PA Supreme Court Finds Car Passenger Entitled to Suppression of Contraband in Illegally Stopped Car

Commonwealth v. Shabezz

In the case of Commonwealth v. Shabezz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed on appeal that a passenger in a vehicle may successfully move to suppress evidence which is recovered from the vehicle where the vehicle was illegally stopped. The passenger may move for suppression even if the passenger did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the vehicle.

This means that if you are the passenger in a car you do not own and the police stop and search the car and find something illegal, you may move to suppress the contraband due to the initial illegal stop. Previously, it was unclear whether a passenger had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of someone else’s car, and trial judges would frequently use that line of argument in order to deny motions to suppress. 

Motions to Suppress

The first line of defense to gun charges and in drug cases is often the motion to suppress. In cases where the prosecution cannot show that the police legally recovered the evidence in question, it may be possible to have the evidence excluded at trial and the case dismissed by litigating a motion to suppress. In Pennsylvania, it is typically not enough for the defendant to show only that some sort of illegal search occurred. The defendant must also show both that he or she has standing to challenge the search and that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. 

What is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?

Standing is generally not an issue because Pennsylvania appellate courts have held that any defendant charged with a possessory offense has automatic standing to challenge the search and seizure that led to the recovery of the evidence. Reasonable expectation of privacy, however, is frequently an important issue. The defendant must show that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. If the defendant cannot show that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy which the police violated, then the court will deny the motion to suppress even if the police did something illegal. The prosecution bears the burden of showing that the police obtained the evidence in a lawful manner, but the defendant bears the burden of first showing that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  

In many cases, reasonable expectation of privacy is relatively easy to understand. If you have drugs in your pocket, reasonable expectation of privacy is not going to be an issue because everyone will agree that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of your pocket. In other cases, it is clear that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the police search your friend’s house when you are not in it and recover evidence which connects you to a crime, you will not be able to have that evidence suppressed even if police did not first obtain a search warrant. You simply do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else’s house where you are not present or staying. Therefore, although the police may have violated your friend's constitutional rights, they have not violated your rights, and you have no remedy.  

Appellate courts have recognized that the basis test for reasonable expectation of privacy is as follows:

An expectation of privacy will be found to exist when the individual exhibits an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In determining whether a person’s expectation of privacy is legitimate or reasonable, the totality of the circumstances must be considered and the determination will ultimately rest upon a balancing of the societal interests involved. The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.

Thus, a defendant generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in houses or cars belonging to other people or in public places. At the same time, a defendant may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain places at work or in a restroom. 

In Commonwealth v. Shabezz, the Supreme Court held that a defendant-passenger need not show a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car which has been stopped illegally in order to have drugs or guns suppressed. In Shabezz, officers testified at a motion to suppress hearing that they observed what they believed to be a drug transaction and therefore stopped the car in which Shabezz was a passenger. Shabezz ran, and the police quickly caught him. They found marijuana and cash on him. They then searched the car from which he fled and found more marijuana, scales, packaging, some pills, and a gun. Prosecutors charged Shabezz with Possession with the Intent to Deliver.

The trial court, however, did not believe the police as to the reasons why they stopped the car. Although police testified to observing a drug transaction prior to stopping the car, they had completely failed to mention the drug transaction in any of the police reports which they prepared at the time of the arrest. They also testified that they were able to see the exchange of money for small objects from 45 feet away at night without binoculars. Therefore, the court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the initial stop of the vehicle was illegal. 

The prosecution appealed, and the appeal eventually reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the motion should have been denied because Shabezz was merely a passenger in a vehicle, and as a passenger, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. 

