Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 4/30/20 Zak Goldstein 4/30/20

PA Supreme Court: Deputy Sheriff May Not Conduct Traffic Stop for Expired Registration Sticker

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Copenhaver, holding that deputy sheriffs may not conduct traffic stops on the basis of an expired car registration sticker. In general, deputy sheriffs may only conduct stops of motorists when they observe a “breach of the peace” or the commission of a felony, or misdemeanor offense. Because an expired registration does not constitute a breach of the peace under Pennsylvania law, sheriff’s deputies may not stop motorists to investigate or issue citations even where the deputies have the same training as a police officer.

The Facts of Copenhaver

In Copenhaver, a deputy sheriff conducted a vehicle stop of the defendant’s pickup truck after seeing that the truck had an expired registration sticker. Upon approaching the truck, the deputy smelled the odor of alcohol and marijuana coming from the passenger compartment. The deputy ordered the defendant to exit the vehicle, administered field sobriety tests, and eventually arrested him on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

The Motion to Suppress

After prosecutors filed the DUI charges, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the deputy sheriff. Specifically, the defendant alleged that the deputy did not have the authority to conduct the traffic stop, and therefore all evidence as a result of the encounter should be suppressed. The defendant argued that an expired registration tag does not give a deputy sheriff the authority to make a stop because it does not amount to a breach of the peace for purposes of a deputy’s common law authority to make an arrest. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and found the defendant guilty of DUI and other traffic offenses. The defendant appealed, and the Superior Court denied the initial appeal. The defendant then appealed his DUI conviction to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.

The PA Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered that all evidence from the stop should be suppressed. The Court found that operating a vehicle with an expired registration, standing alone, is not a breach of the peace. The Court reasoned that a “breach of the peace” arises from “an act or circumstance that causes harm to persons or property, or has a reasonable potential to cause such harm, or otherwise to provoke violence, danger, or disruption to public order.” Operating a car with an expired registration sticker simply does not pose any risk to the general public, so the deputy did not have the authority to stop the defendant. Therefore, the stop should not have occurred, and the evidence must be suppressed.

When can a sheriff’s deputy make a stop or an arrest in Pennsylvania?

While police officers have general authority in their jurisdictions to enforce Pennsylvania law and investigate summary violations, misdemeanors, and felonies, the powers of a sheriff’s deputy are limited. A sheriff’s deputy does not have this general investigative power. Instead, a sheriff’s deputy may only investigate or make arrests for crimes that they see – this means they can make a stop or arrest where they actually observe the commission of a felony, misdemeanor, or a breach of the peace. They do not have the general authority to investigate crimes or enforce all traffic laws. Therefore, the sheriff’s deputy here violated the defendant’s rights, and the conviction must be reversed. It’s important to remember that this does not mean that if a sheriff tries to pul you over, you do not have to comply. You should still comply and address any violations of your rights in court at a later date.

Facing criminal charges in Philadelphia, PA? 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, DUI, 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.

Read the Case

Zak Goldstein 4/4/20 Zak Goldstein 4/4/20

PA Superior Court: Police Properly Conducted Inventory Search of Vehicle Where Unlicensed Driver Parked at Gas Pump During Stop

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Peak, holding that police properly conducted an inventory search of a car which had to be towed because the driver had parked at a gas pump and did not have a valid driver’s license.

Zak Goldstein - Criminal Lawyer in Philadelphia

The Facts of Peak

In Peak, the defendant was charged with Possession with the Intent to Deliver following a traffic stop. On March 3, 2017, a police officer was on routine patrol in a marked police car. While he was driving, he saw a Buick Sedan out in the intersection that seemed to be confused about whether it was turning left or right. The car had no turn signal and eventually turned left. The officer made a U-turn to conduct a traffic stop. Before he could, the car pulled up to a gas pump at a local convenience store near the intersection. The officer pulled behind the Buick and ordered the driver of the Buick to remain in the car.

The officer approached the defendant and asked for his license and insurance. He immediately smelled an odor of burnt marijuana. Nonetheless, he ran the defendant’s license and learned that the defendant’s driver’s license had been suspended. He then told the defendant to get out of the car and grab any of his belongings. He asked to whom the car belonged, and the defendant replied that it belonged to his sister. The officer told the defendant that he would have to have the car towed, and the defendant did not make any objections to the officer. He also told the defendant that he was not planning on arresting him but would send citations in the mail.

