Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 8/4/24 Zak Goldstein 8/4/24

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Second Amendment Does Not Provide Right to Possess Firearm While on Federal Supervised Release

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has just decided the case of United States v. Moore, holding that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual with the right to possess a firearm while on federal supervised release. Although recent federal case law has expanded some of the protections provided by the Second Amendment, the federal courts have now begun to walk that case law back and re-impose limits which historically appeared to be settled.

The Facts of Moore

Moore had previous federal convictions for distributing cocaine and possessing a firearm as a felon. Nonetheless, in 2021, while on federal supervised release, he ended up in possession of a firearm. After a night out celebrating his birthday, Moore and his fiancée returned to their Pittsburgh residence, where they discovered two intruders breaking into a car parked near their home.

Moore's fiancée retrieved a handgun from a safe and handed it to Moore before leaving the house with her children. Moore, now armed, confronted the intruders and fired three shots, striking one of them in the leg. A few days later, Moore’s fiancée turned the firearm in to the police and told them what happened. Moore called his federal probation officer and reported the incident, as well. After the police investigated, federal prosecutors decided to charge Moore with possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

The Issue

Moore pleaded guilty to the charge, but as part of the plea deal, he reserved the right to argue on appeal that the federal firearms statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The district court sentenced him to 84 months’ incarceration followed by three years of supervised release. Moore appealed to the Third Circuit, and on appeal, he argued that he still had a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm while on supervised release. The defense argued that the right was particularly strong in this case because he was engaged in the protection of his home when the incident occurred.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit rejected this argument, holding that Moore, as a convicted felon on active federal supervised release, did not have the constitutional right to possess a firearm. The court's decision was based on historical precedents, which have consistently allowed the disarmament of convicts as part of their sentences. Indeed, many statutes historically allowed the government to seize all of an individual’s possessions following a conviction. If the government may seize everything, then they may seize just firearms, as well. The court noted that the disarmament is not permanent. Instead, it is a temporary measure taken solely during the period of the sentence, and supervised release is part of the sentence.

The court emphasized that supervised release is an integral component of the criminal sentence, similar to imprisonment. Thus, restricting firearm possession during this time aligns with the government's interests in ensuring public safety and aiding the defendant’s rehabilitation.

The Takeaway

The court’s ruling reaffirms the government's authority to impose firearm restrictions on individuals with felony convictions, even after their release from prison, as long as they are still under supervision. There have been some successful challenges to whether an individual may be permanently barred from possessing a firearm due to a felony conviction, and the law is still not settled in that area. The Pennsylvania state appellate courts, for example, have found that individuals with prior felony convictions may not possess firearms, while the Third Circuit has found that an individual with an old non-violent theft offense may not be barred from possessing a gun for life. This case makes it clear, however, that a court may prohibit a defendant from possessing a gun at least while they are on probation, parole, or federal supervised release.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia 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 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 successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and 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 7/6/24 Zak Goldstein 7/6/24

PA Superior Court: Police May Temporarily Seize Gun in Plain View During Traffic Stop

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport, holding that if the police see a gun in plain view during a traffic stop, they may temporarily seize and secure the gun during the stop. They may also ask the driver of the vehicle if they have a license to carry the gun.

The Facts of Hawkins-Davenport

Philadelphia Police Officers McCabe and Torres conducted a traffic stop of the defendant because his driver’s side brake light was not working. Officer Torres approached the passenger side of the car while his partner went to the driver’s side, and Officer Torres immediately saw a gun sitting on the passenger seat. Officer Torres reached into the car and took the gun. He then held onto it for the remainder of the stop, and he asked the defendant if the defendant had a license to carry the firearm. The defendant told him that the did not have a license, so the police arrested him. Philadelphia prosecutors charged the defendant with gun charges including carrying a firearm without a license in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 and carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.

The defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police illegally searched the car and seized the gun because they had no reason to believe that he was going to use the gun on them or that he possessed the gun illegally before they seized it. He also argued that his statement that he did not have a license to carry should be suppressed because the police seized the gun without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and questioned him without first giving him Miranda warnings. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the traffic stop was legal but the police had no reason to seize the gun or question the defendant about it. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that Officer Torres's actions in securing the firearm were justified as a necessary precaution to ensure officer safety during the traffic stop. The prosecution contended that the trial court erred in suppressing the firearm and the defendant’s statements given the context of the situation in which the police did nothing more than secure the gun for officer safety purposes during a brief traffic stop.

The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth and reversed. The Court reviewed the transcripts and the body cam footage and agreed that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court also found that the officer had the right to secure the firearm that was in plain view during the traffic stop regardless of whether the gun was legally or illegally possessed. The Court noted that officers have the right to take reasonable precautions to ensure their safety during traffic stops. The Court referenced prior cases such as Commonwealth v. Ross and Pennsylvania v. Mimms, noting that securing a firearm observed in plain view is a reasonable safety measure. Further, the officers did not unlawfully extend the stop by asking just one question as to whether the defendant had a license to carry. Therefore, the trial court should not have granted the motion to suppress, and the Superior Court reversed.

In this case, the Superior Court approved of the officers’ actions because they were focused on officer safety, the gun was just out and sitting on the passenger seat, and the officers did not extend the stop by extensively questioning the defendant. They had the right to take quick action to secure the gun and ask a question about the legality of the gun. The result likely would have been different had the gun not been so obviously in plain view or had the police needed to significantly prolong the stop in order to question the defendant about firearms and firearms licenses.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 6/10/24 Zak Goldstein 6/10/24

PA Superior Court: Police Justified in Searching Backpack Defendant Abandoned After Fleeing Into Someone Else’s Home

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Coles, reversing the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress a gun. The Court found that the trial court should have found that police properly searched the defendant’s bag after the defendant fled from a lawful police stop, ran into someone else’s house without permission, and abandoned the bag containing the illegal gun.

