Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 3/10/23 Zak Goldstein 3/10/23

PA Superior Court: Bad Info From Third Party in Search Warrant Does Not Invalidate Warrant

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Adorno, holding that a search warrant is still valid even where the warrant contains incorrect information that has been provided by a third party. In this case, the Court found that the police relied on the information provided by a third party in good faith, so they had probable cause for the warrant. The fact that the information turned out to be wrong did not require suppression of the evidence that they later found.

Commonwealth v. Adorno

In this case, police officers discovered a Facebook Live video that showed a user named “Zay-Yaho” dancing while holding a gun and drugs. They identified the user as the defendant and determined that he had a criminal record which prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The officers learned that he lived at a certain address in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. They interviewed the landlord of the apartment building, and the landlord confirmed that the defendant lived there. The landlord also told them that the location in the video looked like the suspected address. The police then obtained a search warrant for that address. They executed the warrant, and they found three guns and prescription medication.

The Motion to Suppress

After finding the contraband, the police arrested the defendant. The defense filed a motion to suppress the evidence, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. In the motion, the defense alleged that the police conducted a search without probable cause, that the search was based on incorrect information, and that the search exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Essentially, the defendant argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the video did not actually show the location that the police searched. At the hearing on the motion, the officers agreed that there were noticeable differences between the walls and layout of the home that they searched and the home in the Facebook video. Similarly, a friend of the defendant’s testified that the location in the video was her house, not the defendant’s apartment. She had not been aware of the video.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that police had searched the wrong location because the defendant’s apartment, which was the subject of the warrant, was not the location in the video. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the police properly relied on a validly issued search warrant and that the fact that the warrant turned out to contain incorrect information did not render it invalid. The Superior Court agreed. First, the Court found that there was a nexus between the crime and a home that would justify the search of a home because the video showed the gun in a home. Where a defendant commits a crime on the street, police may not have probable cause to search a come because the police cannot just assume a defendant will store evidence of the crime there. But where the crime is committed in a home, the case for searching a home is stronger.

Second, the Court found the warrant to be valid despite the factual error regarding the location depicted in the video. In order for a court to find a search warrant invalid due to a factual error, the defense must show that the police intentionally included false information or included false information with a reckless disregard for the truth. Here, the defense did not even allege that the police had acted in bad faith by either lying or including the information with a reckless disregard for the truth. Accordingly, the defense failed to meet its burden. This type of motion is often called a Franks motion. Here, the defense had argued only that the information was wrong, but showing that a warrant contains incorrect information is not enough to invalidate a warrant.

Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the order granting the motion to suppress. The defendant will have to face trial in the Court of Common Pleas.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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 10/25/22 Zak Goldstein 10/25/22

PA Superior Court: Contraband is Not a Strict Liability Offense

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Arnold, holding that the crime of contraband is not a strict liability offense. Strict liability offenses are those which do not require a defendant to act with any mens rea or guilty conscience. They are disfavored in criminal law, and although the contraband statute does not actually identify a specific mens rea, the Superior Court found that the default mens rea of recklessness applies to this charge.

The Facts of Arnold

The defendant was arrested and detained in Butler County for a probation violation. He was transported to the Butler County Prison and placed in a holding cell. A corrections officer searched him during processing and found a pill for which the defendant did not have a prescription. The guard confiscated the pill, and the Commonwealth charged the defendant with contraband. The defendant proceeded to a trial, and he testified that he did not realize the pill was in his sock or shoe because his leg had been amputated, he wore a prosthetic leg between the knee and shoe, and he could not feel anything in the shoe as he did not have an actual foot. In addition to the pill in his sock, he had been found with another controlled substance in his cell. Later, the guards searched his cell and found three pieces of film that contained suboxone in the defendant’s wheelchair. He denied knowing about it.

The jury found him guilty of contraband and possession, and he received a 2-4 year incarceration sentence. Contraband provides for a two year mandatory minimum, so the court was required to impose the mandatory minimum sentence.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Appeal

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must find he acted with a specific mens rea in order to find him guilty of contraband and that making contraband a strict liability offense would violate due process. The Superior Court agreed.

