Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 3/16/24 Zak Goldstein 3/16/24

PA Superior Court: Police May Drive Defendant’s Car to Secure Location While They Get Warrant

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Floyd, granting the Commonwealth’s appeal and holding that the trial court erred in granting a motion to suppress drugs and guns where a Philadelphia police officer testified that he saw the defendant engage in two hand-to-hand transactions. The Court also held that the officers did not violate the defendant’s rights by driving the defendant’s car to a secure location to await the signing of a search warrant.

The trial court had granted the motion to suppress, finding that the police should not have driven the car themselves before they got the warrant and that the two alleged hand-to-hands did not provide probable cause to arrest the defendant and search the car. The Superior Court disagreed. The crux of the appeal was the admissibility of evidence seized from Floyd's vehicle following his arrest for alleged involvement in illegal narcotics transactions.

A member of the Philadelphia Police Department’s Narcotics Strike Force observed the defendant engage in suspicious transactions on September 9, 2021. The defendant was seen accepting money from two individuals and then handing them small objects. He went in and out of the car in question before each alleged transaction. One of the alleged buyers was not stopped, so the police could not confirm whether that person had purchased drugs. The second person, however, was stopped and searched by police, and she had containers of crack cocaine on her.

Based on these observations, the police arrested and searched the defendant. They also obtained a search warrant for his vehicle. Instead of having a tow truck move the car, one of the officers drove the vehicle to a secure location while they obtained the search warrant. They claimed that they did not actually search the vehicle en route to that location or before they got the warrant. The eventual search of the car resulted in the discovery of drugs and a gun with an obliterated serial number.

The defense challenged the seizure and subsequent search of Floyd's vehicle, filing a motion to suppress and arguing that the police's initial warrantless entry into the vehicle, to move it to a secure location pending the approval of a search warrant, violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence obtained from the car.

On appeal, the Superior Court held that the police action was justified under statutory authority, which allows for the seizure and relocation of a vehicle under certain conditions, such as when the vehicle's owner or user is in police custody, the vehicle is on public property, and there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. The court found that the evidence had an independent source—the observations made by Officer Outterbridge prior to the vehicle's relocation—which validated the search warrant and the subsequent discovery of the narcotics and firearm.

The statute that allows the police to move a car under certain conditions is 75 Pa.C.S. § 3352(c), specifically subsection (c)(3). This provision is part of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code and grants police officers the authority to remove or cause to be removed a vehicle to a place of safety or to the place of business of the operator of a wrecker or a nearby garage under the following circumstances:

The vehicle has been reported stolen or taken without the consent of its owner.
The person or persons in charge of the vehicle are physically unable to provide for its custody or removal.
The person driving or in control of the vehicle is arrested for an alleged offense for which the officer is required by law to take the person arrested before an issuing authority without unnecessary delay.
The vehicle is in violation of section 3353 (relating to prohibitions in specified places), except for overtime parking.
The vehicle has been abandoned, as defined in the title.

In this case, subsection (c)(3) was particularly relevant. This subsection applies when the person in control of the vehicle is arrested for an offense requiring that they be brought before an issuing authority without unnecessary delay. The statute gives police the authority to remove the vehicle to ensure its safety and the integrity of potential evidence, especially when the vehicle is on public property and there exists probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

Here, the Superior Court reasoned that the courts have held for about 15 years that one observation of a hand-to-hand transaction in a designated enforcement area or high crime area provides experienced narcotics officers with probable cause to stop a suspect and search them. In this case, the officer testified to seeing two hand-to-hand transactions. The first person had not been stopped, and the second person testified at the suppression hearing that she in fact had drugs on her but did not buy them from the defendant. Unfortunately, she did not testify that she did not in fact give anything to receive anything to or from the defendant. She just said she did not get the drugs from him. And the police testified that the defendant went in and out of the car before both alleged transactions. Thus, the Superior Court found probable cause to arrest the defendant and search him as well as to support the search warrant for the car. Based on the above statute, the police then had the right to move the car. Although it is better for them to use a tow truck to move the car, the statute does not explicitly direct that the police may not move it themselves.