What Happens if the Police Illegally Stop a Car?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected that argument. It noted that there is a difference between standing and reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to prevail in a motion to suppress, the defendant must typically be able to show both. As explained, standing is easy – if you are charged with a possessory offense, you have standing. But reasonable expectation of privacy is often more complicated. In this situation, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that no reasonable expectation of privacy was required. The defendant must simply show that he was a passenger in the car and that the car was stopped illegally prior to the police finding the evidence which the prosecution wants to use. Here, the Court found that the initial police illegality of unlawfully stopping the vehicle tainted all of the subsequently recovered evidence. That evidence became fruit of the poisonous tree, and therefore, the trial court properly granted the motion to suppress.

The Court's opinion simplifies the remedy for challenging an illegal car stop. If the police stop a car illegally and find contraband, it does not matter if the defendant is the driver or the passenger. Both the driver and the passenger have had their rights violated by being seized without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Therefore, both the driver and the passenger now have the same remedy.

Charged with a crime? We Can Help 

If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers can help. We have successfully litigated countless motions to suppress in gun and drug cases, and we have helped clients favorably resolve all types of criminal charges. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to anyone who is facing criminal charges or who may be under investigation. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an award-winning defense attorney today. 

What is Possession with the Intent to Deliver?

What is Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”)?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. and Demetra Mehta, Esq.

Possession With the Intent to Deliver is a felony drug possession charge. It typically involves the possession and sale of illegal drugs such as marijuana, crack cocaine, heroin, and PCP. It can also apply to the possession and sale of prescription medications such as oxycodone, xanax, and percocet. 

Although there are a number of different types of drug charges under state and federal law, the main difference between drug charges and how serious they are is whether the prosecution alleges that the defendant sold or intended to sell the controlled substance in question.

Possession with the Intent to Deliver involves possessing illegal drugs or a controlled substance and either selling them or intending to sell them. This means that the defendant will typically be charged with PWID when police or other law enforcement allege that they either caught the defendant in the act of selling drugs or caught the defendant with a sufficient quantity of drugs such that it is fair to say that the defendant must have planned on selling them at a later date. In some cases involving lesser quantities of drugs, the police may still arrest a defendant for PWID where the defendant also posses items which suggest drug distribution and trafficking such as scales, new and unused packets which could be used to break up and package a larger amount of drugs into smaller, sellable sizes, significant amounts of money, and implements for cutting the drugs up. 

Is Possession with the Intent to Deliver a Felony in Pennsylvania? 

Possession with the Intent to Deliver is always an ungraded felony in Pennsylvania. The maximum sentence for a PWID conviction depends on the controlled substance in question. For a first offense, a marijuana conviction has a maximum sentence of five years, while crack cocaine has a maximum sentence of ten years, and the sale of heroin has a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. Because PWID is always a felony, most defendants who are charged with PWID have a right to a preliminary hearing in the Philadelphia Municipal Court or before a Magisterial District Justice in the suburbs, and if the case proceeds beyond the preliminary hearing, then the trial would be heard in the Court of Common Pleas.

There is a limited exception for selling marijuana in that a first offense marijuana PWID charge in Philadelphia will be tried in the Philadelphia Municipal Court without the benefit of a preliminary hearing. Fortunately, a defendant who is convicted in the Municipal Court always has the right to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas for a brand new trial. In that case, the Municipal Court trial will serve the same effect as the preliminary hearing. However, pre-trial motions must still be litigated in the Municipal Court. 

How is Possession with the Intent to Deliver different from regular possession of a controlled substance? 

Demetra Mehta - Philadelphia Drug Possession Defense Attorney

Possession with the Intent to Deliver is a felony charge, while Knowing and Intentional Possession of a controlled substance is a misdemeanor. PWID may be punished by substantial fines and jail time of up to 15 years for a first offense depending on the controlled substance in question. Knowing and Intentional Possession, however, may be punished by only up to one year of jail time and substantially lower fines for a first offense. Knowing and Intentional Possession could apply anytime the defendant possesses some kind of controlled substance without a prescription or illegal drug. PWID, however, requires both the possession of a controlled substance or illegal drug and the intent to sell that drug. PWID can also apply when the defendant is charged with growing or manufacturing some kind of drug, and it also applies to the possession or cultivation of marijuana plants. Therefore, possessing an illegal drug or controlled substance without a prescription can always qualify as Knowing and Intentional Possession, but the prosecution may only obtain a conviction for PWID when the prosecution can also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sold or intended to sell the controlled substance. 

