Case Dismissed: Motion to Suppress Firearm With Obliterated Serial Number Granted

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC have continued to win difficult cases in the courtroom. In the case of Commonwealth v. A.T., Philadelphia defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a motion to suppress in a case involving gun charges including Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act Sections 6106, 6108, and 6110. Those charges involve carrying a firearm in a vehicle without a concealed carry permit, carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, and possessing a firearm with a missing or obliterated serial number. The court’s decision to grant the motion to suppress resulted in the dismissal of all of the gun charges against A.T.

In A.T., Philadelphia police conducted the stop of a car in which the defendant was a passenger. Officers claimed that when they ran the car’s license plate through the NCIC system, the system returned a result indicating that it had no records for the car. The officers, believing that this could possibly, but not definitely, mean that that the car was unregistered, then proceeded to stop the car without any other indications of criminal activity or motor vehicle code violations.

The officers activated their lights and sirens, and the car pulled over on command. The officers claimed that when they approached the car to ask for the paperwork, they were immediately able to smell a potent odor of marijuana. The officer, however, testified that he was able to smell both fresh and burnt marijuana. They then testified that the driver admitted to having smoked marijuana recently.

While dealing with the driver, the officer saw the defendant in the back of the car playing with his cell phone. The officer speculated that the defendant was not trying to engage and was trying to keep the focus away from him. They then saw a backpack next to the defendant and asked him about it, and the defendant said it was his. The officers, while attempting to locate the source of the marijuana odor, searched the bag and found a gun with a serial number which had been filed off. They asked the defendant if it was his gun, and he apparently told them that it was his. They also claimed that the backpack had the defendant’s name on it, thereby further proving that the bag and the gun inside of it belonged to the defendant. Finally, they testified that they found a small amount of marijuana in the center console. In total, officers found one yellow tinted glass jar which contained about a gram of marijuana. They did not find any evidence in the car that marijuana had recently been consumed in the car such as roaches or other paraphernalia.

On paper, the case looked difficult because police claimed that they had smelled marijuana and ultimately found marijuana. As a general rule, police officers may conduct the search of a car and the contents of the car when they have probable cause to do so. Probable cause means that based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officers’ experience and training, they are likely to find some contraband or evidence of a crime as a result of a search. When police have probable cause to search a car, they usually do not have to get a warrant first unless the car is parked in the suspect’s driveway. Even though Philadelphia prosecutors do not charge people with the possession of small amounts of marijuana anymore, the possession of even a gram of marijuana remains illegal under state and federal law. Therefore, police officers will frequently assert that they had probable cause based on the odor of marijuana to conduct a search that finds some other sort of contraband such as harder drugs or a gun. If the police really could not determine if the car was unregistered and they really smelled marijuana coming from the car, then they would have been justified in conducting the search.

Attorney Goldstein reviewed the discovery, investigated the case, obtained records from PennDOT, and concluded that the police had likely conducted an unlawful search. First, there were issues with the stop of the vehicle because the car turned out to be registered despite its absence from the NCIC system. Second, the statements from the police officers rang false; the idea that the entire car would smell like marijuana from one gram of marijuana in a sealed container in the center console seemed unlikely, and the claims that the defendant would have his name on the backpack carrying an illegal gun and admit that the gun was his seemed like a stretch. Therefore, Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress alleging that police had unlawfully stopped the car because it was in fact registered and that the police were not telling the truth about the ensuing search of the vehicle and questioning of the defendant. The registration issue was a legal issue - whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car in a case where they genuinely, but incorrectly, believed that the car did not have a registration, but the search would involve issues of credibility. Credibility motions are particularly difficult to win because they require the defense to convince the judge that the police are not telling the truth, and the standard for the admissibility of challenged evidence is much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that would apply at trial.