The Inventory Search of the Car

The officer then called a private tow company and began conducting an inventory search of the defendant’s car. He felt that it was necessary to tow the car because it was not in a legal parking spot but was instead parked directly in front of an operable gas pump. This was impeding the business’s ability to sell gas as normal. He felt that it was important to conduct an inventory search to document any valuables in the vehicle and protect the police from any claims concerning missing or damaged property. The defendant did tell the officer that he was trying to get someone to come get the car, and the defendant did begin making phone calls. Nonetheless, the tow truck arrived within ten minutes.

Prior to the tow truck taking the car, the officer conducted the inventory search and found bundles of heroin in the car. He then arrested the defendant, searched him, and found $1,700. Prosecutors charged the defendant with Possession with the Intent to Deliver based on the amount of the heroin.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress, found the defendant guilty of PWID, and sentenced him to three to six years’ incarceration followed by a period of probation. The defendant eventually appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Ruling on Appeal

The Superior Court denied the appeal. First, the court found that the defendant did have standing to bring a motion to suppress and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle despite the fact that he did not own it. He had borrowed it with his sister’s permission and had been legally driving it at the time of the stop. Therefore, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car despite the fact that he was not the registered owner. He had also testified that although it was not registered to him, he had purchased it himself with his own money and then put it in his sister’s name.

What is an inventory search?

Nonetheless, court denied the motion because it found that the police properly conducted an inventory search of the vehicle. Under Section 6309.2 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, police officers are directed to immobilize or tow a vehicle when they find that a person has operated that vehicle on a highway or trafficway without a valid driver’s license. When the police have to tow a vehicle, they are permitted to conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. An inventory search is permissible when 1) the police have acted lawfully in impounding the vehicle and 2) the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the contents of the impounded vehicle.

The critical question when litigating these types of motions is whether or not the police actually had to tow the vehicle. In general, if the police can just leave the vehicle on the street in a lawful parking spot or allow someone else to come get it, then they do not necessarily have the authority to tow it and conduct an inventory search. At the same time, if the vehicle is jeopardizing public safety in some way or has not been parked legally, then the police may have the authority to tow the vehicle. If they have that authority, then they are allowed to first search the car even without a warrant.

The decision to tow the vehicle must be based on public safety; it cannot be motivated by a desire to search the car on a hunch. Thus, in Commonwealth v. Laganella, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that evidence should be suppressed where the police had no reason to tow a car from a lawful parking spot. Here, however, the car was parked blocking a gas pump, preventing customers from getting gas. The owner did not want his pump blocked, and there was no one else there to drive the vehicle away immediately. The fact that someone might have been able to come at some point in the future did not change the analysis. Therefore, the Superior Court found that the police properly towed the vehicle and therefore had the right to conduct an inventory search. Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the criminal appeal.

Facing criminal charges in Philadelphia, PA? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys in Philadelphia

Zak Goldstein 3/16/20 Zak Goldstein 3/16/20

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein Wins Motion to Quash in Possession with the Intent to Deliver Case

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the full dismissal of the charges against his client in a case involving charges of Possession with the Intent to Deliver various controlled substances such as crack, heroin, and marijuana. In Commonwealth v. A.T., Attorney Goldstein won the dismissal of all charges by filing a Motion to Quash in the Court of Common Pleas. Because the trial judge agreed that the Commonwealth had completely failed to prove that A.T. ever possessed any drugs, the judge dismissed the entire case against her.

In A.T., Philadelphia police officers testified at the preliminary hearing that they saw a group of people running down the street. Based on their experience, they believed that they were witnessing people either running away from a shooting or that a shooting was about to occur. Therefore, the officers immediately gave chase to determine what was going on.

The majority of the group made it into a house before the police stopped them. One person, however, was left behind and locked out. That person told the officers that he believed that there was going to be a shooting. The officers then went around to the back of the house and a saw A.T. and another person run from the house. The officers chased them, caught them, and brought them back to the house.

The officers then searched the house for evidence of a shooting. In one bedroom in a baby’s crib, they found a significant quantity of narcotics. They also found drug paraphernalia in that bedroom. Later, the officers saw a cat in the kitchen pawing at a duffel bag. Allegedly concerned that the cat might be hungry, the officers went into the bag to see if there was cat food in the bag. They found more drugs in the bag in the kitchen.

