Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
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.
Attorney Goldstein Wins PA Superior Court Appeal of Motion to Suppress Gun
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Philadelphia Criminal Defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a Superior Court appeal in the case of Commonwealth. v. T.G. In T.G., prosecutors had charged the defendant with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (VUFA 6105), possession of a concealed firearm without a permit (VUFA 6106), and possession of a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA 6108). T.G. had retained a different firm for his motion to suppress and trial. The trial court denied T.G.’s motion to suppress the gun, and a jury eventually convicted him. He was sentenced to 8-16 years’ incarceration.
T.G. retained Attorney Goldstein for his appeal to the Superior Court. On appeal, Attorney Goldstein challenged the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, the trial court’s decision to remove family members from the courtroom during jury selection, and the trial court’s refusal to properly instruct that it could consider questions regarding the credibility of the officers with respect the reasons for searching T.G.’s car when considering whether they believed the officers that T.G. in fact possessed a gun.
At the motion to suppress, the officer had testified as follows:
On November 23, 2017, a little after 1:00 a.m., Officer Alvarez was in a marked police car on routine patrol in the Germantown area of Philadelphia. Officer Alvarez was driving with his partner Officer William Benson in the passenger seat. At the time, Officer Alvarez had been a police officer for five years with four of those years assigned to the 14th District, which included Germantown. Since he began working in the district, Officer Alvarez estimated he has made about 15 to 20 arrests involving narcotics and firearms being found together.
Near the intersection of Germantown Avenue and Berkley Street, Officer Alvarez saw a 2011 Chevy Camaro traveling southbound on Germantown Avenue. T.G. was driving the Chevy Camaro and had a passenger with him in the front. Noticing that the Chevy Camaro had dark window tinting, Officer Alvarez began to follow the car for several blocks. Although the car did not swerve, speed or make any sudden stops, Officer Alvarez pulled the car over because of the possible violation under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524.1. When he saw the officer’s lights, T.G. immediately pulled the Chevy Camaro, which was registered in his name, to the side of the road.
Officer Alvarez walked up to the driver’s side window and asked Griffin to lower his window; Officer Alvarez later testified that he could not see into the car because of the tint. After T.G. lowered his window, Officer Alvarez asked for his license, registration and insurance. As T.G. looked for the information, Officer Alvarez smelled an odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the car, describing it as a “mediocre” smell but not overwhelming. Though he had no specialized training in identifying marijuana, Officer Alvarez was familiar with its odor through his experience as a police officer. Despite smelling marijuana, however, Officer Alvarez did not see any narcotics or paraphernalia inside T.G.’s car.
Besides the odor of marijuana, Officer Alvarez also noticed that T.G. appeared “very nervous” as he was looking for his information. According to Officer Alvarez, T.G. was breathing heavily and his hands were shaking. At the suppression hearing, though, Officer Alvarez admitted that T.G. did not have bloodshot eyes or dilated pupils.
After T.G. found his information in the glove compartment, Officer Alvarez asked him to exit the car. T.G. complied and got out. Officer Alvarez asked him if there was anything illegal in the car or if either he or his passenger had a permit to carry a firearm. T.G. responded that there was nothing illegal in the car and that his passenger had a permit to carry. Because T.G. was wearing a large puffy jacket, Officer Alvarez patted him down for weapons. Feeling none, Officer Alvarez put T.G. in the back of his patrol car without handcuffs.
Officer Alvarez then returned to the Chevy Camaro to conduct a warrantless search for narcotics based on the odor of marijuana. Although he did not find any narcotics, Officer Alvarez found a Ruger 9mm handgun under the driver’s seat. After finding the handgun, Officer Alvarez went back to his patrol car to check if T.G. had a license to carry. As he did this, Officer Alvarez heard T.G. moving around in the back. This prompted Officer Alvarez to put handcuffs on T.G. When Officer Alvarez tried to do so, T.G. pushed him away and took off running but was soon captured. T.G. was charged with persons not to possess, receiving stolen property, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms in Philadelphia and resisting arrest.
While the appeal was pending, Pennsylvania appellate courts decided the cases of Commonwealth v. Barr and Commonwealth v. Alexander. In Barr, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that the odor of marijuana alone does not automatically justify the warrantless search of a car. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Alexander, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that absent exigent circumstances, police must obtain a search warrant prior to searching a motor vehicle. Given this change in the law, Attorney Goldstein filed a reply brief arguing that Barr was now controlling in this case and that the motion should have been granted because the odor of marijuana did not give the police the right to search the car.
The Superior Court agreed and remanded the case to the trial court. The Superior Court instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling on the motion to suppress in light of Barr and Alexander. The trial court was instructed to determine if the police had any legitimate basis other than the odor of marijuana for searching the car and also to decide whether Alexander, which requires a search warrant, applies retroactively. If Alexander applied retroactively, then the trial court was also directed to evaluate whether police had the exigent circumstances necessary for searching the vehicle without a warrant.
Following the remand, Attorney Goldstein successfully convinced the trial court to reconsider its original ruling and grant the motion to suppress the gun. The Commonwealth argued that although the odor of marijuana alone does not provide the probable cause for a search, the marijuana along with T.G.’s nervousness, the late hour, the fact that T.G. said the passenger had a license to carry, and the puffy coat provided the Commonwealth with the necessary reasonable suspicion to conduct a frisk of T.G. and of the passenger compartment of the car. Attorney Goldstein argued that Alexander applied retroactively, that police should have obtained a search warrant prior to the search, and there was simply no legitimate basis for concluding that T.G. was involved in some criminal activity or armed and dangerous which would justify a frisk.