What are the defenses to Possession with the Intent to Deliver?

There are a number of potential defenses which could apply in a drug trafficking case. Potential defenses include:

1. Pre-trial Motions - In every case, the prosecution must be able to prove that the evidence it obtained and wishes to use at trial was obtained in a legal manner. If the defense believes that the police may have conducted an illegal search or seizure, then the defense may file a Motion to Suppress the drugs, money, or paraphernalia which the police recovered as a result of the illegal search or seizure. Once the Motion to Suppress has been filed, the trial court will hold an evidentiary hearing. The prosecution will then have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the police did not violate the requirements of the Constitution in obtaining the evidence. If the prosecution cannot meet its burden, then the evidence could be suppressed and the charges dismissed. In other cases involving confidential informants, it may make sense to file a Motion to Reveal the Identity of the Confidential Informant. These motions are difficult to win, but in some cases, the defense has the right to know who the Confidential Informant was and have the opportunity to call that person as a witness at trial. Pre-trial Motions like the Motion to Suppress are extremely important in drug cases as the prosecution will often not be able to proceed if the police did something illegal.
   

2. Constructive Possession - In order to convict a defendant of selling drugs, the government is required to prove that the defendant either physically or constructively possessed the drugs. In many cases, police may observe behavior that appears suspicious and then find drugs or some other contraband in a "stash". In other cases, police may recover drugs which were hidden in a house or car and not physically on the defendant. In these types of cases, the prosecution will be required to prove that the defendant possessed the drugs - this means showing that the defendant both knew the drugs were there and that the defendant had the intent and power to control the drugs. Mere proximity to a stash or finding the defendant in a car that also has drugs in it is often not enough for the prosecution to obtain a conviction. Therefore, whether or not the defendant actually possessed the drugs may be a potential defense to a Possession with the Intent to Deliver charge.
   

3. Narcotics Experts - In cases where the police find a large quantity of drugs (or a smaller amount with some indicia that they were going to be sold) but do not actually catch the defendant in the act of selling the drugs, the prosecution will call a narcotics expert to testify. The prosecution expert will typically testify that there is something about the quantity of the drugs or the way in which they were packaged that suggests that they were possessed with the intent to deliver. Further, the Superior Court has affirmed convictions for PWID based solely on the possession of 33 packets of crack cocaine without any observed sales where the government's witness testified that a defendant in possession of that many packets would have possessed them with the intent to sell. Just as the prosecution may use expert witnesses, the defense also has the right to have an expert witness evaluate the evidence and potentially testify at trial as to whether the circumstances could have been indicative of personal use instead of sale. In case where the police did not observe any drug transactions, the use of a defense expert witness could be the difference between a conviction for felony Possession with the Intent to Deliver and misdemeanor Knowing and Intentional Possession.
   

4. Trial by Jury - In every criminal case where the charges are punishable by a year or more, the defense has the right to a jury trial. When the defendant elects to have a jury trial, the attorneys and the Court will select twelve jurors and two alternates to hear the case. The prosecution must convince all twelve jurors that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jurors are not unanimous, then there will not be a verdict. In that case, the prosecution may drop the charges, make a better offer, or elect to re-try the defendant.

What sentence will I get for a Possession with the Intent to Deliver Conviction?

Zak Goldstein - Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer

Both the federal system and New Jersey state courts have serious mandatory minimums for drug convictions. Pennsylvania, however, does not currently have any mandatory minimums for drug offenses. Therefore, the sentence for a drug conviction can vary tremendously as judges retain a great deal of discretion in determining what sentence to impose on any given defendant.