The contraband offense is defined as:

A person commits a felony of the second degree if he sells, gives, transmits or furnishes to any convict in a prison, or inmate in a mental hospital, or gives away in or brings into any prison, mental hospital, or any building appurtenant thereto, or on the land granted to or owned or leased by the Commonwealth or county for the use and benefit of the prisoners or inmates, or puts in any place where it may be secured by a convict of a prison, inmate of a mental hospital, or employee thereof, any controlled substance included in Schedules I through V of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, (except the ordinary hospital supply of the prison or mental hospital) without a written permit signed by the physician of such institution, specifying the quantity and quality of the substance which may be furnished to any convict, inmate, or employee in the prison or mental hospital, the name of the prisoner, inmate, or employee for whom, and the time when the same may be furnished, which permit shall be delivered to and kept by the warden or superintendent of the prison or mental hospital.

This statute does not include a mens rea – in other words, it does not explicitly state that a defendant must act knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. Instead, the statute appears to provide strict liability for bringing drugs into a prison. The Superior Court, however, recognized that where the legislature does not specifically state that a serious offense should be a strict liability offense, the crimes code requires a court to read in a minimum mens rea of recklessness. Here, the trial court had not done so. It did not require the jury to find that the defendant at least acted recklessly with respect to bringing the drugs into the prison. Therefore, the Court reversed the conviction and ordered 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. We have also won criminal appeals in state and federal court. 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 8/11/22 Zak Goldstein 8/11/22

PA Superior Court: Police May Enter Car Without Search Warrant if Contraband in Plain View

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. McMahon, holding that the police legally searched the defendant’s car despite not obtaining a search warrant because they entered the car only to obtain contraband which was in plain view. The plain view exception allows the police to conduct a warrantless search where an object of an incriminating nature is viewed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point. The Superior Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating evidence that had been obtained from his car.

Commonwealth v. McMahon

The defendant was stopped by two officers on patrol. The two officers conducted a traffic stop because they knew the defendant did not have a valid driver’s license from prior encounters. One of the officers, Sergeant Harrison Maddox, testified that he smelled marijuana and observed two burnt cigarettes containing marijuana in the cupholder of the car. The officers then detained and searched the defendant, finding one and a half pills that were later determined to be Oxycodone. Sergeant Maddox then searched the defendant’s vehicle and found three bags of marijuana.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. In this case, he sought to suppress the marijuana cigarettes, bags of marijuana, and Oxycodone pills. During the suppression hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress the bags of marijuana recovered but denied suppression of the marijuana cigarettes and Oxycodone pills. The defendant was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance and possessing marijuana after a stipulated non-jury trial.

The defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence under the plain view doctrine because the officers did not have the right of access to items inside the vehicle, and there was also no exigency to justify the seizure. The court denied that motion, and the defendant appealed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court reviewed the relevant law and precedent regarding the plain view exception and denied the appeal. First, the Court noted that the Fourth Amendment provides that individuals cannot be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant for probable cause is required before an officer may search for or seize evidence. Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides additional protections for individuals, providing that probable cause and exigent circumstances must exist in order to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle. There are, however, exceptions that may justify a warrantless search. Some examples include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the automobile exception, the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.

Here, the Superior Court found that the plain view exception applies to a search of a vehicle where the police enter the car to obtain contraband which they can see from outside of the car. In order for the plain view exception to apply: 1) the officer must see the evidence from a lawful vantage point, 2) the object must be of an obviously incriminating nature, and 3) the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object.

