Video Explanation of Pennsylvania Receiving Stolen Property Charges

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. explains the crime of Receiving Stolen Property and some of the defenses to Receiving Stolen Property charges in Pennsylvania. If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 to speak with an award-winning criminal defense lawyer today.

US Supreme Court: Police Need Warrant to Search Car Parked in Driveway

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The United States Supreme Court has decided the case of Collins v. Virginia, holding that police need a search warrant to search a person’s automobile when it is parked in the driveway or other “curtilage” of a person’s home. This is an important decision that limits the ability of police to search your house and the surrounding areas without a search warrant pursuant to the “Automobile Exception” to the Fourth Amendment.  

The Facts of Collins v. Virginia

On an unspecified date, an Albemarle County, VA Police Officer observed the driver of an orange and black motorcycle with an extended frame committing a traffic infraction. This driver eluded the officer’s attempt to stop him. A few weeks later, a different officer within the same department encountered an individual operating a similar motorcycle traveling above the speed limit. This officer was also not able to stop this individual.

The officers subsequently compared notes and concluded that it was the same individual who got away on each date. Additionally, the officers were able to determine that the motorcycle was stolen and in the possession of the defendant. The police then searched the defendant’s Facebook account and saw pictures of the motorcycle parked in the driveway of a house. Through additional investigation, the officers were able to determine the address of the house and that the house belonged to the defendant’s girlfriend.

One of the officers then went to this house and saw what appeared to be a motorcycle under a white tarp. The officer did not have a search warrant, but he exited his car and went to the house. From there, he then went onto the driveway, lifted the tarp, and saw what appeared to be the motorcycle that had escaped police on the two previous occasions. The officer ran the license plate and VIN for the motorcycle and found that it had been reported stolen. The officer took a photograph of the motorcycle and then put the tarp back on the motorcycle. The officer then left the property and returned to his car to wait for the defendant. The defendant returned home shortly thereafter. The officer then walked up to the house and knocked on the door. The defendant answered the door and agreed to speak with the officer. The defendant promptly admitted that the motorcycle belonged to him and that he had purchased it without a title. The officer arrested him.

State prosecutors charged the defendant with receiving stolen property. The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress to suppress the evidence that the officer obtained as a result of the warrantless search of the motorcycle. The defendant argued that the officer had trespassed on the curtilage of his property in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied his motion to suppress. The defendant then appealed. Both the Court of Appeals of Virginia and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision on the Automobile Exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The defendant then petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case which the Court granted certiorari.

What is the Automobile Exception to the Warrant Requirement of the Fourth Amendment?

The Automobile Exception to the Fourth Amendment has existed for nearly a hundred years. In essence, the Automobile Exception is judge-made law that allows police to search an automobile without a search warrant, so long as there was probable cause to justify the search. This exception was first articulated in Carroll v. United States, a 1925 Supreme Court decision that upheld a warrantless search and seizure of an automobile.

In Carroll, the Supreme Court reasoned that law enforcement should not be required to obtain a search warrant in order to search a car because a car is mobile and could leave the scene by the time an officer obtained a warrant. In subsequent years, the Supreme Court solidified the Automobile Exception, but it also adopted additional rationales to justify these warrantless searches. Specifically, the Court has also held that because automobiles are so highly regulated, a warrant is not needed. This was the Court’s justification for approving of the police acting without a warrant in cases such as California v. Carney and South Dakota v. Opperman. For a long time, Pennsylvania did not permit the Automobile Exception. However, this changed in 2014, when a plurality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Gary. Gary eliminated the requirement that police obtain a search warrant before searching an automobile in order for evidence obtained from the vehicle to be admissible in state court criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the Automobile Exception does not apply when the automobile is on the curtilage of one’s property. Curtilage is the property connected to one’s home, i.e. a driveway. The United States Supreme Court has defined it as “an area adjacent to the home and to which the activity of home life extends.” Therefore, the Court stated that “[w]hen a law enforcement officer physically intrudes on the curtilage to gather evidence, a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred…[s]uch conduct thus is presumptively unreasonable absent a warrant.”

As such, the Court found that the officer invaded the defendant’s Fourth Amendment interest in his home. The home is one of the most protected interests in Fourth Amendment law and there is nothing in Automobile Exception jurisprudence that allows the police search one’s home. The Court further expressed a concern that police, under the guise of the Automobile Exception, would search individual’s homes. The Court put it very simply “[i]t is, after all, an exception for automobiles” and held that the police needed a warrant to search the defendant’s motorcycle in his driveway.    

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients in state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We are experienced and understanding defense attorenys who will fight for you. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call or text 267-225-2545 to speak with an attorney today. 

NOT GUILTY: Attorney Goldstein Obtains Full Acquittal in Jury Trial for Client Charged with “Second Strike” Gunpoint Robbery

Commonwealth v. R.R.

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC continue to obtain outstanding results in the courtroom. Recently, a Philadelphia jury acquitted Attorney Goldstein’s client of all charges in a gunpoint Robbery case following a two-day trial. 