This case presents two problems for the defense.

The Takeaway

First, this was really a credibility motion to suppress. The defense strategy was clearly to argue that the officer had not actually seen two drug transactions given that the defense called a witness, one of the alleged buyers, to say that she did not actually buy drugs from the officer. The trial judge, however, did not explicitly say that they were ruling based on credibility. If the trial judge had put a credibility ruling on the record and indicated that they did not believe the officer’s testimony, then it would have been virtually impossible for the Commonwealth to appeal. The judge, however, did not do that.

Second, the defense witness was not asked whether or not she gave anything to the defendant or took anything from him. This allowed the Superior Court to reason on appeal that she may have had an interactions with the defendant that looked like a drug transaction even if her testimony that she did not buy drugs from him was true. Probable cause looks at what a reasonable officer would believe in terms of whether they would find evidence or believe they had observed a crime – it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime actually occurred. Therefore, the Superior Court was able to grant the Commonwealth’s appeal. This ruling therefore highlights the importance of really arguing credibility and asking for a clear ruling on that issue if the basis of the motion is credibility and also making sure that the witnesses are asked the right questions during the hearing.

Finally, the case allows police behavior which is ripe for abuse. It is difficult to believe that narcotics officers, who typically do not wear body cameras in Philadelphia, would not at least look around the car a little bit while driving it to the station, and the next case will probably involve some claim by police that they had to do an inspection to make sure there was nothing that could harm the officer during the drive. The law is clear that police must get a warrant before searching a car absent a limited number of exceptions which did not apply here, but here, the officer drove the defendant’s car before the police got the warrant. To really comply with the rules, they should have had a tow truck tow the car. Hopefully, the defendant will pursue further appeals on this issue.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Read the case

Zak Goldstein 3/12/24 Zak Goldstein 3/12/24

Attorney Goldstein Published in PACDL’s For the Defense Magazine on Differences in Federal and State Constitutional Protections

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire was recently published in the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer’s For the Defense Magazine. Attorney Goldstein’s article focused on the differences between the protections provided by the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and the practical impact those differences may have on the litigation of motions to suppress and other challenges to improper seized evidence in state and federal court. Read more here.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 3/6/24 Zak Goldstein 3/6/24

Attorney Goldstein Wins Motion to Suppress Firearm in Philadelphia

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a motion to suppress a firearm in the case of Commonwealth v. R.M.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

In R.M., three police officers were patrolling Northwest Philadelphia in plainclothes and an unmarked car. They claimed that they saw the defendant driving a car with illegal window tint on all of the windows, so they pulled the car over. When the police approached the car, the defendant was cooperative with them and provided them with all of the paperwork for the vehicle. Nonetheless, one of the officers testified that he could immediately observe the magazine of a gun sticking out from underneath the mat underneath the driver’s feet. The officer asked the defendant if there were any guns or drugs in the car, and when the defendant denied having a gun in the car, the officers pulled him out of the car and searched it. The officers claimed that they only frisked the area around the driver’s seat for officer safety because they could see the magazine and the defendant had denied having a gun in the car. Of course, they did recover a gun and an extended magazine. They claimed to have recovered it from underneath the floor mat. The police arrested R.M., and prosecutors charged him with violations of the uniform firearms act (VUFA) under sections § 6105, § 6106, and § 6108. VUFA § 6105 is a particularly serious charge as it is typically graded as a first-degree felony.

R.M. retained Attorney Goldstein. Following the preliminary hearing, Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress the firearm. Attorney Goldstein argued that police had illegally pulled R.M. over for no real reason and searched the car based on a hunch rather than any actual observation of a magazine or gun.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas held a hearing on the motion to suppress. Attorney Goldstein cross-examined the arresting officer extensively on the fact that the officer had not been wearing a body camera even though most Philadelphia Police officers now wear body cameras, the officers failed to comply with virtually all of the police directives governing the behavior of plainclothes officers, the fact that the officers would not have even able to write a ticket for the window tint because they did not have a computer in their car and would have needed uniformed officers to come to the scene, and the absurdity of the story that the gun just happened to be sticking out in plain view.