The trial court agreed with the defense and granted the motion to suppress. T.G., who would have had to serve up to 16 years in prison, was promptly released from state custody.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, 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.
NOT GUILTY: Attorney Goldstein Wins Rape Trial
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein recently won a full acquittal for his client in the case of Commonwealth v. LJ. In this difficult case, prosecutors alleged that LJ had sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s 9-year-old daughter while the girlfriend was sleeping. Based on the statements of the complainant and the complainant’s mother, who claimed to have seen some suspicious behavior but had not gone to police, prosecutors arrested LJ and charged him with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and related charges.
LJ rejected an offer to plead to time served and misdemeanor charges despite knowing that a conviction could result in a life sentence. Attorney Goldstein represented LJ during one of Philadelphia’s first jury trials since resuming trials during the COVID pandemic and successfully challenged the complainant’s credibility on the stand. By highlighting major inconsistencies in her testimony and presenting forensic evidence which made it unlikely that LJ had assaulted her on the day in question, Attorney Goldstein was able to obtain a full acquittal for LJ. LJ will now be released and will not have to register as a sex offender or spend time in prison.
These cases are very serious and often difficult to win, but the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC are not afraid to take challenging cases to trial.
Need a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia? We can help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers
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. 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.
Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Wins Murder Trial
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently obtained a full acquittal from a Philadelphia jury in the case of Commonwealth v. K.E. for a client charged with Murder and Possession of an Instrument of Crime (“PIC”).
According to the police, K.E. and the decedent worked together at the airport. They became involved in a verbal argument after K.E. was part of a group of co-workers which broke up a physical fight between the decedent and another co-worker in the break room. Prosecutors claimed that the decedent pushed K.E., and K.E. then stabbed him one time in the leg, severing the femoral artery and quickly causing the decedent to bleed to death. The Commonwealth argued that K.E. did not act in self-defense and that he showed consciousness of guilt by allegedly fleeing the scene, hiding the knife, and telling the police that he had stabbed the decedent with keys after being punched. Police arrested K.E. a few minutes from the scene of the incident when K.E. walked over to a patrol officer and told the officer that he was the person they were looking for and that he had been punched and responded by stabbing the decedent with his keys. At that time, K.E. did not know that the decedent had died, and he later gave a statement to detectives in which he claimed self-defense but maintained that he had committed the stabbing with his keys. Three days later, however, an airport employee found a bloody knife near where the stabbing occurred, and police quickly concluded that that knife must have been used in the stabbing. Accordingly, they charged the defendant with Murder and PIC.
Fortunately, K.E. retained Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein. At the time, the defendant had initially been held on $250,000 bail. However, Attorney Goldstein was quickly able to file a motion for release on house arrest pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Speedy Trial Rule (Rule 600B) and have the defendant released pending trial. This made it much easier to prepare for court and investigate the case.
K.E. decided to proceed by way of jury trial, meaning that a jury panel of twelve Philadelphians would be tasked with deciding whether K.E. committed the stabbing with malice or whether he had acted in self-defense. Because prosecutors charged K.E. with third-degree Murder, they would not have had to show that K.E. had intentionally killed the decedent in order to obtain a conviction. Instead, they needed to show only that K.E. had acted with malice – meaning he had acted recklessly and in conscious disregard of a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury with an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Through effective cross-examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that the defendant had not in any way meant to kill the decedent and had instead acted in self-defense. The evidence ultimately showed that although K.E. had a reputation for being a peaceful, non-violent person who had never been involved in any kind of violence before, the decedent had attempted to fight a supervisor shortly before the incident, had attacked a different co-worker just minutes before the incident, and had then attacked the defendant from behind by knocking him to the ground prior to the defendant stabbing him one time in the leg with a small knife in self-defense.
Attorney Goldstein also presented the testimony of the defendant. He testified that he had been part of breaking up the fight between the decedent and the other co-worker and that he had then been attacked from behind by surprise as he turned to walk away. After he was knocked to the ground, he felt that the decedent was going to continue assaulting him, and he quickly defended himself by stabbing him one time in the leg with a knife. He admitted to and apologized for not being totally honest with the police about the keys, but he adamantly refuted the Commonwealth’s allegations that he had acted out of malice, been the aggressor in the fight, and that he did not need to defend himself with deadly force. Ultimately, many of the witnesses agreed that the decedent had actually been the aggressor, and it was also an extremely unexpected result that the decedent would unfortunately die from one stab wound to the leg with a two inch knife. Attorney Goldstein was also able to get the Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy to agree that based on the nature of the injury, the decedent could have been moving at the time that he was stabbed, suggesting that he may have been moving towards K.E. to continue assaulting him. Thus, Attorney Goldstein argued both that K.E. had acted in self-defense and that he had not acted with malice because one would not expect a person to die from a relatively small knife wound to the leg.
After deliberating for nearly eight hours, the Philadelphia jury of twelve citizens returned a verdict of Not Guilty to both charges. K.E. was acquitted of Murder and Possessing an Instrument of Crime. This verdict is an example of the law of self-defense in Pennsylvania. If a person is in genuine, reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, then they may defend themselves with deadly force. Even if that force results in death to another person, the person has not committed a crime because you have the right to defend yourself.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney 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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, 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.