The trial court scheduled a motion to suppress, and the officers testified to the above information. On cross-examination, however, Attorney Goldstein was first able to show from the PennDOT paperwork that the car was actually registered, thereby proving that the police had no real basis for stopping the car. Attorney Goldstein was then also able to show that the police version of the search should not be believed for the following reasons: 1) the entire car would not smell like marijuana from one gram of marijuana being in a glass jar in the center console, 2) the officer’s testimony that he could smell both burnt and fresh marijuana was absurd, 3) if the driver had really told them that they had just been smoking marijuana, the officers would have investigated and likely arrested the driver for driving under the influence (“DUI”),  and 4) that the police had not taken the backpack which allegedly had the defendant’s name on it into evidence. Obviously, the officer was forced to admit that they had destroyed critical evidence by not preserving a bag which supposedly proved that the gun belonged to the defendant. Attorney Goldstein also highlighted numerous other inconsistencies between the testimony of the officer and the paperwork that he had created and the testimony that he gave at the preliminary hearing.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

After hearing the testimony of the officer and reviewing the case law on Pennsylvania’s absence of a “good faith exception,” the judge granted the motion to dismiss and precluded prosecutors from introducing evidence of the recovery of the gun or the marijuana at trial. The trial court specifically found that the officers could not be believed because there were just too many new details testified to at the hearing which did not appear in the paperwork. Accordingly, with the motion to suppress granted, prosecutors were obligated to dismiss all of the charges against A.T. Instead of having a felony record and facing significant jail time, A.T. will be eligible to have these serious gun charges expunged.

Police Need More Than Vague Concerns About Officer Safety to Search a Home Without a Warrant

Philadelphia Drug Charges Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Duke, holding that Pennsylvania State Troopers illegally searched the defendant’s house by walking into his open garage after he told them to leave his property. The Superior Court specifically rejected the idea that police could create exigent circumstances, claim that a person could have been retrieving a weapon without any basis for believing that, and then use those two factors to search someone’s property without a warrant.

The Facts of Duke

In Duke, Pennsylvania State Police Troopers went to the defendant’s house in York County, PA looking for his son. When the troopers arrived, the defendant was standing at the end of his driveway holding a small dog. The defendant told the troopers that his son was in jail in Lancaster County Prison and therefore not home. The troopers asked the defendant for permission to look around the house to confirm that the son was not there. The defendant told the troopers that they could not. The defendant, holding his dog, then walked up the driveway toward his garage.

The Illegal Search of the Garage

Although the defendant told the troopers they could not conduct a search and did not give them consent to be on the property, they followed him up to the garage. The troopers then saw inside the garage and observed a bow and arrow, a crossbow, and a long gun or rifle. They also smelled marijuana. Then they entered the garage, without consent, and found marijuana plants in the garage. They arrested the defendant, obtained a search warrant, and found additional marijuana plants in the home. They charged the defendant with Possession with the Intent to Deliver.

Motion to Suppress the Drugs

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the marijuana in the trial court, arguing that police only obtained the search warrant for the marijuana as a result of their illegal entry into his property and ultimately garage. Therefore, the marijuana that they found should be considered the fruit of the poisonous tree despite the fact that they subsequently obtained a search warrant. The defendant also moved to suppress any statements that he made due to the police failing to provide Miranda warnings.  

The trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. The troopers testified, without basis, that they believed that the defendant was lying about the location of his son. They followed him up the driveway because they were unsure what he was planning to do and believed that he could be going for a weapon. They also testified that the defendant had said that there was no way that the troopers were getting into the house, and one of the troopers admitted that the defendant may have asked them to leave the property, although he was not sure.

The defendant then testified and also called one of the troopers to testify, but unsurprisingly, the court found that the troopers that most helped the Commonwealth’s case were more credible than the defendant or the other trooper who testified and accepted their version of events. The court, therefore, found that the troopers were acting solely in the basis of ensuring officer safety and therefore were justified in going into the defendant’s home without a warrant. The court denied the motion to suppress and found the defendant guilty of felony Possession with Intent to Deliver following a waiver trial. The court sentenced him to three years’ probation.

The Superior Court Appeal

The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court initially denied the appeal, but following a helpful ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court was required to reconsider the case. This time, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the defendant. The court noted that warrantless searches of a suspect’s house are per se unconstitutional unless a specifically established and well-delineated exception to the warrant requirements applies. One exception to the warrant requirement is when probable cause and exigent circumstances are present. In determining whether exigent circumstances exist, a court should look at:

1)    The gravity of the offense,

2)    Whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed,

3)    Whether there is above and beyond a clear showing of probable cause,

4)    Whether there is a strong reason to believe that the suspect is within the premises being entered,

5)    Whether there is a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended,

6)    Whether the entry was peaceable, and

7)    The time of the entry.