This judicial discretion is not unlimited, however, as judges are required to review and consider Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines prior to imposing a sentence, and a judge must be able to put reasons on the record for departing from the guidelines.

As a general rule, the severity of the sentence called for by the guidelines depends on the type of drug involved and the quantity of the drug. Convictions for trafficking in harder drugs like PCP and heroin will result in greater guideline sentences, while convictions related to marijuana will often result in much lower guideline sentences or even recommendations to the judge of probation. Given the wide variety in potential weights and drugs, it is impossible to make a blanket statement as to what type of sentence a defendant could receive for a drug conviction. However, once retained, our criminal defense lawyers can review the evidence against you and calculate what the recommended sentence could be in the event of a conviction. 

Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Excel in Fighting Drug Possession and Possession with the Intent to Deliver Cases

The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have successfully represented hundreds of clients in drug possession and drug trafficking cases. We are experienced and understanding defense attorneys who will use our high level of skill and expertise on your behalf. We have successfully litigated pre-trial motions and obtained pre-trial dismissals and acquittals at trial. If you are facing drug possession charges, call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session. 

---

Charged With Drug Possession or Possession with the Intent to Deliver? Get Help Now

Constructive Possession: Can I be convicted of a crime if I didn't have anything on me?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Pennsylvania and United States law make the possession of all sorts of substances and objects illegal. For example, state and federal law may make it illegal to possess drugs, guns, and other types of contraband under all sorts of different circumstances. When a defendant is arrested and charged with a possessory offense, the actual possession of the contraband in question is an element of the offense. This means that the government must prove that the defendant possessed the thing beyond a reasonable doubt. Although this sounds simple in theory, possession can often be difficult to prove because police and other law enforcement officers often find contraband which is not physically on someone. In that case, the doctrine of constructive possession may come into play, and it may provide a strong defense in your case. 

What is Constructive Possession?

Constructive possession is a legal doctrine which allows prosecutors to bring criminal charges and potentially obtain convictions for possessory offenses like drug possession and a Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act (“VUFA”) in cases where the contraband was not actually found physically on the defendant. In cases where the defendant is facing gun charges or drug charges, constructive possession is often a defense at trial even if the motion to suppress was unsuccessful. However, constructive possession, unlike physical possession, can be difficult to explain and for jurors to understand.

Physical possession is relatively simply. If you are a felon and you have a gun in your pocket, then you are committing a Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. If the police arrest you and find the gun in your pocket, then they can properly charge you with a weapons offense. In that type of case, the main defense to a gun charge would usually be a motion to suppress – if the police stopped and searched you illegally, then the evidence could be excluded and the case dismissed. But because the gun was in your pocket, it is pretty clear to whom the gun belonged at the time the police stopped you, and you would have been in physical possession of the gun. That is not to say you will automatically be convicted if you lose a motion to suppress. However, any defenses other than a motion to suppress would likely focus on whether the police officers are telling the truth instead of whether you were legally in possession of the gun.

Can I be convicted if the gun wasn’t on me?

Constructive possession, on the other hand, could apply when the gun or drugs are not actually in your pocket, waistband, or somewhere else on your person. For example, it may apply when contraband is found in a car or a house or when drugs are stored in a stash somewhere near where someone is selling them. In that case, the prosecution may still be able to obtain a conviction for drug possession if the prosecution can prove that you constructively possessed the drugs.

How can I be charged with possession if I didn’t have the drugs on me?  

In order to establish constructive possession, the government must prove something more than the defendant’s mere presence near the item in question. In addition, the government must show that the defendant had both the intent and the power to control the contraband. Obviously, where the defendant is found near drugs, the defendant probably had the power to control them because the defendant could have easily walked over and picked them up. However, that alone does not make them the defendant’s drugs. If other people have access to that area, then the drugs could belong to those other people. It may not have been a great idea to hang around in the area where they were stored, but that does not make them the defendant’s. Instead, the prosecution must also show that the defendant had the intent to control the drugs. This intent element is what makes constructive possession difficult to prove.

