Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 3/19/24 Zak Goldstein 3/19/24

Attorney Goldstein Obtains Dismissal of Bucks County Felony Charges for Making a Materially False Statement in Connection with a Firearm Purchase

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, obtained the full dismissal of felony charges at the preliminary hearing for a client who was charged in Bucks County with allegedly making a materially false statement on the background check application that he filled out in an attempt to buy a firearm.

In the case of Commonwealth v. M.S., prosecutors alleged that M.S. went to a gun show in Bucks County to try to buy a gun and provided false information about his criminal record on the form.

How does the background check process work when buying a gun in Pennsylvania?

Every purchase of a firearm in Pennsylvania requires the purchaser to fill out two background check forms – one for the Pennsylvania State Police and one for the ATF. The state police form asks a number of questions such as whether the purchaser is ineligible to buy a gun due to certain prior convictions (generally those enumerated in the felon in possession of a firearm statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105) as well as questions about prior 302 mental health commitments and convictions for domestic violence.

The ATF form asks whether the purchaser has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in jail. For state court misdemeanors, the definitions section on the back of the form clarifies that the question only applies to a state court misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in jail, meaning that a non-domestic violence misdemeanor of the second degree in Pennsylvania is not a problem, but a first degree misdemeanor is. Notably, the forms also require the purchaser to confirm that they are purchasing the gun for themselves rather than someone else. There is an exception where the purchaser seeks to purchase it for a close family member who is legally eligible to own a firearm (such as a spouse or child).

In this case, the police claimed that M.S. lied on the form by checking off that he did not have a conviction for a crime punishable by more than a year because he had a misdemeanor of the first degree theft conviction from more than thirty years ago. Technically, according to the language of the form and the federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), this M1 theft conviction made M.S. ineligible to possess a firearm.

What happens if you fail the background check when trying to buy a gun?

The gun seller ran M.S. through the State Police background check system, the system recognized his old conviction, and he was not permitted to purchase the firearm. Most people do not realize, however, that the system then notifies the state police about the attempted purchase, and the state police frequently file felony charges under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111. The ATF could also file federal charges along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. § 6111 makes it a felony to make a materially false statement on either the state police or ATF background check forms. In order to prove a violation of the statute, however, the Commonwealth has to show 1) that the defendant was the person who actually filled out the form, 2) that the statement was in fact false, 3) that the statement was material, meaning important, and 4) that the defendant knew it was false and did not just make a mistake.

Obviously, the questions are confusing. The state form asks about crimes listed in § 6105, and people often do not know exactly of what they were convicted, particularly where the conviction is older. For someone who has a prior robbery or aggravated assault, there is probably not going to be a strong argument that the person was confused. But where someone has an old misdemeanor or a few DUIs, they may well have not realized that they were ineligible to possess a firearm.

Similarly, the federal form asks whether the person was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, and the form then actually defines that as a state court misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison. This question is particularly confusing as a non-lawyer is very unlikely to know how much time they could have received for an old, less serious conviction. Again, for a robbery or an aggravated assault, there is not going to be as strong of a mistake defense, but for an old misdemeanor theft conviction, it is not unreasonable to suggest that someone could have been unaware of the gradation of the conviction or how much time that gradation could have carried if they did not actually receive the maximum or any jail time at all.

In this case, M.S.’s old theft conviction carried up to five years in prison, making him ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law. It did not make him ineligible under state law. Accordingly, the police charged him with lying on the ATF form, which is a felony.

M.S. retained Attorney Goldstein for the preliminary hearing. On the day of the hearing, the Commonwealth offered to reduce the charges to a third-degree misdemeanor of unsworn falsification for a one year period of probation. M.S. rejected the offer and decided to have a preliminary hearing. The police officer testified that he received a package from the state police indicating that M.S. had tried to buy a gun, M.S. was ineligible due to the old theft conviction, and that theft conviction was punishable by up to five years. The police officer also confirmed that he spoke with M.S., and M.S. admitted to trying and failing to buy the gun for self-defense purposes. He said he did not realize the theft conviction made him ineligible.

Dismissal of the Charges

Attorney Goldstein then argued for dismissal of the charges. First, under the recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case of Range v. Attorney General, a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership for someone convicted of an old state court misdemeanor appears to be unconstitutional. There, the Third Circuit, in an en banc, opinion, held that Range should be permitted to buy a gun because his only conviction was a nearly thirty year old conviction for M1 food stamp fraud. Given how minor the conviction was, a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership violated the Second Amendment.

This case was extremely similar except the conviction was older and Range had sued for an injunction allowing him to buy a gun rather than argued that he could not be prosecuted. Attorney Goldstein argued that the statement on the form, even if not true, was not material because M.S. would have been eligible to possess a gun under the Range decision.

Second, Attorney Goldstein also argued that M.S. had clearly been confused by the wording on the form. Misdemeanor theft is not a bar to gun ownership under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105, and M.S. had not actually received any time in prison. He had also been cooperative with the police and told them he had made a mistake. If he had been trying to buy a gun illegally, he could have purchased it on the street or lied to the police. Accordingly, it was very unlikely that he knew he had been convicted of a state court misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in jail. He did not actually get any jail time, and he did not even receive more than two years of probation.

Fortunately, the Magisterial District Justice agreed with the defense arguments and dismissed all charges. Instead of facing trial on felony charges in the Court of Common Pleas, M.S., who had not been arrested in over thirty years, can return to work and continue being a law-abiding citizen. This case, however, highlights the importance of being very careful when filling out these forms. If you have any doubts about whether you are eligible to possess a firearm, you should not use the form to “test” that eligibility. Instead, you should speak with a lawyer about your prior record. Additionally, if you have filled out the form and made a mistake, you should speak with an attorney right away before the police come calling. An attorney may be able to help you head off the investigation or help you with responding to it in order to avoid charges and prosecution for a felony offense. The form should never be used as a way to test whether or not you are eligible to buy a gun as answering the questions incorrectly can lead to felony charges.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? 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 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.

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

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.