’s analogous constitutional provision because it authorizes warrantless blood draws without fitting into any recognized exception to the warrant requirement such as consent or exigency.

The Court reasoned that:

Implied consent statutes cannot serve as an independent exception to the warrant requirement. The Court rejected the notion that drivers implicitly consent to blood draws simply by operating a vehicle in Pennsylvania.
Blood draws are searches under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8. Because they are invasive and reveal sensitive personal information, they require a warrant or a valid exception.
No categorical exigency exists in DUI cases. The Court followed United States Supreme Court precedent (Missouri v. McNeely) in which the US Supreme Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not create per se exigency.
Section 3755 is unconstitutional on its face because it authorizes searches in situations where the Constitution requires individualized inquiry and a warrant, and probable cause alone is not enough.

The Commonwealth’s Arguments

The Commonwealth argued that exigent circumstances justified the blood draw and that a subsequent search warrant for testing the blood cured any defect. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the initial draw—i.e., the search—occurred without a warrant or recognized exception.

The Court also rejected the Commonwealth's attempt to salvage the statute by arguing that it merely facilitates lawful conduct or does not prohibit obtaining a warrant. The Court noted that Section 3755 affirmatively requires blood draws without a warrant or consent.

Accordingly, the statute is unconstitutional. Police must obtain a search warrant prior to directing a blood draw or be able to establish exigent circumstances which make getting a warrant impractical. They may not convert medical personnel into state actors in order to get around the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Zak Goldstein 6/7/25 Zak Goldstein 6/7/25

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Prior ARD Cannot Be Used to Enhance DUI Sentences

Commonwealth v. Shifflett

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Attorney

In a significant decision for Pennsylvania DUI law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on May 30, 2025, that using a defendant's prior acceptance of the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program to enhance sentences for subsequent DUI offenses violates constitutional protections under United States Supreme Court precedent such as Alleyne v. United States.

The Facts of Shifflet

The defendant was charged with DUI in 2022. The Commonwealth sought to treat this as a second offense based on his 2012 participation in the ARD for a prior DUI charge. Under Pennsylvania law, a second DUI offense carries mandatory minimum penalties including at least five days imprisonment, compared to six months probation for a first offense. The penalty is often more severe than that depending on the defendant’s BAC or whether the defendant had drugs in their system.

The defendant challenged the use of his prior ARD as a sentencing enhancement, arguing it violated his constitutional rights because it was not an actual conviction. The trial court agreed and sentenced him as a first time offender. The Commonwealth appealed, and the Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court ordered that the defendant be resentenced as a second time offender. The defendant sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted allocatur.

The Issue on Appeal

The case centered on the application of Alleyne v. United States. In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court held that any fact which increases or triggers a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only exception is for prior convictions, which the Supreme Court has recognized need not be re-proven to a jury.

The critical question was therefore whether ARD acceptance falls within this "prior conviction exception."

The Court's Analysis

Chief Justice Todd, writing for the majority, held that ARD does not qualify as a prior conviction for several reasons:

ARD is Not a Conviction: The Court emphasized that ARD is explicitly a pre-trial diversion program where formal criminal proceedings are suspended. No conviction results from ARD acceptance.
No Constitutional Safeguards: Unlike criminal convictions, ARD proceedings lack fundamental protections:
- No requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
- No admission of guilt required from the defendant at all
- No jury trial
- No formal evidentiary proceedings
- Limited confrontation rights
Not Equivalent to a Guilty Plea: The Court rejected arguments that ARD acceptance is similar to pleading guilty. Key differences include:
- No guilty plea colloquy ensuring knowing and voluntary waiver of rights
- No admission to the facts of the offense
- No requirement that defendants be informed their ARD could enhance future sentences
- Successful completion results in dismissal and expungement, not conviction

The Court's Holding

The Supreme Court therefore held that:

Using prior ARD acceptance to enhance DUI sentences without jury determination violates Alleyne
Section 3806 of the Motor Vehicle Code is facially unconstitutional insofar as it includes ARD in the definition of "prior offense"
The unconstitutional ARD provision is severable from the rest of Section 3806
The defendant was properly sentenced as a first offender

Implications for Pennsylvania DUI Defense

This decision has significant implications for DUI cases in Pennsylvania:

For Current Cases:

Defendants facing DUI charges who have prior ARD resolutions cannot be sentenced as repeat offenders, so they will typically be facing lower mandatory minimums and maximum sentences.
The Commonwealth must now prove any prior DUI convictions (not ARD) to enhance sentences
Defense attorneys should challenge any attempt to use ARD as a sentencing enhancement both for future DUI cases and for any other types of cases

For Past Cases:

Defendants sentenced as repeat offenders based solely on prior ARD may have grounds for an appeal or post-conviction relief if the case was recent
Those currently serving enhanced sentences should consult counsel about potential remedies

For Future ARD Decisions:

The decision removes a significant consequence of accepting ARD
Defendants can accept ARD without fear it will automatically enhance future sentences
This may make ARD a more attractive option for first-time offenders

What This Means for You

If you're facing DUI charges and have a prior ARD, this decision provides crucial protection against mandatory minimum sentences. The Commonwealth can no longer use your ARD acceptance as an easy path to enhanced penalties.

However, the Court left open the possibility that if the Commonwealth can prove the underlying facts of your prior DUI offense to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, enhancement might still be possible. This would require a much more complex and difficult process for prosecutors.

The Dissenting View

Three justices dissented, arguing that ARD acceptance involves a knowing waiver of rights and that the statute could be applied constitutionally in some circumstances. However, the majority's view prevails, providing strong protection for DUI defendants.