How does the prosecution prove constructive possession?

In determining whether the prosecution has proven the intent necessary to show constructive possession, courts will look at the totality of the circumstances. This means they will look at things like how close the object is to the defendant, whether the defendant makes any statements, whether police observed the defendant making quick movements which suggest the defendant was trying to hide the object, and whether the defendant displays consciousness of guilt such as nervousness or flight. The degree to which the contraband was visible will also be relevant, and a court will also likely consider whether the prosecution can connect the defendant to the area from which the drug or gun was recovered by police.

Thus, if the defendant was the owner and operator of a car from which the police recovered a gun, a court is more likely to find that the defendant knew about and owned the gun than if the defendant was merely borrowing the car from the friend. However, the defendant's mere ownership of the vehicle or police finding paperwork connecting a defendant to a house do not automatically establish constructive possession because the passenger could have brought the gun into the car and tried to hide it when the police pulled the vehicle over. Instead, the court must look at the totality of the circumstances. This means that there are cases in which illegal drugs and guns are found in cars or houses and it is simply not possible for the government to prove to whom those items belonged.

The constructive possession doctrine protects innocent people from being convicted of possessory offenses merely based on their proximity to the contraband. If I am watching television in my living room and my friend puts his bong on the table, then I cannot necessarily be convicted of drug paraphernalia just because my friend left the bong there. At the same time, it is fairly easy for police to try to use the doctrine against a given defendant by testifying to factors such as nervousness, furtive movements, and incriminating statements which simply may not have existed. In cases where police find a gun in a car, they are under a lot of pressure to charge someone with the gun and testify in such a way that it will lead to a conviction. Therefore, it is extremely common to see constructive possession cases where the police testimony will attempt to establish circumstances which suggest that one of the occupants of the vehicle must have been the owner of the contraband. However, in order for a defendant to be convicted, the judge or jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant constructively possessed the item in question, and vague reaching movements or nervous behavior simply may not be enough. Our criminal lawyers excel at cross examining police witnesses in preliminary hearings, pre-trial motions to suppress, and at trial, and we will use our skills to fight allegations of constructive possession. 

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Drug and Gun Cases

Your best bet is to stay away from things that are illegal. If you are on probation or parole, or you have a record which disqualifies you from possessing a firearm, it is risky to be around drugs or a gun. Even if they do not belong to you, the police may charge you under a constructive possession theory. You may be able to sort everything out in court, but the criminal justice system is often unpredictable. Fortunately, if you are charged with a crime, with very few exceptions, you have the right to a jury trial at which the government must prove to twelve jurors that you committed the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are facing criminal charges or believe you may be under investigation for a crime, you should speak with one of our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers immediately. We will be able to evaluate whether constructive possession could be a defense to your charges. We offer a free, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a defense attorney today.

When can police conduct an inventory search of my car?

Police Often Need Search Warrants

As a general rule, police officers need a warrant to conduct a search of a person or a place. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement, and one of them is the automobile exception. When the police want to search a car, they do not have to get a warrant. Instead, under both Pennsylvania and Federal case law, police officers need only probable cause to search a vehicle. Probable cause is the same standard which would be required for a magistrate or judge to issue a search warrant, but the police are not required to swear out an affidavit of probable cause and get a judicial officer to sign off on a search of a vehicle prior to conducting the search.

What Is Probable Cause?

Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that evidence of a crime will be found as a result of a search. For example, police officers will frequently claim that they smelled an odor of marijuana coming from a vehicle and therefore had probable cause to search the car. Under the government’s theory, the fact that the car smells like marijuana makes it more likely than not that marijuana will be found in the car if the police conduct a search, and therefore the police may search the car. If that search turns up a gun, drugs, or some other kind of contraband, then the prosecutor will argue that the search was justified because of the initial smell of marijuana. Of course, when the police claim they searched the car because of the smell of marijuana and then do not actually find any marijuana, it may be possible to challenge the search by filing a motion to suppress and arguing that the police testimony is not credible.