The Evidence

Prosecutors charged R.R. with Conspiracy, Robbery, Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, and various Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. Prosecutors alleged that R.R. and another gentleman followed the complainants home from a Burger King at around 2 in the morning and blocked the complainants from parking. The complainants claimed that the robbers eventually let them park, and they then got out of the car. The robbers got out also, and one of the robbers pulled a gun and pointed it at the complainants. The driver of the SUV, who was alleged to be R.R., then went through the male complainant’s pocket and the car. The person stole $700, a cell phone, and some of his paperwork. The robbers then got back into their SUV and drove off.

Police took statements from the complainants, and the complainants claimed that they remembered the numbers on the license plate of the SUV in which the robbers fled the scene. The complainants gave those numbers to the police along with the make and model of the SUV, and police then ran the plate numbers through the computer. They determined that R.R. had been stopped in a similar SUV with the same four numbers on the plate approximately two hours before the Robbery. Police detectives put R.R. in a photo array and showed that photo array to the complainants a few days later. The female complainant identified R.R. in the photo array as the driver of the SUV, but the male complainant could not identify anyone. Based on the identification of the one complainant, detectives arrested R.R. and charged him with gunpoint Robbery as a felony of the first degree. 

The Defense

R.R. quickly retained Attorney Goldstein to defend him. Mr. Goldstein moved for a pre-trial lineup at the preliminary hearing, and the Philadelphia Municipal Court judge granted the motion for the lineup. Both complainants were required to appear for the lineup. Again, the female complainant identified R.R. at the lineup as the driver, and the male complainant was not able to make an identification. However, when the preliminary hearing occurred, the female complainant admitted that she had been drinking heavily prior to the robbery. The male complainant was also again unable to identify R.R. as having anything to do with the Robbery. Nonetheless, the Municipal Court judge found that the female complainant’s shaky identification was sufficient to force R.R. to stand trial. 

R.R. decided to have a jury trial, and Attorney Goldstein was successfully able to use cross examination to show that the complainants had simply picked out the wrong guy. First, Attorney Goldstein highlighted the fact that the female complainant was initially only 90% sure that the defendant was the right person, she had been drinking heavily all night, and she had not provided the license plate number to the police officer who first responded to the scene. Attorney Goldstein also highlighted the significant discrepancies in the description she gave of the driver of the vehicle and what R.R. looked like at the time. 

Second, Attorney Goldstein cross examined the male complainant on the fact that he had never previously been able to identify R.R. as being involved in the Robbery. For the first time ever, however, the male complainant claimed that R.R. was the driver of the SUV despite never identifying him at the preliminary hearing, photo array, or pre-trial lineup. Attorney Goldstein was able to impeach him with his prior statements to show that he did not really know what the person who robbed him looked like.

Finally, Attorney Goldstein highlighted the poor job that the detective had done in preparing the photo array in that every other photo in the photo array was of a person who weighed significantly more or less than the defendant. Attorney Goldstein closed on a misidentification theory; the complainants believed they had picked the right guy, but they had made a mistake, and R.R. looked totally different from the person that they described to the police on the night of the Robbery. The fact that R.R. was stopped in a similar vehicle a few hours before simply did not prove that he was the robber. 

After hearing all of the evidence, the jury deliberated for approximately two hours before acquitting R.R. of all charges. Although the complainants claimed that they were 100% sure that R.R. was the driver of the vehicle and that they would never forget his face, R.R. was found Not Guilty of all charges and quickly released from custody. Due to a prior record, R.R. would have been facing 10-20 years in jail or more if he had been convicted in this case. 

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help. 

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges, we can help. We are experienced and understanding Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys with proven track records of successfully defending clients in and out of the courtroom. Our defense lawyers are not afraid to take a case to trial in front of a judge or jury, and we have successfully helped thousands of people navigate the pitfalls of the criminal justice system. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an award-winning criminal defense lawyer today. 

 

PA Superior Court: Trial Court Must Bifurcate Felon in Possession of Firearm Charges from Other Criminal Charges

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has announced its decision in Commonwealth v. Brown, holding that when the Commonwealth prosecutes 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6105 (Persons Not to Possess a Firearms) (hereinafter § 6105), along with other charges, the trial court must sever the § 6105 charge from the other offenses and hear those other offenses first when the defendant’s prior conviction is only relevant for purposes of § 6105. This is a significant decision because it prohibits the Commonwealth from circumventing PA Rule of Evidence 404. Rule 404 prohibits the Commonwealth from telling the jury that the defendant has a criminal record, barring certain exceptions which do not apply in the typical gun case.  

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Brown

On March 26, 2015, a paratransit driver in Westmoreland County was at work. He was in the process of picking up patients and transporting them to various medical facilities. While working, he had a leather jacket with him, and in one of the pockets, he had a loaded gun. The jacket was draped over the driver’s seat in a way that made it accessible to the backseat passengers. The driver picked up the defendant and transported him to Latrobe Hospital. There were other occupants in the vehicle with the defendant. While driving, he felt a tug on his jacket. Although he was concerned about the gun, the paratransit driver decided he would not check on his gun until he transported the other occupants to their destinations. When the driver dropped the defendant off, he noticed that his gun was missing. He then called the police. Police went to the defendant’s house, frisked him, and searched the house, but they did not find the gun. The defendant told the police that he did not have it. 