Officers asked A.T. who lived in the house, and she admitted to living there. She did not, however, tell them that the drugs in the bag or in the bedroom belonged to her. The officers also found mail in her name in the house, but they did not say where they found the mail. The officers testified at the preliminary hearing that there was more than one bedroom in the house and that they had brought the male who ran out the back of the house back to the house, as well. They ultimately let that person go without filing drug charges against him.

Based on the discovery of the significant quantity of drugs and paraphernalia in the house and the fact that A.T. admitted to living there and receiving mail there, the officers decided to arrest A.T. and charge her with Possession with the Intent to Deliver. A.T. quickly retained Attorney Goldstein, who moved for dismissal of the charges at the preliminary hearing on the grounds that the Commonwealth failed to establish that A.T. constructively possessed the drugs in question. The Municipal Court Judge, however, disagreed and held A.T. for court on all charges.

Attorney Goldstein then filed a motion to quash in the Court of Common Pleas. A motion to quash, which is sometimes called a Habeas Petition in the suburban counties, asks the Court of Common Pleas judge to review the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing and dismiss some or all of the charges. Essentially, it is an appeal of the preliminary hearing that could result in the dismissal of a case prior to charges if the Commonwealth really introduced insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing.

In the quash, Attorney Goldstein argued that the Commonwealth failed to establish anything beyond A.T.’s presence in a house in which police later found drugs. In order to prove possession of a controlled substance where the defendant is not found physically possessing the drugs (with the drugs on him or her), the Commonweath has to establish constructive possession. Constructive possession requires showing that the defendant knew about the drugs and had the intent and ability to control them. This doctrine protects an individual from being held responsible for drugs that belong to someone else.

Thus, if you live in a house with a roommate who is involved in drug activity, you should not be held responsible for the decisions of your roommate so long as you do not participate in the drug activity. Here, the Commonwealth showed only that there were drugs in a house and that A.T. stayed in the house. The Commonwealth completely failed to show that the drugs belonged to her, that the mail was found anywhere near the drugs, or that she was engaged in selling drugs. Furthermore, because multiple people had run through the house and then out the back of the house, it was very possible that one of those people had seen the police chasing them and discarded the drugs in the house so as to avoid drug possession charges.

The trial court agreed that there was simply insufficient evidence to force A.T. to stand trial for Possession with the Intent to Deliver. Therefore, the court dismissed all of the charges, and A.T. will be eligible to have the arrest record expunged immediately.

If you need a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia, we can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyer for Drug Charges - Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 3/6/20 Zak Goldstein 3/6/20

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Court May Consider Total Weight of Drugs Handled on Different Occasions at Sentencing

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided the case of United States v. Diaz. The Court held that a trial court may consider the cumulative weight of drugs possessed by a defendant for purposes of his sentencing guidelines. This decision is important because it allows a trial court to aggregate all of the drugs that a defendant possessed on different occasions when calculating the guideline sentencing range, which can make the recommended sentence much higher. Even minor differences in the weight of drugs involved can have a dramatic effect on a criminal defendant’s sentencing guidelines.

United States v. Diaz

The defendant was charged along with five co-defendants with conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute heroin. One of the co-defendants, Guzman, allegedly orchestrated the conspiracy. He distributed drugs to his co-defendants, including his mother and the defendant. All of the defendant’s co-defendants pleaded guilty. The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty and went to trial.

After being indicted, the defendant represented that he could not afford counsel and he was appointed a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) counsel to represent him. Shortly after his CJA counsel was retained, she accepted a position as an assistant district attorney with an unknown prosecutor’s office. As such, she withdrew from the defendant’s case and he was appointed a new attorney on July 13, 2016. The defendant was not satisfied with his new attorney’s representation. According to the defendant, his new attorney pressured him to plead guilty, did not accept his advice on submitting pre-trial motions, and failed to turn over discovery to him. Consequently, the defendant filed a pro se motion to remove his new attorney from the case. The court held a hearing, and the trial court attempted to resolves their issues. Despite the trial court’s best efforts, it was not able to assuage the defendant’s concerns. The court therefore gave the defendant a new court-appointed attorney.

Unfortunately for the defendant, his relationship with his new attorney was not great, either. On December 5, 2016, the defendant wrote the trial court a letter stating that he had not received requested documents from his new attorney. The trial court then issued an order acknowledging receipt of the defendant’s letter and then forwarded a copy of said order to his attorney. It is unknown if the attorney responded to the defendant.