Because an exigent circumstances analysis requires the Commonwealth to justify a warrantless search of a home, the Commonwealth must prove an urgent need to act and that police action without a warrant was imperative. Therefore, the Commonwealth must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances surrounding the opportunity to search were truly exigent. Further, police may not rely upon exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry when the exigency derives from their own actions.

Here, the trial court erred in determining that police properly conducted a warrantless search of the defendant’s property. The court noted that the analysis should have begun with an acknowledgement that once the defendant denied the troopers his consent to search the property, the troopers were violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Because the troopers did not have a search warrant, they could remain on the property only if there were exigent circumstances. The court recognized that it was simply unreasonable to conclude that the defendant had some plan to grab a weapon and injure the troopers. Instead, the defendant was holding a small dog and simply began to walk back towards his house. There was no basis from the defendant’s demeanor or actions that he was planning on grabbing a weapon. Therefore, at the time that the troopers refused to leave the property and began following the defendant, they had already begun violating his rights, and any observations of the marijuana plants in the garage were therefore fruit of the poisonous tree.

Although courts have carved out innumerable exceptions to allow the police to search people who are walking down the street or are in motor vehicles, courts remain extremely reluctant to allow the police to enter a suspect’s home without a warrant. This case reaffirms that police must truly be acting in response to an emergency in order to do so. Therefore, while courts are often eager to credit an officer’s testimony that he or she was acting out of concerns of officer safety, the courts typically apply more scrutiny when the search involves a home.

Can the Police Search a Garage Without a Warrant?

Finally, it is important to note that there is no difference between the search of a suspect’s garage and his or her home. The police need a search warrant for either one. In Pennsylvania and under federal law, the police do not need a warrant to search an automobile when the automobile is parked somewhere other than a suspect’s driveway. Instead, they need only probable cause because an automobile can be easily moved. Unlike a car, however, police cannot search a home or a garage based solely on probable cause. In the absence of exigent circumstances or the presence of some other exception, they must also obtain a search warrant prior to searching a garage or a house even if they have probable cause.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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 successful outcomes in cases involving charges such as Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, 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.

PA Supreme Court: Concerns About Officer Safety Do Not Justify Suspicionless Seizure of Motorist

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

It should go without saying that the police cannot stop, search, and interrogate people without a warrant or some prior observation of potential ongoing criminal activity. Nonetheless, trial and appellate courts throughout the state  state of Pennsylvania often attempt to justify coercive police detentions which occurred without reasonable suspicion or probable cause by finding that the police did not actually “stop” the defendant for Fourth Amendment purposes.

If the court can find that the police conducted a mere encounter and had to take some common sense steps to ensure officer safety, the court may try to justify a decision denying a motion to suppress. Unfortunately, many of these opinions ignore the fact that when a police officer approaches a person and begins asking questions or issuing commands, that person would never reasonably feel free to terminate the encounter and leave without following the orders of the officer.

In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Adams, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated once again that police cannot conduct a stop without reasonable suspicion, and a stop occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to some action taken by the officer. Further, there is no reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop when the suspect has done nothing more than park his or her car in a commercial parking lot late at night despite the fact that it may be a little bit unusual to park there. Instead, police must have specific, articulable facts from which they can conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and those facts must be based on more than mere speculation. Only then may police conduct a stop and potentially take actions related to officer safety such as frisking the defendant or limiting the defendant’s freedom of movement in some way.

Commonwealth v. Adams

In the case of Commonwealth v. Adams, a Pleasant Hills, PA police officer was on routine patrol at around 3 am. He observed a white Dodge Dart enter a parking lot that served two closed businesses - a hobby store and a pizza shop. The car drove behind the buildings. The officer waited to see if the car came back and left the lot, but it did not. The officer then drove behind the parking lot to locate the vehicle because he wanted to “simply check why a car drove behind two dark, closed businesses” at 3 am. He testified at a motion to suppress hearing that he recognized the potential for drug activity or an attempted burglary.

After driving behind the buildings, the officer saw the car parked behind the pizza shop. The car was off. There were no “no parking signs” behind the building, but there were also no marked parking spaces. The officer did not believe that this area would generally be used as public parking. Instead, he believed that it could be an area for deliveries and employee parking.