The trial court had concluded that Sergeant Maddox testified that the object clearly had an incriminating nature, as the cigarettes both looked and smelled like marijuana, so the officer had a lawful right of access to the cigarettes. Sergeant Maddox saw the cigarettes in plain view upon approaching the vehicle, so he seized the cigarettes to prevent the destruction of evidence, and he subsequently arrested the defendant.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

On appeal, the defendant attacked the third prong of the test. Specifically, he argued that the police did not seize the item from a place for which they had obtained lawful access because they did not have the right to physically enter the car without a warrant. The defendant relied on Commonwealth v. Alexander to support his argument, but the Superior Court determined that Alexander did not address the plain view exception to a warrantless search; instead, it addressed the automobile exception. It also did not address exigent circumstances at all. In this case, the Superior Court determined that because the cigarettes were in plain view, the officer had the right to go in the car and retrieve it without getting a warrant regardless of whether exigent circumstances existed. Therefore, the Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s judgment of sentence and the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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

Zak Goldstein 7/12/22 Zak Goldstein 7/12/22

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

Criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a motion to suppress a significant quantity of fentanyl, heroin, and pills in a case in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In Commonwealth v. B.R., police alleged that they responded to a 911 call for a report of a person screaming. When they arrived on the scene, they did not see a disturbance or hear anyone screaming, but they did observe the defendant’s car double parked in the middle of the road with the engine running. The defendant approached the police, and the police asked him if he knew to whom the car belonged. The defendant responded that it was his car.

The police walked over to the vehicle, and they claimed that they were able to smell marijuana coming from the car. They ran the defendant’s identification and determined that the defendant had a bench warrant from missing court in another case. They therefore placed him under arrest and put him in the back of the patrol car. They also claimed that while they were arresting him, he began cursing at them and saying things about guns and knives being in the car. The police asked if they could search the car, and the defendant purportedly told them that they could search it. The officers then performed a “consent search” and recovered a significant quantity of heroin, fentanyl, and oxycodone pills. The police charged B.R. with Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”) and related charges.

B.R. retained Attorney Goldstein for his case, and after reviewing the matter, Attorney Goldstein immediately filed a motion to suppress the drugs that were recovered from the car. Attorney Goldstein alleged that the drugs were illegally recovered by the police because the police failed to obtain a search warrant for the car, the consent obtained from B.R. was invalid, and the police had failed to give B.R. his Miranda warnings prior to interrogating him.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas held a hearing on the motion to suppress at which the officers testified to many of the above allegations. The Commonwealth based its arguments as to the legality of the search on the officers’ claims that B.R. had in fact consented to a search of the vehicle, leading to the recovery of the drugs. Under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitution, however, the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing that a suspect has voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligent consented to a search before the police may conduct such a search. As the police did not obtain a search warrant and there was no real claim that this search was performed out of a concern for officer safety, the Commonwealth attempted to show that B.R. had consented.

The trial court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument. First, following Attorney Goldstein’s cross-examination of the officer, the court found that the officer’s testimony was not credible because it did not make any sense that the defendant would consent to a search of his car when the car contained a large amount of drugs. The officer also struggled to recall details regarding the search or exactly what the defendant had supposedly said when giving consent. Second, the court found that the defendant did not voluntarily give consent to the search. Under Pennsylvania law, the consent to a search must be the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice. It may not be the result of duress or coercion, express or implied, or a will overborne. A court must look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether consent was freely given. Here, the police had arrested the defendant, failed to give him Miranda warnings, failed to tell him that he had the right to refuse the search, and failed to comply with their own directives which required them to consult with a supervisor and have the defendant sign a consent to search form prior to conducting the search of the vehicle.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

Accordingly, the court found the officers’ testimony not credible and that the defendant had not actually consented. The court granted Attorney Goldstein’s motion to suppress, and the Commonwealth was forced to withdraw the charges. On paper, this case looked difficult – the car smelled like marijuana, the defendant had an arrest warrant, the police recovered a lot of drugs, and the defendant had supposedly consented to the search, thereby eliminating the need for a search warrant. Through cross-examination and the use of the case law on consent searches, which is often helpful to the defense, Attorney Goldstein was able to convince the trial court that the police had violated B.R.’s constitutional rights and win the case.

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.