The Facts of Coles

Two Philadelphia police officers were on patrol in September 2020. They observed the defendant and other individuals smoking what appeared to be marijuana on a street corner. The officers approached the defendant to investigate. The defendant immediately fled into a nearby house. When police saw her, she was carrying a black North Face backpack .

The police followed her into the house. Once they got in the house, they found the backpack abandoned in the kitchen. The officers searched it and found a gun in the bag. They arrested the defendant and confirmed that she did not have a license to carry the firearm in the bag.

The Motion to Suppress

Prosecutors charged the defendant with carrying a concealed firearm without a license in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 as well as carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. She filed a motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the police did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search the backpack. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

The Commonwealth appealed the trial court's decision granting the motion to suppress to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Superior Court reversed.

The Court found that the defendant had voluntarily abandoned the backpack when she fled into a property she had no permission to enter. According to Pennsylvania law, an individual who abandons property cannot later contest its search and seizure. The court noted that abandonment is a matter of intent, inferred from actions and circumstances. Here, the defendant’s act of leaving the backpack behind while fleeing from police indicated her intent to abandon it, thereby forfeiting any reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court emphasized that the police did not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search an abandoned item.

Notably, this was not a situation involving “forced abandonment.” If someone flees from the police or abandons property as a direct result of illegal police conduct, then it may still be possible to successfully move to suppress the abandoned property. For example, if the police attempt to stop someone without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and the person runs and tosses a gun, it may still be possible to suppress the gun in state court because the gun was only abandoned as a result of the illegal stop. But here, there was no issue of forced abandonment because both the trial court and the Superior Court believed that the police had reasonable suspicion to approach the defendant to investigate the illegal marijuana use. The police officers’s suspicions regarding the marijuana and the defendant’s immediate flight and abandonment of the backpack provided them with the necessary level of suspicion to conduct the search. It is also important to note that although the doctrine of forced abandonment applies in Pennsylvania state court, it generally does not apply in federal court. As a general rule, running away and discarding contraband will not help your case, but in some cases in Pennsylvania, it may still be possible to argue that the initial unlawful police conduct requires suppression of the evidence. Unfortunately, this case does not appear to be one of them.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 5/25/24 Zak Goldstein 5/25/24

PA Superior Court: Statements Made to Constables May Be Suppressed for Lack of Miranda Warnings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Seeney, holding that statements made to constables during a custodial interrogation may not be admissible in court unless the constable first gave Miranda warnings.

The Facts of Seeney

In Seeney, the defendant was charged with attempting to possess a firearm as a prohibited person in violation of § 6105 and two counts of making a false statement in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(4). The police arrested the defendant, and he was held in custody at the Bucks County Correctional Center.

The defendant was scheduled for his preliminary hearing in 2022. In the suburban counties, preliminary hearings take place at the office of a Magisterial District Justice. Sheriffs transport prisoners to preliminary hearings in Philadelphia and for other hearings in the Court of Common Pleas in the counties, but magistrates use constables for prisoner transportation. In this case, a constable transported the defendant to the magistrate’s office for his preliminary hearing. The constable had no real involvement in the case and did not particularly care about it, but in making conversation with the defendant, he asked the defendant what he was charged with. The defendant then told the constable that he had tried to buy a gun despite being prohibited from doing so.

The constable did not give the defendant Miranda warnings during this conversation and likely would not have told anyone what the defendant said. Unfortunately for the defendant, a police detective happened to overhear it. The detective then called the constable the next day and asked the constable to give a formal statement about what the defendant said to him, and the constable would have then been a witness for the Commonwealth at trial.

The Motion to Suppress

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the incriminating statement made to the constable because the constable never gave him Miranda warnings. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the constable was not required to provide Miranda warnings because 1) he did not actually interrogate the defendant and 2) he was not a law enforcement officer like a police officer or detective. The Superior Court rejected both arguments. First, it found that the constable’s questioning was clearly an interrogation. By asking the defendant about his court appearance, the constable asked questions which were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The constable’s purpose in asking the questions - that he was just making conversation - did not matter. Instead, the test is whether the questions themselves were likely to elicit an incriminating response. Second, the court found that it was irrelevant that the constable was not actually a police officer or sworn law enforcement officer. Constables provide transportation to court for the magistrate. In order to do so, they physically restrict a prisoner’s movements both by locking them in their transport vehicle and in holding cells, and by guarding them while armed with a firearm. This creates a custodial setting no different than being transported by a sworn police officer, and the constables do this on behalf of the government. Accordingly, the fact that the constable was not actually a police officer was irrelevant - it was still a custodial interrogation conducted by a state actor.

When do the police have to give Miranda warnings?

The police only have to give a defendant Miranda warnings when they are going to conduct a custodial interrogation. If the police fail to give Miranda warnings, then any statement obtained may not be used against the defendant. The failure to give Miranda warnings does not automatically result in the dismissal of a case. Instead, it would only result in the suppression of a statement if the police took a statement. Accordingly, if the police do not want to take a statement or do not care if the resulting statement is going to be admissible, then they do not have to give Miranda warnings.

Here, the defendant was obviously in custody - he was being held at the Bucks jail and transported by an armed constable, and the constable asked him questions which were likely to result in incriminating admissions. The constable worked on behalf of the government, so this amounted to a custodial interrogation which required Miranda warnings. The Superior Court therefore upheld the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress the confession.

The ruling here seems pretty obvious, so it is somewhat surprising the prosecution appealed. The case provides a good illustration of when Miranda warnings are required, however.