Despite having seen nothing more than a car parking in a parking lot early in the morning, the officer pulled his marked police cruiser behind the car. He did not activate his lights or sirens, but he did call for backup. Prior to backup arriving, he exited his police car and walked up to the parked vehicle. He shined his flashlight into the vehicle as he approached. When he reached the driver’s side door, he knocked on the window. The defendant, who was seated in the driver’s seat, opened the car door. The officer physically closed the car door himself, preventing the defendant from getting out of the car. He instructed the defendant to lower the window, and the defendant explained that he could not do so because he did not have the keys to the car. The officer, however, could see the keys on the floor in the back of the car. The officer then remained outside of the car until backup arrived, which was approximately a minute later.

Once backup arrived, the officer opened the defendant’s door and began to speak with him. The defendant told him that he owned the pizza shop and had just come from inside. Obviously, this was not true. The officer smelled alcohol on the defendant’s breath and asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant complied and “failed.” From there, things deteriorated until the defendant was eventually formally arrested and charged with DUI.

The Motion to Suppress

Following the filing of DUI charges against him, the defendant filed a motion to suppress. He argued that the police officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The trial court heard the motion to suppress and denied it, finding that the interaction between the defendant and the officer was only a mere encounter which did not require any level of suspicion. The court found that the officer was justified in preventing the defendant from opening the door by concerns about officer safety because the officer was alone, it was late at night, and the defendant was physically bigger than the officer. With the motion to suppress denied, the court found the defendant guilty at a bench trial of DUI and sentenced him to six months of probation.

The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. The Court agreed with the trial court, essentially finding that the police officer conducted only a mere encounter with the defendant and that even if it was a Terry stop, the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the defendant’s behavior and statements. The defendant filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed to accept the case.

What is a Petition for Allowance of Appeal?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not hear most cases. When a defendant is convicted and wishes to appeal, the defendant’s appeal is generally to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court is required to consider all timely-filed appeals and address issues which were not waived in the trial court. If the Superior Court denies the appeal, then the defendant may then file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Unlike Superior Court, the Supreme Court does not have to hear every case. Instead, the court chooses a limited number of cases in which it feels that there is an important or novel issue of law in question or where it believes the Superior Court has made a significant error. Thus, when a defendant loses in the Superior Court, the defendant may file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that court to review the ruling of the Superior Court. Most of these Petitions are denied, but in this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to accept the appeal.

The Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that both the trial court and Superior Court erred in finding that the police officer did not “stop” the defendant for Fourth Amendment purposes and that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop. First, the Court explained the standards for the three types of encounters between police officers and members of the public. The lowest level of interaction is a mere encounter. A mere encounter does not require a warrant or any level of suspicion, and police may simply walk up to any person and try to talk to them. The police may not do anything to restrict the person’s freedom of movement or require compliance during a mere encounter, but nothing stops an officer from trying to talk to someone.

The second level of interaction is an investigative detention or Terry stop. This type of encounter is something less than an arrest, but it allows police to investigate potential criminal activity. A Terry stop occurs when the police do something to indicate that the person would not be free to leave. For example, telling someone to stop, frisking them, or restricting their freedom of movement could result in a Terry stop. A Terry stop must be relatively brief or it could turn into a full blown arrest and require probable cause. During a Terry stop, police may sometimes take precautions to ensure their own safety such as frisking a suspect or requiring the suspect to remain in his or her vehicle. However, police may not engage in a Terry stop or take these safety precautions unless they have reasonable suspicion for the stop. The reasonable suspicion standard requires police to show that they have specific, articulable facts which would indicate to a reasonable officer that criminal activity is afoot.

The most restrictive level of interaction is a custodial detention. A custodial detention is the functional equivalent of an arrest and must be supported by probable cause. A custodial detention also constitutes a seizure. A police encounter is more likely to be considered a custodial detention if it is prolonged, takes place at the police station, involves handcuffs, or if the police tell the suspect that he or she is under arrest.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts made a mistake in finding that the interaction between the officer and the defendant was only a mere encounter. Instead, the Court concluded that the defendant would not have felt free to leave, and in fact could not leave, when the officer parked behind him, exited his car, shined his flash light into the defendant’s car, and physically closed the defendant’s door when the defendant attempted to get out of the car. Thus, in addition to not feeling free to leave, the defendant physically could not leave because the officer prevented him from doing so.