A few months later, on February 7, 2017, the defendant wrote to the trial court again stating that he still did not have his requested discovery. The trial court then ordered the attorney to file a response to the defendant, however he did not. Shortly thereafter, the defendant filed another motion requesting a new attorney. The trial court did not seek any additional information from the attorney or the defendant. The trial court also did not schedule a hearing to address the defendant’s request or replace the attorney. About a month after the latest request from the defendant seeking new counsel, the attorney wrote to the trial court requesting a continuance. He also stated that he and the defendant had resolved all of their issues and that the defendant wished to continue having the attorney represent him. At the April 7, 2017 pre-trial conference, the defendant did not raise any issues between him and his attorney.

This harmony was short lived. Ten days after the pre-trial conference, the defendant again wrote to the trial court stating that the attorney failed to adequately represent him and to provide him his requested discovery. It is unclear if the trial court made a formal acknowledgment of this letter. Approximately two months later, the defendant wrote to the trial court again complaining of his attorney’s supposed shortcomings. However, the defendant did not specifically request a new attorney. On August 16, 2017 the defendant’s case proceeded to trial with the defendant being represented by his current attorney.

At his trial, multiple witnesses were called to testify against the defendant. These witnesses included his co-defendants (who had already pleaded guilty) and various DEA agents. Additionally, the Government introduced intercepted communications between the defendant and his co-defendants. The testimony showed that although the defendant was not the leader of the organization, he was involved in the drug trafficking. Specifically, the calls showed that he would primarily “bag” up the drugs and that he would also engage in selling on his own behalf. The testimony showed that on multiple occasions the defendant would bag 500 bags of heroin, which amounted to approximately 15 grams. At the conclusion of his trial, the defendant was found guilty of conspiring to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute.

At his sentencing hearing, there was some debate about the weight of drugs that were involved in this case. The defendant argued that only 15 grams of heroin should be attributed to him instead of the 30 grams that the Government alleged. This is significant because U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(12) governs the guidelines for 20-30 grams of heroin and, it may go without saying, but the guidelines are harsher for 20 grams in comparison to 15 grams. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. After his sentencing, the defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant raised three issues: the trial court’s failure to inquire into the defendant’s motion for appointment of new counsel, the improper admission of one of the DEA agent’s testimony, and finally the trial court’s attribution of more than 20 grams of heroin to the defendant at sentencing. For purposes of this blog, only the defendant’s issue of whether the trial court improperly attributed more than 20 grams of heroin to the defendant at sentencing will be discussed.

Does the Weight/Type of Drugs Matter for Determining a Defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines?

Yes. A defendant’s sentencing guidelines can be dramatically affected by the weight and type of drug that was involved. This is true in Pennsylvania too. In Pennsylvania, a defendant’s guidelines can be substantially different depending on how much heroin he possessed. For example, let’s assume that a defendant is convicted with Possession with Intent to Deliver with 50 grams of heroin and that he has no prior record. His guidelines on the case would be 22-36 months +/- 12. However, if this same defendant was convicted with 49 grams of heroin, his guidelines would be 9-16 months +/- 9 months. As one can see, the weight of the drugs is significant and one gram can make a huge difference in determining one’s sentencing guidelines.

The federal guidelines are no different. In the instant case, the defendant was arguing that the evidence only showed that he possessed 15 grams of heroin. This is significant because per the federal sentencing guidelines, that would make his offense graded as a level 14. However, if the drugs had a weight of 30 grams (as alleged by the Government), then the offense is graded as a 16. Assuming the defendant was a zero (which is unclear from the Third Circuit’s opinion), his guidelines would have been 15-21 months if it was just 15 grams. However, if it was actually 30 grams, then his guidelines would be 21-27 months. Therefore, the weight of drugs can have a significant impact on the guidelines regardless of whether your case is in federal or state court.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction and sentence. Regarding the weight of the drugs, the Third Circuit found that there was an “ample basis for determining that the defendant was responsible for at least 20 grams of heroin.” The defendant would frequently bag 500 bags of heroin which amounted to 15 grams of heroin. Additionally, the defendant did this more than once. As such, the trial court found that the trial court did not err in attributing at least 20 grams of heroin to the defendant for purposes of sentencing. Therefore, his sentence will stand and he will not get a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.