Other Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

There are other ways that police officers will try to justify a car search. When police stop a car and have a vague hunch but are lacking in probable cause, they may attempt to use a traffic violation or motor vehicle code violation as the basis for the search by having the car towed so that they can do an inventory search. For example, if the police pull over a car with an expired registration, they may decide to tow the car instead of simply parking it on the side of the road so that they can conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. If they find some kind of contraband as a result of the inventory search, then they may bring criminal charges against the owner or operator of the car and argue that the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement justified the search and eliminated their need to obtain probable cause in a warrant. However, many of these decisions to tow and search cars are pretextual.

Limits on Police Inventory Searches of Cars

Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the police may not tow a car and conduct an inventory search simply because the owner or operator has committed a motor vehicle code violation which prevents the car from legally driving on the streets. This means that the police may not tow a car and conduct an inventory search due solely to the fact that a car has an expired registration, lacks insurance, or has some other physical or regulatory defect. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that in order to tow a car, the police must be able to show that immobilizing the car and leaving it where it was parked would pose some kind of threat to public safety.  

Commonwealth v. Laganella

In Commonwealth v. Laganella, Harrisburg police pulled the defendant over for pulling into traffic without using a turn signal. Upon pulling the car over, the police officer learned that the vehicle was missing its emissions inspection sticker and that the defendant’s license had been suspended. Instead of simply issuing a ticket, the officer informed the defendant that the officer would have to tow the car. The defendant stated that there was no need for the car to be towed and that he could have a friend, who was a tow truck driver, pick the car up. Nonetheless, pursuant to department policy, the officer called a tow truck and searched the car, eventually finding drugs and a shotgun. The defendant, who had a prior felony conviction, was then charged with drug and gun charges, including VUFA Sec. 6105 (felon in possession of a firearm). After the trial court refused to suppress the gun, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to three to ten years in prison.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court recognized that Pennsylvania law gives a police officer two options when the officer stops a vehicle operated by a driver whose license has been suspended: the officer may either immobilize the vehicle or tow the vehicle. If the officer is permitted to tow the vehicle, then the police may conduct an inventory search not for the purpose of finding contraband, but for securing the operator’s belongings for the benefit of both the operator and the police. However, Pennsylvania law provides that the officer may only tow the car when the vehicle poses public safety concerns warranting its towing and storage at an impound lot. Thus, if the vehicle can be safely parked or privately towed, then the vehicle will not pose public safety concerns which would warrant its towing. Further, when the police do tow a vehicle and conduct an inventory search, they must do so pursuant to a reasonable, standard policy of securing and inventorying the contents of a vehicle. The requirement that police have a standardized policy seeks to prevent police from using their ability to conduct an inventory search as a pretext.

In an earlier decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court had held that the police may conduct an inventory search regardless of whether they choose to merely immobilize the vehicle or actually tow it. However, in Laganella, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this rule and held that police may only conduct an inventory search when they tow the vehicle. Because police may only tow the vehicle when there is a public safety concern, this creates a real limit on the ability of police to pretextually call a tow truck and conduct an inventory search. Thus, when the vehicle cannot be operated solely because the driver does not have a license or because the vehicle is missing its registration or insurance, the police may not tow the vehicle if the vehicle can be safely parked in the area where it was pulled over.  

We Can Help With Criminal Charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we can help. We understand what you're going through, and we will use our skill and experience to get you through this. The Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC will fight for your rights at trial or on appeal. Our attorneys have successfully defended thousands of cases in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, and we can help with all types of state and federal charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you believe the police may have illegally searched you or your car and found some kind of contraband, we may be able to file a motion to suppress. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning criminal defense lawyers.