Because the Court concluded that the officer conducted an investigative detention by seizing the defendant and preventing him from exiting the car, the subsequent observations of the officer would be admissible as evidence at trial only if the officer had reasonable suspicion to conclude that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity prior to the officer’s decision to shut the defendant’s car door. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion because the officer had seen the defendant do nothing more than park in a public parking lot. While it was slightly unusual that the defendant chose to park in an empty lot behind two buildings at 3 am, it was not necessarily criminal. There was no evidence in the record that the parking lot was closed to members of the public at that time, and so the officer was not justified in believing that the defendant was going to commit a crime such as engage in a drug transaction or commit a burglary. Therefore, the Court ruled that the lower courts should have granted the motion to suppress.

This decision is particularly important because the Court stressed the fact that not every police action can be justified by merely reciting the magic words “officer safety.” If the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop, then the officer might have been justified in physically closing the door and restricting the defendant to his car. But the officer safety issue only comes into play after it has been determined that police have reasonable suspicion. Concerns about officer safety do not transform an otherwise illegal stop into a legal one. Thus, whether police may frisk a defendant or take other steps out of concerns for officer safety is a two-part test. First, the police must actually have reasonable suspicion. Second, they must reasonably believe that some action like a frisk or closing the car door is necessary for safety reasons. If they cannot satisfy both parts of this test, then the subsequently-obtained evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. This is a great opinion for privacy rights because it establishes that police cannot just stop and detain people on a whim or a mere hunch. They must be able to point to actual evidence of criminal activity, and simply reciting the phrase officer safety does not transform a constitutional violation into a legitimate stop.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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. In just the past few months, we have won motions to suppress in cases involving drug possession, gun possession, and Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). We have also successfully obtained full acquittals, dismissals, and other successful results in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Homicide. 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 Granted: Attorney Goldstein Wins Dismissal of Possession with the Intent to Deliver Charges

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein recently won a motion to suppress for a client charged with Possession with the Intent to Deliver a large amount of marijuana and related charges. Because the suppression of the evidence resulted in all of the marijuana and paraphernalia being excluded from introduction at trial, the Commonwealth was then forced to dismiss all of the charges against the client without obtaining any convictions.

In Commonwealth v. E.C., Philadelphia Police Officers pulled E.C. over in Southwest Philadelphia after allegedly observing him making an abrupt left turn without using his turn signal. Although E.C. stopped right away, police searched his car shortly after pulling him over. They claimed that they could smell marijuana coming from the car. This claim, if believed by a judge, would result in police having probable cause to search the car for marijuana despite the fact that Philadelphia no longer prosecutes most marijuana-related offenses.

Officers claimed that after they obtained E.C.’s paperwork for the car, they told him that they were going to search the car due to the odor of marijuana. In response, E.C. told the police that he had weed in his pants. Police then searched him and found a small amount of weed. When they searched the rest of the car, they found more marijuana, drug paraphernalia indicative of an intent to sell the marijuana such as scales and new and unused packaging, and a significant amount of cash. Police arrested E.C., and prosecutors charged him with Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Knowing and Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

Fortunately, E.C. retained criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein shortly after the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the discovery and the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing and quickly realized that because of the amount of marijuana and paraphernalia found in the car, the defense to these charges would have to be a motion to suppress. Further, because the officers claimed in their paperwork to have smelled marijuana, Attorney Goldstein realized that he would have to convince the trial judge that the officers had not actually smelled marijuana and instead had conducted a warrantless search without probable cause. Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion.

At the motions hearing, the Commonwealth called one of the police officers to testify to the circumstances of the vehicle stop and the search. That officer testified mostly consistently with the paperwork. However, Attorney Goldstein was able to show through cross-examination that it was unlikely that the officers would have smelled marijuana because of the way in which the weed was packaged. Additionally, when the Commonwealth rested, Mr. Goldstein then called the officer’s partner to testify to see whether her version of events matched her partner’s version. On cross-examination, the partner testified that although she had also participated in the vehicle stop and search of the car, she had not smelled the marijuana that her partner had claimed to smell. Faced with this conflicting testimony about whether there was an actual odor of marijuana which would justify the officers’ subsequent commands and search, the trial judge found the officers not credible and granted the motion to suppress. The prosecution moved to withdraw the charges, and E.C. will be eligible to have his record expunged.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Attempted 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.