Attorney Goldstein also called the vehicle’s passenger as a witness. She testified that the police had pulled the car over shortly after she and the driver left a gas station, immediately removed them from the vehicle, and searched the car extensively before finding the gun. She denied that it could have been in plain view.

As the police had not actually seen R.M. do anything illegal and the gun was likely not actually in plain view prior to the search, the trial court found the officers not credible and granted the motion to suppress the gun. Credibility rulings generally cannot be appealed, so the Commonwealth then withdrew the charges. R.M. will be eligible to have them expunged.

The Plain View Exception

Notably, whether the police can search a car without a search warrant if they see contraband in plain view is still debatable. In this case, the officers claimed that they could see the magazine of the gun in plain view. A magazine on its own is not illegal, and having one in a car does not give the police probable cause or reasonable suspicion to search or frisk the car with or without a warrant, but the presence of the magazine along with the defendant’s alleged denial that he had a gun in the car likely would have given the police the ability to search the car. A false denial would tend to suggest that the defendant actually had a gun but was not allowed to have it. The Superior Court has found that the police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle when they see contraband in plain view, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted review in that case and may reach a different conclusion. Either way, the trial judge found that the plain view exception did not apply in this case because the officers were not credible.

This case highlights the importance of retaining an attorney who will conduct a thorough investigation, who will locate and prepare witnesses to testify credibly for the defense, who will be familiar with the case law and police directives in order to show that the police either did not follow required procedures or the law during a search, and who can effectively cross-examine officers and other witnesses to challenge their credibility at motions and trial.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.

Philadelphia 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, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 2/5/24 Zak Goldstein 2/5/24

Third Circuit Finds Laws Prohibiting 18 – 20 Year Olds From Carrying Guns Probably Unconstitutional

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, holding that Pennsylvania’s firearm laws, which prohibit 18 – 20-year-olds from carrying firearms, are probably unconstitutional. Federal courts in Pennsylvania and throughout the country have recently found many firearms regulations unconstitutional, and this latest case may have the effect of making Pennsylvania’s VUFA § 6106 and § 6108 statutes unconstitutional when applied to someone who is 18, 19, or 20 because Pennsylvania law prohibits someone who is under 21 from obtaining a license to carry a firearm and Philadelphia bars all public carrying of firearms without a license.

Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a), 6109(b), and §§ 6101 – 6128, an individual may not carry a concealed firearm without a license, and an individual must also be at least 21 years old to apply for a license. This is true even during a state of emergency. Ordinarily, Pennsylvania citizens may open-carry without a license outside of Philadelphia, but when the state has declared an emergency, an individual may not open carry without a license unless they are actively engaged in a “defense” or one of the fifteen other exceptions in § 6106(b) applies. There are exceptions for transporting a gun home from purchasing it or traveling to and from a shooting range.

The plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police in October 2020 seeking an injunction prohibiting the Commissioner from arresting them for carrying firearms. At that point, Pennsylvania had been in a state of emergency for three years due to COVID-19, the opioid addiction crisis, and Hurricane Ida. Accordingly, the plaintiffs, who were under 21, could not carry firearms outside of their homes openly due to the state of emergency or in a concealed manner because someone under 21 cannot obtain a license to carry. The district court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Third Circuit ruled that the statutes are unconstitutional when applied to 18-to-20-year-old citizens.

Where do these gun challenges come from?

The recent successful challenges to gun regulations come from two United States Supreme Court cases – District of Columbia v. Heller, and Bruen v. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.

In Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that an individual has a Second Amendment right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense regardless of whether they serve in a militia. Any law that banned all firearm possession in the home would therefore be unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court found a DC law which required firearms in the home to be rendered and kept inoperable at all times to be unconstitutional.

