Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
Attorney Clemens Wins Motion to Suppress Firearm
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas C. Clemens, Esquire
Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Thomas C. Clemens, Esquire, recently won a motion to suppress in a firearms case. In Commonwealth v. Y.P., the Philadelphia Police arrested Y.P. after finding a firearm secreted in his car. Prosecutors filed VUFA (violation of the uniform firearms act) charges such as carrying a concealed firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106), felon in possession of a firearm (VUFA § 6105), and carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA § 6108). Accordingly, Y.P. was facing up to 32 years in jail if a judge or jury convicted him of the charges.
The police officers claimed that they stopped Y.P. in North Philadelphia after he blew through a stop sign in his car. The arresting officer claimed that during the stop, he could see Y.P. begin to move around in the car in a nervous manner as if he was trying to place something away from his body. The officer removed Y.P. from the car and placed him in the patrol car. The officer then “frisked” the passenger compartment of the car for weapons and found a gun. The police arrested Y.P., and prosecutors charged him with the aforementioned weapons offenses.
Y.P. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens promptly filed a motion to suppress the gun. The Philadelphia Court of Common pleas held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing, Attorney Clemens used the officer’s body camera footage to show that the window tint on the vehicle was actually too dark for the officer to have seen anything going on in the car during the stop. The officer even noted in the video that he could not see into the car, meaning he could not have seen Y.P. moving around or acting nervously. Therefore, Attorney Clemens argued that the officer had not actually seen any nervousness or furtive movements, making the “frisk” of the vehicle really a search for evidence based on a mere hunch rather than a legitimate frisk of the vehicle for officer safety. The police had not obtained a search warrant, so they would have been allowed to search the car only if exigent circumstances such as a need to ensure officer safety existed.
The trial judge agreed that the police could not actually see into the car and granted the motion. This left the prosecution with no choice but to dismiss the charges. Y.P. will be eligible for a full expungement.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, VUFA, 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.
Attorney Clemens’s Client Acquitted of VUFA (Gun) Charges
Defense Attorney Thomas C. Clemens
Philadelphia criminal defense attorney recently won a full acquittal for his client in a case involving firearms charges. In Commonwealth v. A. C.-O., prosecutors charged the client with various offenses under the uniform firearms act (VUFA offenses) for allegedly possessing a firearm in a vehicle without a license to carry. Fortunately, A.C.-O. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens took the case to trial.
In the case, police claimed that the client and multiple other men were in a car in the Frankford section of Philadelphia when the police stopped the car on suspicion of a traffic violation. The client was in the backseat of the car along with three other men, and the officers testified that they saw a gun underneath one of the other occupant’s feet. The police instructed everyone to get out of the car, and as the client was getting out, he took his backpack off and placed it on the floor of the car. The police immediately grabbed the backpack, searched it, and found a gun inside it. Unsurprisingly, they arrested the client and charged him with VUFA offenses for illegal possession of the gun in the backpack.
A.C.-O. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens took the case to trial. During trial, Attorney Clemens cross-examined the police officers on numerous inconsistencies in the various police reports regarding the locations of the various males in the car, as well as the chaotic scene at the time of the arrest. Despite the police officers’ unwavering testimony that A. C.-O. was the individual with the gun in his backpack, Attorney Clemens raised reasonable doubt as to whether A.C.-O. had ever even touched the backpack, and A. C.-O. was eventually acquitted of all charges. Given the full acquittal, A.C.-O. has the right to an expungement of the arrest record, and he will not have to serve any time in prison as a result of the arrest.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia
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.
Motion to Suppress Assault Rifle Granted
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the suppression of an assault rifle. In the case of Commonwealth v. WM, police charged WM with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person as a felony of the first degree. Prosecutors alleged that when police went to execute a search warrant at WM’s house, someone threw a bag out the window as the police entered the home. Police subsequently secured the home and recovered the bag from the lower roof area. Inside the bag, the police found an assault rifle.
The officers then questioned the occupants of the home. Two of them had no criminal history, and one one of them even had a license to carry a firearm. WM, however, was on state parole for a serious offense, so police immediately suspected him of possessing the long gun and throwing it out the window. WM eventually confessed to throwing it outside on video, so the police arrested him. Prosecutors charged him with a violation of the uniform firearms act (VUFA § 6105) for possessing a firearm while having a criminal record which makes gun possession illegal. WM was facing up to 20 years in prison and additional time in custody for a parole violation.
Fortunately, WM retained Attorney Goldstein for his case. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the search warrant and determined that the search warrant for the home was defective because police acted on stale information in applying for the warrant. As the warrant was defective, the subsequent entry into the home was illegal, and but for the illegal entry, no one would have thrown the gun outside. Therefore, Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress the gun and confession, arguing that the four corners of the warrant did not contain legitimate probable cause to search the house.
In summary, the police were investigating a shooting and carjacking which took place on May 16, 2022. They conducted an extensive investigation which led them to believe that a certain juvenile had committed the shooting. The issue, however, was whether police had conducted enough investigation to conclude that the juvenile or evidence relating to the shooting would be found at WM’s home. The evidence that they had that the juvenile lived there was very limited. About a year prior to the execution of the warrant, the police encountered the juvenile outside of the house, and he stated that he lived there. They checked arrest records and found his mother’s name. They also found that his brother had reported living there about two months prior to the execution of the search warrant. Thus, the information they had was that the juvenile reported living there over a year ago and that his brother may have lived there two months ago. Accordingly, Attorney Goldstein argued that while it appeared that they had probable cause to search for the juvenile, they did not have current probable cause to believe that he lived at the address in question. There was also no reason to believe that evidence of the crime would be found about two months later as someone would be likely to get rid of the proceeds of a crime within two months.
In general, information must not be stale in order for it to amount to probable cause. The age of the information supporting a warrant application is a factor in determining probable cause. When the information is too old, he warrant is stale, and probable cause may not exist. Age is not the only factor, however. Instead, the age of the information must be compared against the nature of the crime and the type of the evidence for which the police are looking. For example, probable cause to search for electronic evidence may exist for much longer than probable cause to search for drugs. This is because computers often retain even deleted evidence for years, whereas drugs can be sold or disposed of within hours or days.
In this case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that police may have had probable cause to believe that the juvenile lived there a year ago, but without doing any background checks shortly before obtaining the search warrant, they had no reason to believe that he still lived there. They also had no reason to believe that even if he did live there, he would still be storing evidence of the crime at the house about two months after the crime took place. The Common Pleas judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The Commonwealth was therefore forced to withdraw the charges, and WM will be released.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Criminal Defense Attorney 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.
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.