Police eventually determined that the defendant’s nephew had the gun. When they questioned the nephew, he led the police to the gun and explained that the defendant gave it to him along with $50 for storing it. Police arrested the defendant and charged him with Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, § 6105, and Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License (VUFA 6106). Appellant had previous convictions for aggravated assault and robbery. These prior convictions made it illegal for him to possess a firearm. 

Pre-Trial Motions

Prior to trial, the defense attorney filed a Motion for a Bifurcated Trial for the § 6105 charge. The defense attorney argued that it would be prejudicial for the jury to hear that his client had the prior convictions. The trial judge agreed to bifurcate, however, seeking to aid the Commonwealth in its prosecution, the judge allowed the prosecution to proceed with the case as it saw fit. In other words, the trial court did not require that the Commonwealth present evidence of the § 6105 offense and relevant, unfairly prejudicial convictions after it presented evidence of the other alleged crimes like theft and receiving stolen property. Unsurprisingly, the Commonwealth chose to proceed with the § 6105 case first, and then that same jury heard evidence relating to the other charges. Consequently, the jury knew of the defendant’s prior criminal history before it heard the evidence for the other charges. The jury convicted the defendant and found him guilty of all four charges. The trial court sentenced him to three and a half to eight years of incarceration. Appellant appealed, and on appeal, he raised several issues. First, he attacked the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the main issue for purposes of the appeal was whether he was unfairly prejudiced when the trial court allowed the Commonwealth to proceed with the § 6105 charge before the other charges. 

Can the Prosecution Introduce Evidence of a Prior Criminal Record in a Criminal Trial? 

Generally, no. The rules of evidence often prohibit this because of the fact that juries are extremely likely to convict when they hear that a defendant has a prior criminal record. Rule 404 (a)(1) prohibits the use of evidence of a person’s character to show that on a particular occasion that this person acted in accordance with that character or trait. 404(b)(1) prevents the introduction of a crime in order to show that individual committed this particular crime. What these two subsections seek to prevent is the Commonwealth introducing evidence that a defendant, at some point in his or her life, did something morally wrong or committed some crime to show that he or she committed the crime that they are currently charged with. Obviously, this is a significant rule. If a jury were to hear that the person on trial had previously been convicted of a crime, then the jury is much more likely to convict. There are certain exceptions to this rule. For example, the Commonwealth can file what is referred to as a “Prior Acts Motion” to introduce prior crimes committed by a defendant to show a common scheme, motive, knowledge, lack of mistake, or intent. For example, if the defendant has been charged with burglary in which he or she wore a unique mask, the Commonwealth could probably introduce evidence of prior Burglary cases in which the defendant wore the same mask to show the identity of the defendant. These 404(b) exceptions typically do not apply in a routine gun case, and the Commonwealth did not file the required motion to admit prior bad acts evidence in advance. 

However, the Commonwealth may also introduce evidence of a prior crime when it is an element of the crime charged (i.e. § 6105). However, courts have consistently held that the introduction of the underlying conviction that makes the defendant ineligible to possess a firearm should be severed from the other parts of the case. The reason is obvious: as stated above, hearing that the defendant has a prior conviction will unfairly prejudice the jury. 

In Philadelphia, the common practice is that the Commonwealth and the defendant agree to have the judge decide whether the defendant has an underlying conviction that makes him or her ineligible to possess a firearm. Typically, there will be a stipulation because it is usually very clear whether or not the person is eligible to possess a firearm. Thus, the jury will not be privy to this information when deciding whether the Commonwealth met its burden for the other elements of § 6105 and the other, if applicable, charges against the defendant. Alternatively, the parties may agree to stipulate to an acquittal or conviction on the 6105 charge that matches the jury’s decision on the other charges. However, each jurisdiction has its own quirks, so you need an attorney who is familiar with the particular jurisdiction and its customs and practices to represent you if you are charged with § 6105.   

Superior Court Finds Commonwealth Must Bifurcate at Trial and Introduce Evidence for § 6105 After it Proves Other Charges

Although the Superior Court held that the trial court was correct in severing the § 6105 charge from the other charges, it stated that allowing the Commonwealth to choose the order in which to introduce evidence was “an exercise in futility.” The reason is obvious: allowing the Commonwealth to proceed with the § 6105 charge first clearly prejudiced the jury because the jurors became aware of the defendant’s prior convictions for robbery and aggravated assault. This, in essence, allowed the Commonwealth to circumvent the prohibitions outlined in Rule 404(b). The Superior Court saw through this and found that the defendant was clearly prejudiced and ordered that he receive a new trial. 

Call the Award Winning Law Office of Goldstein Mehta LLC if You Are Charged With Illegally Possessing a Firearm

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

Gun crimes are very serious, and you need a skilled defense attorney if you are charged with illegally possessing a firearm. 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.