Then, in Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry a handgun outside the home. Bruen in particular has supported these recent challenges to gun regulations.

The US Supreme Court adopted a two part test for evaluating the legality of firearms regulations.

First, a court determines whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct. If it does, then the Constitution presumptively protects the conduct.

Second, a court determines whether the regulation in question is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If it is, then the presumption applied as part of the first test is overcome, and the regulation is permissible. If it is not, then the regulation is unconstitutional. In order to prove that a regulation satisfies the second part of the test, the government bears the burden of identifying a “founding-era” historical analogue to the modern firearm regulation. In other words, the government must find similar laws from around 1791, or the regulation is unconstitutional. The laws need not be identical, but they must be very similar.

Here, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

First, it concluded that the Second Amendment plainly applies to the action of carrying a firearm outside of the home and that adults under 21 are among the people protected by the Second Amendment.

Second, it concluded that the government could not point to a historical regulation that is analogous to the laws in question. Although there were similar laws on the books when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Court found that the government had to find similar laws from 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified. In the court’s view, the government could not satisfy this burden, so the statutes are unconstitutional. The only law the government could find was a 1721 law which prohibited “carrying any gun or hunting on the improved or inclosed land of any planation other than his own.” This law had nothing to do with age, so the court found it to be irrelevant to this case. Meanwhile, numerous laws from that time period showed that young adults were actually permitted to or even required to arm themselves and serve in the miliia upon turning 18. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction prohibiting the Commissioner from arresting law-abiding 18-to-20 year olds who openly carry firearms during a state of emergency declared by the Commonwealth.

The final impact of the Court’s holding is still open to debate. The Court did not find the statutes to be entirely unconstitutional. Instead, it simply granted an injunction directing the State Police not to arrest 18-to-20-year-olds for openly carrying guns during a state of emergency. The injunction was not technically issued against the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, but he would likely be sued should he ignore it. It also did not address the unique statutes in Philadelphia. This is important because Philadelphia does not allow the open carrying of a firearm without a license to carry. Similarly, for the rest of the state, the statute is arguably applicable only to carrying a firearm during a state of emergency because the statutes only completely prohibit open carry without a license during such a state of emergency. If the state of emergency provision were eliminated, then the laws may be constitutional, and it is not clear whether 18-to-20-year-olds have the right to obtain a license to carry.

It does seem likely, however, that the federal courts would find Pennsylvania’s statutes unconstitutional in Philadelphia because the laws which apply to Philadelphia make it permanently illegal for an 18-to-20-year-old to carry a firearm either openly or in a concealed fashion. Philadelphia never allows open carry without a license, and someone under 21 cannot get a license, so like an 18 year old in the rest of the state during a state of emergency, an 18 year old in Philadelphia can never carry a firearm outside of the home. Accordingly, if you are 18-to-20 years old and charged with carrying a firearm without a license in Philadelphia, you may have a viable motion to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional.

It is important to remember that even though you may have a viable motion to dismiss and the laws may be unconstitutional, the laws are still on the books. The Philadelphia Police are still enforcing them, and the state courts have largely rejected these types of constitutional challenges. Further, the Third Circuit could revisit this opinion en banc, or the United States Supreme Court could grant review. The Supreme Court has accepted appeals in post-Bruen cases challenging gun regulations, and it is very possible that the Supreme Court could decide that many of these regulations are still constitutional and overrule the lower courts. Therefore, it is generally better not to carry a firearm illegally and potentially be the test case in case this opinion does not hold up or the state courts ignore it. Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court approves of these rulings or does not address them, it will become increasingly difficult for the state courts to continue to ignore them. Ultimately, if you have been charged with carrying a firearm without a license or on the streets of Philadelphia and you are under 21, you should speak with one of our experienced gun lawyers today.

Read the Third Circuit’s Opinion

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania? 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, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.