Bottom Line

Commonwealth v. Shifflett represents a major victory for constitutional protections in DUI cases. It ensures that the severe consequences of repeat offender status cannot be imposed based solely on prior participation in a diversionary program designed to help first-time offenders avoid criminal convictions.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Goldstein Mehta LLC — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 4/3/25 Zak Goldstein 4/3/25

PA Superior Court Reverses Rule 600 Dismissal in Commonwealth v. Farlow, Holds Rule 1013 Exclusively Governs Speedy Trial in Philadelphia Municipal Court

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

In Commonwealth v. Farlow, 2025 PA Super 76, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed an order dismissing charges on Rule 600 speedy trial grounds, holding instead that Rule 1013—not Rule 600—governs speedy trial calculations in cases tried in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The Court held that pre-arrest delay is essentially not an issue in a misdemeanor case in Philadelphia because Rule 1013’s speedy trial requirement runs from preliminary arraignment (which typically occurs when the defendant is arrested) rather than when the police file a criminal complaint (which may happen long before the arrest).

Background

The defendant was charged on September 20, 2021, with simple assault and recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”) based on conduct which allegedly occurred on August 22, 2021. The police promptly obtained an arrest warrant, but they did not arrest the defendant until March 21, 2023, which was over eighteen months later. The defendant was also originally charged with a felony aggravated assault charge, so the defendant was entitled to a preliminary hearing in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The Municipal Court judge dismissed the aggravated assault charge at that hearing, and so the remaining misdemeanor charges were remanded for trial in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.

On the scheduled trial date of May 23, 2023, the defendant argued a motion to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, arguing that Commonwealth had not acted with due diligence during the pre-arrest period in locating the defendant and arresting her. The Commonwealth was ready for trial on that date, but if the time between the filing of the complaint and the arrest counted for speedy trial purposes, then the Commonwealth would have already violated Rule 600. Rule 1013 requires a defendant in a Municipal Court case to be brought to trial within 180 days of preliminary arraignment, but Rule 600, which applies to all Common Pleas cases, requires a defendant to be brought to trial within 365 days of the filing of the criminal complaint. Thus, if Rule 600 also applied, then the Commonwealth violated the defendant’s speedy trial rights.

The Municipal Court judge agreed with the defendant that both rules applied and dismissed the case. The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and the Common Pleas judge affirmed. That judge reasoned that Rule 600 governed the case with respect to the lengthy pre-arrest delay and Rule 1013’s silence on that issue. More than a year had passed from the filing of the criminal complaint, so the Common Pleas judge affirmed the dismissal of the charges.

The Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that Rule 1013 should apply to cases remanded for trial in Municipal Court and that, under Rule 1013’s timeline, no violation had occurred because Rule 1013 does not include pre-arrest delay in the calculation. Instead, time begins running under Rule 1013 essentially at arrest.

The Superior Court’s Analysis

The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth and clarified that Rule 1013—not Rule 600—governs speedy trial rights in cases ordered to be tried in the Philadelphia Municipal Court even if the case was initially filed as a felony. The Court held that Rule 1013(A)(3) explicitly provides for a 180-day deadline starting from the date of preliminary arraignment or the order transferring the case, whichever is greater.

Because the defendant was preliminarily arraigned on March 22, 2023, and the charges were dismissed before the 180-day period expired, the Superior Court found no Rule 1013 violation and reversed the dismissal.

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that Rule 600 should apply to pre-arrest delay in such cases under Rule 1000(B). While acknowledging the potential due process concerns created by prolonged pre-arrest delay, the Court emphasized that neither Rule 600 nor Rule 1013 includes language covering that specific issue in this context. Notably, the Court found that while Rule 1013 accounts for pre-arrest delay when a defendant appears by summons, it intentionally begins the trial clock at arraignment in arrest warrant cases, signaling a deliberate drafting choice.

Takeaway

Interpreting the rules in this matter leads to a bizarre result. If the defendant had waived the preliminary hearing and agreed to have the felony charges tried in the Court of Common Pleas, then Rule 600 would have applied, and the case should have been dismissed. But because the defendant was successful at the preliminary hearing in having the felony dismissed and the case remanded, the defendant gave up the speedy trial defense available under Rule 600. That makes no sense as the defendant should not have to waive the preliminary hearing in order to then have a more serious case dismissed. Further, this interpretation of the rules means that the Commonwealth has no obligation to find and arrest a defendant for a less serious misdemeanor case, but the Commonwealth must promptly arrest a defendant for a felony case or the felony could be dismissed. Essentially, it makes it more likely that a more serious case will be dismissed on speedy trial grounds rather than a less serious case. Further, the rules are simply silent on whether Rule 600 applies in the absence of a specific provision in Rule 1013 to the contrary. Hopefully, the defendant will seek reargument or petition the Supreme Court.

This decision serves as a crucial reminder that in Philadelphia, once a felony charge is dismissed and the case is remanded to the Municipal Court for trial on remaining misdemeanor charges, Rule 1013 governs the speedy trial timeline. While Rule 600 begins the clock at the filing of the complaint and covers pre-arrest delay, Rule 1013 begins at the preliminary arraignment—effectively excluding pre-arrest periods from its calculus.

Defense attorneys handling cases where the charges may get remanded must now decide whether it may make sense to actually waive the preliminary hearing in order to retain stronger speedy trial protections rather than contesting the charges at the preliminary hearing and giving up the protections of Rule 600 in a case involving a lengthy pre-arrest delay. This is a difficult decision to make as the defense may not have discovery which shows the reason for the pre-arrest delay at the time of the preliminary hearing. Alternatively, the Court left open the possibility of challenging pre-arrest delays under constitutional due process principles.

Citation: Commonwealth v. Farlow, 2025 PA Super 76 (Mar. 28, 2025).

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys