Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
PA Supreme Court: Parole Agents May Frisk You Even If You Are Not On Parole
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Mathis, holding that a parole agent may detain and frisk a non-parolee visitor to the parolee’s home while performing a routine home inspection if the parole agent acts on reasonable suspicion that the visitor is engaged in criminal activity and armed.
Commonwealth v. Mathis - Can a Parole Agent Search Someone Who Is Not On Parole During a Routine Home Visit?
In Mathis, parole agents conducted a routine check of a parolee’s home which was located in a high crime area in Dauphin County. When they arrived, they immediately recognized the strong odor of marijuana throughout the home. As they walked through the house, they observed the defendant, Mathis, receiving a hair cut from the parolee who they were there to check up on. The parolee identified the parole agents to the defendant, and the agents then questioned the parolee as to why the house smelled like marijuana. The agents also found an ashtray full of marijuana roaches in the front room, but they did not see anyone smoking marijuana.
While one of the agents questioned the parolee, the other agent monitored Mathis. Mathis repeatedly got up from his chair and walked to the kitchen, apparently checking text messages on his cell phone. The parole agents asked him to stop using the cell phone while they were there because he seemed nervous. They asked him to leave until they finished speaking with the parolee. Mathis began to leave, and as he gathered his belongings, one of the agents noticed that he picked up his jacket as if holding it up to his body like a football or a baby. Mathis appeared to try to put his body in between the agents and the jacket, and he continued to hold it in a strange manner. The agents also noticed a bulge coming from the jacket which was roughly the size and shape of a gun.
The agents became concerned for their safety, so they asked Mathis if they could pat him down. He refused, but one of the agents reached out and touched the jacket. The agent immediately felt what he believed to be a firearm. They then handcuffed Mathis, patted him down, recovered a bag of marijuana from between his feet, and recovered a handgun from the jacket. Because Mathis was prohibited from possessing a firearm due to his prior criminal record, the agents called the police. The police arrived, recovered the gun, and charged Mathis with gun charges, marijuana charges, and possessing drug paraphernalia.
Motion to Suppress
Mathis filed a pretrial motion to suppress the gun, arguing that the parole agents had no right to search him because he was not on parole. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, found him guilty of drug possession and gun possession, and sentenced him to thirty-two to sixty-four month’s imprisonment. Mathis appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the decision of the Superior Court. The Court concluded that parole agents may conduct a Terry frisk under these circumstances for their own safety. Although parole agents may not act as police officers with respect to non-offenders or private citizens, they do have the right to protect themselves.
Parole agents are required to supervise offenders in part by conducting routine, unannounced home visits, thus risking exposure to a variety of potentially dangerous unknowns. Interactions with non-offenders are often going to occur during home visits, and parole agents have an obligation to make sure that the parolee is not living or associating with people who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses.
Parole agents are also legally classified as “peace officers,” giving them the power to make a lawful arrest upon reasonable suspicion of a felony and the authority to use deadly force to protect themselves and carry firearms. Because a parole agent has the authority to use deadly force for the protection of himself or herself and others, the agent has the authority to prevent the need for deadly force in the first place by conducting a Terry frisk when necessary.
Finally, the Court noted that the purpose of the Terry frisk is not to conduct an investigation or find evidence; instead, it is merely to check for deadly weapons so that the officer can do his or her job without fear of bodily injury. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that a parole agent may conduct a frisk for weapons so long as the agent has reasonable suspicion to do so. Reasonable suspicion requires “specific and articulable facts” that criminal activity is afoot, and the authority to frisk also requires that the officer or agent have reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
There Are Still Limits On Probation and Parole Searches
Unfortunately, the Mathis Court's decision serves to eliminate important privacy rights for anyone who associates with someone who is on state parole. If someone has the bad luck to be present at a parolee's residence when agents show up to conduct an unannounced search, that person will now be at risk of being searched by parole agents despite the fact that they are not even on parole. This is particuclarly true for anyone who lives with someone who is on state parole; that person will now have substantailly reduced privacy rights just by virtue of who they live with. However, some protections remain in that the parole agents are still required to have reasonable suspicion and cannot conduct a search for general investigatory purposes. Therefore, motions to suppress will likely still be brought in many of these cases.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers have successfully defended thousands of cases. We offer a free, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attoreny today.
Get a Probation Detainer Lifted in Philadelphia
In many cases, it may be possible to lift a probation detainer. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers can help by filing a Motion to Lift the Detainer. Learn more.
Motion to Lift Detainer: Frequently Asked Questions about Probation Detainers in Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire explains probation detainers and the motion to lift a detainer.
The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC may be able to help you get a probation detainer lifted. Our attorneys have represented clients who have been arrested for new charges while on probation. In some cases, we have been able to get the probation judge (“the back judge”) to quickly lift the detainer by filing a motion to lift the detainer. If you do not take action, you will remain in custody until your case is resolved, which could take a year or more. Call 267-225-2545 today for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session and to discuss the possibility of getting a detainer lifted while you are still facing new charges.
As criminal defense attorneys, we frequently receive questions from clients about probation issues. Some of the most common questions we receive are:
1) What is a probation detainer?
Demetra Mehta, Esq. - Philadelphia Probation Lawyer
A probation detainer is an order from the defendant’s probation judge directing the prison system not to release the defendant until the defendant sees the judge. When a person who is on probation for a previous offense is arrested on new charges, in most cases, the defendant’s probation officer will lodge a detainer when the defendant goes through preliminary arraignment. The order prevents the defendant from being released even if the defendant is able to make bail. If the defendant does not retain counsel to address the probation issue first, the judge's order will remain in effect and the defendant will remain in custody until the new case is resolved. If the defendant beats the new case, then the defendant will likely be released without a hearing if there are no other probation violations. If the defendant is found guilty of something in the new case, then the defendant will have a probation violation hearing scheduled within a few weeks in front of the probation judge. At that hearing, the judge will find the defendant in violation and decide on a new sentence for the violation. The sentence could range from more probation to jail time.
2) How do I get a detainer lifted?
In some cases, it is possible to have the probation judge lift the detainer order and allow the defendant to fight the new charges while out on bail. Once a probation detainer has lodged against the defendant, the defendant's probation officer typically cannot lift it without the supervising judge's permission. Therefore, getting a detainer lifted will typically require retaining counsel to file a motion to lift the detainer. The motion to lift the detainer is a written motion which will set out the history of the defendant’s probation, the allegations in the new case, and the reasons why the defendant should be permitted to fight the charges from the street instead of from custody.
Judges are often reluctant to lift probation detainers because they are only lodged against defendants who were already on probation when they were arrested for a new case. However, our attorneys may be able to gather enough mitigation information about you or your loved one or information that shows that the Commonwealth’s evidence in the new case is weak that we can convince the judge to lift the order pending trial. For example, if a defendant who is on probation for drugs is arrested for a new misdemeanor drug case, we may be able to convince a judge to release the defendant if we can show that the defendant was working, supporting family members, and attending drug treatment. This is even more likely if we are able to arrange for the defendant to enter a program upon his or her release. Each case is different, and our attorneys offer a free criminal defense strategy session at which we can discuss the likelihood of success in filing a motion to get a detainer lifted.
3) How long does it take to get a detainer lifted?
Once we are retained to file a motion to lift a detainer, there is no set time period in which the probation judge must schedule a hearing on the motion. Our probation lawyers will typically be able to file the motion within a day or two of being retained. The rest of the time table is then dependent on the court system. The probation judge could deny the motion without a hearing, schedule a hearing, or lift the detainer without a hearing. In most Philadelphia cases, it is often possible to get a hearing scheduled within a week or two. If the motion to lift the detainer is successful and the judge agrees to lift the order, then the defendant could be released on the day of the hearing. In the suburban counties, it could take one or two months to schedule a detainer hearing. Each judge is different, and the judges have a significant amount of discretion in terms of if and when they schedule probation cases. However, in many cases, we are able to convince the judge to schedule a hearing quickly and hear the case on the merits.
4) Will the judge lift the detainer?
Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Detainer Lawyer
There is never any guarantee as to whether a judge will lift a detainer. Typically, when either the probation case or new case is for charges which are not particularly serious or when there is some compelling mitigation evidence in the defendant’s background, the odds of winning a motion are greater. If the defendant has a lot of community support and friends and family who will attend the hearing, then the odds of getting a detainer lifted substantially increase. Likewise, if we can show that the defendant was working, attending some kind of treatment, or has health issues, those are all factors that could lead to a successful motion. The likelihood of success depends on the defendant’s background, the nature of the new and old charges, and also on the judge who is supervising the defendant’s probation. We can never guarantee that a detainer will be lifted, but in many cases, it is worth filing the motion and asking the judge for a hearing. In many cases, the probation judge will release the defendant pending trial if the defendant retains counsel and files a motion.
5) What if the judge won’t lift my detainer?
If the judge will not lift the detainer, then the defendant will remain in custody until the new charges are resolved or the defendant serves the maximum possible sentence on the probation case. In some instances, if there is a significant change in circumstances during the course of the case, then it may be possible to ask the back judge to reconsider. For example, if felony charges are later dismissed and the defendant is left facing only misdemeanor charges, it may be worth asking the probation judge to reconsider an initial ruling denying a motion to lift a detainer. Although we cannot guarantee that a motion will be successful, we can guarantee that if you do not file one, you will remain in custody until the new case is over.
6) Should I pay my bail if I have a detainer?
If you have a detainer, you should not pay your bail. If you pay your bail, you will not receive any time credit for the time spent in custody on the new case. You will receive time credit only for the probation case, meaning that if you are ultimately convicted of the new case and sentenced to a period of incarceration, you will not receive any credit for the time which you spent in custody prior to sentencing. If you pay your bail and you have a detainer or warrant from a different jurisdiction, you would typically be transferred to the other jurisdiction, which could make it more difficult to resolve the new case as there are often transportation issues.
7) What are the odds that the judge will lift the detainer?
It is never possible to guarantee that any particular detainer will be lifted, and it is often difficult to make a prediction as to the exact chances of success. However, our attorneys have represented numerous clients in probation matters and successfully had detainers lifted in a number of cases. Examples of successful probation case outcomes include:
Commonwealth v. A.W. - Motion for Reconsideration of Custdoail VOP Sentence Granted; Client Immediately Paroled to Treatment
The judge found A.W. in technical violation of probation for theft and drug possession while a different attorney represented A.W.. The judge sentenced A.W. to 11.5 - 23 months in the county jail. The client retained Goldstein Mehta LLC within ten days of the sentence, and our attorneys immediately filed a motion to reconsider the VOP sentence within ten days as required by the rules. The back judge quickly scheduled a hearing on the Motion to Reconsider, and prior to the hearing, we were able to work with the client's family to locate a treatment facility which A.W. could attend if released. Once our attorneys presented the judge with alternative treatment options, the judge reconsidered the sentence and granted immediate parole to treatment. We were able to help A.W. avoid a lengthy jail sentence in the county jail.
Commonwealth v. Z.B. – Detainer Lifted and Client Sentenced to Time Served on Section 17 Detainer
The client previously pleaded no contest to misdemeanor drug charges as part of a Section 17 diversionary program in Montgomery County. After getting arrested again in a different jurisdiction, the Montgomery County probation officer took Z.B. into custody and lodged a probation detainer. The client retained Goldstein Mehta LLC, and our defense attorneys immediately filed a Motion to Lift the Detainer, arguing that Section 17 probation does not give the judge the authority to lodge a probation detainer. Instead, the judge must schedule a hearing and either continue the probation or impose a judgment of sentence.
In this case, the judge had already scheduled a hearing that was still months away. After receiving the motion and recognizing that the law was unclear as to whether Section 17 probation provides the authority to lodge a detainer, the judge quickly moved the probation violation hearing up by two months. The client then stipulated to the probation violation in exchange for a time served sentence and was released shortly thereafter. By filing a creative motion on the client’s behalf, our defense lawyers were able to save the client months in the county prison.
Commonwealth v. J.B. – Probation Detainer Lifted, Full Acquittal Obtained in Domestic Assault Case
Police charged J.B. with Simple Assault, Terroristic Threats, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and other related charges in the Philadelphia Municipal Court for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. J.B. was on probation for similar charges, so the probation officer took him into custody and lodged a probation detainer. If J.B. had done nothing, he would have had to stay in jail for months until the new case was resolved. Fortunately, J.B. retained Zak T. Goldstein, Esq., and our defense lawyers promptly filed a Motion to Lift the Probation Detainer with the client’s back judge. By putting together a thorough mitigation packet which showed J.B.'s exemplary work record, successful compliance with probation other than the new charges, and extensive family and community ties, we were able to have J.B. released so that he could fight the case from the street.
Attorney Goldstein then obtained a full acquittal for J.B. at trial. By cross-examining the complainant on the inconsistencies between her testimony at trial and the statement she had given to police and showing that she had a motive to lie, our attorneys were able to convince the trial judge that the complainant should not be believed. This was particularly true in light of the complainant’s lack of visible injuries and the fantastical nature of her allegations. Accordingly, our criminal defense attorneys successfully had the client’s probation detainer lifted and then obtained a full acquittal at trial.
Commonwealth v. M.M. - M.M. was arrested on a potential technical probation violation. Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to lift the detainer and had a hearing scheduled within a week. At the hearing, our defense lawyers convinced M.M.'s back judge to find that M.M. had not violated the terms of his supervision. The client was immediately released the same day.
Our Philadelphia Detainer Lawyers Can Help
Probation Detainer Lawyers
If you or are loved one are dealing with the consequences of a probation detainer, call 267-225-2545 today for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers. We have successfully defended thousands of cases and successfully moved to have detainers lifted on numerous occasions. Do not just assume that you or your loved one must remain in jail until the new case is resolved. We can help you evaluate the merits and likelihood of success in filing a motion, and we may be able to help you or your loved one get out of jail.
Speak with a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Today
Can My Probation Officer Search My Cell Phone?
A probation officer must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a probationer or parolee's cell phone.
Probation and Parole Searches of Cell Phones
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Murray, rejecting the defendant’s challenge to his conviction on corpus delicti grounds and holding that a probation officer or parole agent may search a probationer’s cell phone without a search warrant.
Commonwealth v. Murray
In Murray, the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105. Murray’s Pennsylvania State Parole Agent became suspicious that Murray may have been involved in criminal activity after the Agent visited Murray’s group home for a home visit and Murray was not present. When Murray next reported to the parole office, the agent asked him about his living situation and why he had moved without permission. Murray explained that he had been threatened by a housemate with a gun. Murray told the agent that he wrestled the gun away from the housemate and gave it to another acquittance.
Because Murray admitted to possessing a firearm, the agent took him into custody and proceeded to read the text messages on his cell phone. The agent found two incriminating text messages which had been sent right before Murray reported. One told a friend: “Yo, Kel if you didn’t hear from me by tonight I am locked up. So, my stuff is over 1247 West Huntingdon Street.” The other stated: “And the thing I was telling you about that I took from the bully is in the bathroom right under the tub.”
Of course, parole agents went to search the group home at 1246 West Huntingdon Street and found a gun under the tub in the bathroom. The agents then called the police and gave the gun to the police. The police then charged Murray with possessing a firearm as a felon.
Murray moved to exclude the statements made to the parole agent regarding the gun and also moved to suppress the results of the warrantless search of his cell phone. The trial court denied both motions. Murray was convicted of the gun charge and sentenced to 4.5 – 9 years in prison.
On appeal, Murray raised two main issues. First, he argued that the Commonwealth failed to satisfy the corpus delicti rule because it failed to show that a crime had been committed prior to introducing the statements made by Murray. Second, he argued that the parole agent should have been required to get a warrant before searching his cell phone.
The Corpus Delicti Rule
The Superior Court rejected both arguments. First, the Superior Court rejected the corpus delicti challenge. The corpus delicti rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits the prosecution from introducing an incriminating statement against the defendant unless the prosecution can first show that a crime has occurred. The prosecution does not have to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it must show that the evidence is more consistent with a crime than with an accident. The corpus delicti, latin for “body of the crime,” may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
Here, the parole agents found a gun in a group home where Murray and numerous other parolees lived. The gun was hidden inside a plastic bag under a bathtub in the only bathroom in the boarding house. Therefore, the Court concluded that because the gun was hidden in such a way, it was more likely than not that the person to whom the gun belonged possessed it illegally. Accordingly, Murray’s statement about possessing the gun did not violate the corpus delicti rule.
Probation Officers May Search a Cell Phone Without a Warrant
Second, the Superior Court rejected Murray’s challenge to the warrantless search of his cell phone. In many situations, the police may search a person’s belongings when they take that person into custody as part of an arrest. This is known as the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. For many years, this exception permitted the police to search an arrestee’s cell phone. Recently, in Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that in general, police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone. The Superior Court, however, distinguished Riley by finding that parolee’s and probationer’s have a reduced expectation of privacy. Riley did not involve the cell phone of a suspect who was on probation or parole. Because probation officers and parole agents may conduct a search of a probationer’s house with reasonable suspicion and without having to obtain a warrant, the Superior Court held that the same rule should apply to a cell phone. Thus, a probation officer or parole agent must only have reasonable suspicion in order to search a cell phone.
The Court concluded that the agent has reasonable suspicion to search the phone because Murray admitted to possessing the firearm and giving it to someone else. The agent had reasonable suspicion that the phone could contain text messages discussing the gun or photos of Murray with the gun. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the Motion to Suppress.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Gun Charges
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.
If you are charged with a VUFA offense, you need an attorney who has the knowledge and expertise to fight your case. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully fought countless cases at trial and on appeal. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to discuss your case with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.
Recent Case Results - Motion to Suppress and Speedy Trial Motions Granted
Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC continue to obtain outstanding results both in and out of the court room. Our defense lawyers have fought for successful outcomes in cases involving a wide variety of charges including robbery, burglary, assault, probation violations and probation detainers, and gun charges. Some of our recent success stories include:
Commonwealth v. G. – Motion to Suppress Confession for Lack of Miranda Warnings Granted in Shooting Case
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.
In Commonwealth v. G., Attorney Goldstein successfully moved for the suppression of an incriminating statement in a case in which the defendant was charged with gun charges including Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act (“VUFA”) Sections 6108, 6106, and 6105 as well as conspiracy, tampering with evidence, and recklessly endangering another person. The Commonwealth alleged that G. accompanied his co-defendants to a location where a shooting broke out. After the complainants returned fire and shot one of the co-defendants, G. allegedly took the gun and hid it. When G. went to visit his friend at the hospital, police arrested him and began interrogating him, resulting in a confession which implicated G. in hiding the gun.
Attorney Goldstein moved to suppress the statement and the firearm due to violations of the Miranda rule. Pennsylvania and federal law both require the police to read suspects their Miranda warnings prior to interrogating them. Prior to asking any questions which could lead to incriminating answers, police must advise a suspect who has been arrested and taken into custody that the suspect has:
The right to remain silent,
The right to an attorney and that the attorney will be paid for by the government if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, and
That anything the suspect says can be used against them in court.
Shortly before trial, prosecutors admitted that detectives had actually interrogated G. twice. First, they interrogated him immediately upon his arrival at the police station when they had not yet provided him with Miranda warnings at that time. After obtaining a confession, police quickly provided G. with Miranda warnings, questioned him again, and obtained a signed statement.
Attorney Goldstein successfully moved to have both statements suppressed due to detective’s failure to provide Miranda warnings prior to the first interrogation. Under federal law, police may not intentionally fail to provide Miranda warnings in order to obtain a confession, then provide warnings, and quickly re-interrogate the defendant after providing the warnings. Instead, federal courts have applied a sort of “good faith exception” when evaluating whether prosecutors may use a second, Mirandized statement which is substantially similar to a prior un-Mirandized statement. Where police make a mistake in failing to provide Miranda warnings or where the circumstances change enough so that the second statement is not directly related to the first, the statement may become admissible. The Commonwealth attempted to justify the failure to warn by arguing that it had been inadvertent and that there was a break in the chain between the first and second interrogations due to the passage of time.
Here, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that the police intentionally failed to provide Miranda warnings during the first statement. Additionally, there was no break in the chain between the two interrogations. The second interrogation happened almost immediately, took place in the same location, and involved the same police detective. The trial court agreed and granted the Motion to Suppress, ruling that both statements could not be used at trial. Once the statements were excluded, the Commonwealth agreed that it would not appeal the court’s ruling if G. accepted a plea deal for a misdemeanor charge and probation. The successful Motion to Suppress helped G. avoid a felony gun conviction and years in state prison.
Commonwealth v. A. – Robbery, Burglary, and Assault Charges Dismissed for Speedy Trial Violation.
In Commonwealth v. A., Attorney Goldstein successfully moved to have all charges against the client dismissed due to the prosecution’s violation of Pennsylvania Speedy Trial Rules, specifiically Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(A). A. and a co-defendant were charged with dressing up as police officers and forcing their way into a massage parlor. Once inside, the defendants allegedly demanded money from the employees. The employees called the police, and the defendants were arrested inside the massage parlor. The Commonwealth immediately brought charges for robbery, burglary, assault, and other related charges.
Unfortunately for the prosecution, the Commonwealth brought the charges without completing its investigation. At the first trial listing, the Commonwealth was not prepared to proceed because it had improperly failed to turn over critical witness statements and evidence in advance of trial. The trial court marked the continuance as a Commonwealth continuance request, and by the time the second jury trial listing arrived, the defendant had been awaiting trial for two years.
Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600(A) requires that all criminal defendants be brought to trial within 365 days of the filing of the criminal Complaint. There are exceptions for things like court continuances and circumstances outside of the prosecution’s control, but in order to qualify for an exception, the Commonwealth must show that its prosecutors acted with due diligence in prosecuting the case. In this case, Attorney Goldstein successfully argued that the judge at the first trial listing had already found that the prosecution acted without due diligence in failing to provide witness statements and other discovery materials in advance of the first trial date. Because the Commonwealth never asked the first judge to reconsider the ruling in writing, Rule 600 barred the Commonwealth from asking the new trial judge to reconsider the first judge’s ruling without some showing of obvious error on the part of the first judge. The court agreed and dismissed all of the charges in this extremely serious case.
Commonwealth v. M. – Car Theft Charges Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing
In Commonwealth v. M., the client was charged with multiple counts of Receiving Stolen Property, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Unauthorized Use of an Automobile, and Theft from a Motor Vehicle. Prosecutors alleged that in one case, M. stole the complainant’s car and drove it around for a night before leaving it abandoned on a nearby street. Further, numerous valuable items were missing from the car, leading to additional allegations that M. had stolen the items.
In a second case which had been joined for the preliminary hearing, prosecutors alleged that M. broke into a parked car, stole valuable items, and transported those items to his house. When prosecutors executed a search warrant on M.'s house, they found M. and another gentleman in the living room along with the stolen items. Neither man was closer to the items, said anything incriminating, or attempted to flee, and the other man's hospital ID had actually been found by police in the stolen car in the first case.
In both cases, the prosecution attempted to rely entirely on hearsay at the preliminary hearing under the Superior Court's opinion in Commonwealth v. Ricker. The prosecution sought to have a police detective, who had no personal knowledge of who took the car or took items from the other car, testify that a witness who failed to appear for court saw M. driving the car on the night in question.
Attorney Goldstein’s repeated objections to this hearsay testimony led to it being excluded from evidence at the preliminary hearing, and without the hearsay, the evidence was completely insufficient for the preliminary hearing judge to hold M. for court. This was particularly true in light of the fact that the other gentleman's hospital wristband was found by police in the stolen car. Accordingly, the court dismissed all charges against M. This case shows that even with the trend of judges permitting more and more hearsay at preliminary hearings, there are still limits. This is especially true in Philadelphia where judges tend to require that witnesses have some level of personal knowledge before they will hold a case for court.
Probation Detainers Lifted – In the last six weeks, our Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully moved to have probation detainers lifted for three separate clients who were on probation and subsequently arrested on new charges. This includes the lifting of a probation detainer for a client who was on probation for a gun charge and who was arrested on a new case of Possession with the Intent to Deliver.
State v. D. – Prosecution Agrees to Dismiss All Charges in New Jersey Prison Contraband Case
In State v. D., the client was charged with third degree indictable offenses in New Jersey for allegedly smuggling drugs into the prison during a visit with a friend. The prosecution obtained both video of the incident and phone calls which it claimed implicated D. in the offense. After convincing the Assistant Prosecutor that even if real, the phone calls would not be admissible against D. due to violations of New Jersey wiretap and recording laws, the prosecution agreed to dismiss all charges. D. will avoid a felony conviction and jail time.
Commonwealth v. K. – All Charges Dismissed in Third Strike Carjacking (Robbery of a Motor Vehicle) Case.
K. was charged with stealing his ex-girlfriend’s car by snatching the keys out of her hand and driving off in the car. Although this allegation would only have been Robbery as a felony of the second degree, the case became a third strike and a carjacking because of the fact that K. allegedly took a car. Carjacking (Robbery of a Motor Vehicle) is considered a crime of violence under Pennsylvania law for purposes of the three strikes rule. Due to prior convictions, K. would have faced a mandatory 25-50 years in prison if convicted of Robbery of a Motor Vehicle because carjacking is a “strike” case. Fortunately, our criminal defense attorneys were able to have all charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing level.
Commonwealth v. J. – Our criminal defense lawyers were able to successfully negotiate a misdemeanor offer of probation for a client who was initially charged with F1 Strangulation, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault. First, we were able to have the strangulation charge dismissed at the preliminary hearing and the other felonies graded as felonies of the second degree. Once the felonies were no longer F1 strike offenses, the Commonwealth’s offer substantially improved, and we were eventually able to negotiate a misdemeanor probationary offer for the client, thereby avoiding jail time and a felony conviction.
Criminal Defense Attorney Demetra P. Mehta, Esq.
Commonwealth v. A. – All charges against A. were dismissed after our defense lawyers negotiated for A. to participate in the domestic violence diversionary program. After A. completed community service, counseling, and paid a small fine, the Commonwealth withdrew Simple Assault, Terroristic Threats, and Recklessly Endangering Another Person charges against A.
Commonwealth v. R. - The client was arrested and charged with Robbery, Assault, and related charges while on probation for a serious offense. Because there was clear video of the incident occurring, the client was hoping to obtain a plea deal for the shortest possible sentence. The client's previous attorney had been unable to negotiate for anything less than a 1-2 year state prison sentence. After retaining Goldstein Mehta LLC, our defense lawyers were able to negotiate a sentence of 11.5 - 23 months with work release eligibility and no additional jail time on the direct probation violation.
Charged with a crime? Speak with a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Today
Goldstein Mehta LLC Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
If you are facing criminal charges or are interested in appealing a conviction, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully resolved countless cases at trial and on appeal. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to discuss your case with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.
