United States Supreme Court To Review Whether Police Need Warrant To Obtain Cell Phone Location Data

Potentially recognizing that the frame work for when police and federal agents are required to seek a search warrant to obtain digital information has become outdated, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will review whether the police are required to get a search warrant in order to obtain a suspect’s cell phone records. Local and federal law enforcement routinely seek cell phone location data from a suspect’s telephone company in order to track the suspect’s whereabouts around the time of the crime. The location data can be extremely powerful as circumstantial evidence in cases where the cell phone data puts the suspect at or near the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. For example, if police believe that the suspect committed a homicide, they could use cell phone location data to show that the suspect was near the decedent at the time of the murder.

Current Standards for Obtaining Cell Phone Location Data

Under existing state and federal law, police officers are generally not required to obtain a search warrant in order to retrieve this information from a phone company. Instead, in many jurisdictions, law enforcement officers simply submit a request to the phone company, and the phone company will provide the information without a warrant and court order. In other jurisdictions, officers may be required to obtain a court order in order to retrieve the data, but the court orders may be issued on a standard of evidence lower than the probable cause standard required in order to obtain an actual search warrant. This is the case in federal court, where prosecutors must show only that there are “reasonable grounds” for the records and that they are “relevant and material” to an investigation.

Courts have traditionally allowed police to dispense with the warrant requirement in obtaining this type of data because the data is not stored in the suspect’s phone or on the suspect’s person. Instead, the defendant necessarily shared the data with a third-party, the phone company, by using the phone. Thus, courts have held that defendants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that they have publicly shared or shared with third parties, and courts have not needed to obtain search warrants in order to obtain that type of information.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Cell Phone Data

As a general rule, defendants may move to suppress the results of a search only where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. Obviously, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home, car, and pockets, but courts have rejected the idea that a criminal defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in something that he or she has shared with a third party. This rule may have made sense twenty years ago before the advent of technology which literally tracks a person’s every movement. Devices like cell phones, sports watches, and GPS systems all track a person’s whereabouts at all times, making it much more difficult for the government to argue that a suspect should not have a privacy interest in the resulting data. If the government is not required to obtain a search warrant, then the government can essentially obtain all of the details of a person’s life without even having probable cause.

After recently determining that police must have a search warrant in order to search the contents of an arrestee’s search warrant, this case suggests that the High Court may be prepared to re-think the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine given the realities of modern technology. The case on appeal is Carpenter v. United States. In Carpenter, without getting a search warrant which would have required probable cause, FBI agents obtained cell phone records for the defendant from his phone company which covered 127 days and revealed 12,898 separate points of location data. The data ultimately connected Carpenter to a string of cell phone store robberies, and Carpenter was convicted at trial. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant prior to seeking this type of data. Carpenter has appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court will review whether the police should be required to obtain a search warrant in order to get this highly personal data. Search warrants are not particularly difficult for the government to obtain, and a decision in favor of Carpenter would limit the government’s ability to track your every movement without at least some showing of probable cause.

Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak T. Goldstein

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients against a wide variety of criminal charges in preliminary hearings and at trial. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning defense attorneys.

Read the Sixth Circuit’s Opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14626167511079628834

PA Superior Court Upholds Homicide by Vehicle Conviction for Failure to Come to a Complete Stop at Busy Intersection

Commonwealth v. Moyer

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Moyer, upholding the defendant’s conviction and state prison sentence for Homicide By Vehicle, Recklessly Endangering Another Person (“REAP”), and Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). On appeal, Moyer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against her as well as the admissibility of the blood results for the DUI charge under Birchfield v. North Dakota. Unfortunately for Moyer, the Superior Court held both that the Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of homicide by vehicle and that the Birchfield claim that police should have obtained a warrant prior to the blood draw was waived for failure to raise the issue prior to or during trial.

"Rolling Stops" and Homicide by Vehicle 

In Moyer, the record showed that the defendant approached a stop sign at an intersection which she had driven through on many prior occasions. The defendant failed to come to a complete stop at the intersection. She characterized the stop as a “rolling stop,” but the trial court found that she had traveled through the intersection at around twelve miles per hour and had not attempted to activate her brakes prior to the ensuing collision. As she went through the intersection, a box truck crashed into her car, crossed the double yellow line, and then crashed into a tow truck, killing the driver of the box truck. The evidence produced at trial also suggested that it would be difficult to see traffic coming from the side due to the presence of a building at the edge of the intersection.

Criminal Charges for Car Accidents

Moyer was arrested and charged with Homicide by Vehicle, REAP, Homicide by Vehicle while DUI, DUI, and various summary offenses relating to reckless driving. The jury convicted her of homicide by vehicle and REAP, but it acquitted her of Homicide by Vehicle while DUI because the levels of marijuana and Xanax in her system were extremely low and unlikely to cause actual impairment or inability to drive. The trial court found her guilty of DUI and the summary traffic offenses. Notably, there is no right to a jury trial for a first-offense DUI charge or for summary traffic offenses. Therefore, the jury decided whether to convict on the more serious judges, and the trial judge made the ruling on the DUI and summaries.

The Criminal Appeal

Moyer raised two issues on appeal. First, she challenged the use of the blood results against her because police had warned her that she would face more severe criminal penalties if she refused to consent to chemical testing in violation of Birchfield v. North Dakota. In Birchfield, the United States Supreme Court held that states many not criminalize the refusal to submit to warrantless blood testing even where police have probable cause to believe that the driver was driving under the influence. However, Birchfield, was decided after the defendant was convicted in the trial court. Although she sought a new trial by filing post-sentence motions prior to taking the appeal, the trial court denied the post-sentence motions.

The Superior Court upheld the trial court’s decision, agreeing that Birchfield is not retroactive and that the defendant should have known the case was on appeal in the United States Supreme Court and raised the issue prior to trial in order to preserve it for appeal. Pennsylvania’s appellate waiver doctrine is extremely demanding. If claims are not properly preserved by filing motions or objections at the trial level, those claims may be waived forever.

Second, Moyer argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict on Homicide by Vehicle because she had done nothing more than roll through the intersection. Homicide by Vehicle is defined in the Motor Vehicle Code. Section 3732 of the Motor Vehicle Code defines Homicide by Vehicle as:

Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic exception section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death.

Thus, in order to convict a defendant of Homicide by Vehicle, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant’s traffic violation caused a death and that the defendant acted either recklessly or with gross negligence. Pennsylvania law defines criminal recklessness as follows:

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

The statute may also be satisfied by a showing of gross negligence. Gross negligence is more than ordinary civil negligence. Instead, it requires that the defendant’s conduct “evidenced a conscious disregard of the substantial and unjustified risk that he would be involved in a traffic accident causing death.” Accordingly, appellate courts have equated gross negligence with recklessness.

The Superior Court rejected Moyer’s argument that she had not acted recklessly. Although the small amounts of marijuana and Xanax in her system had likely not caused the accident, the Court found that her failure to stop at the intersection as required by Pennsylvania’s traffic laws was reckless enough to support a conviction for Homicide by Vehicle. First, the Court found that traveling at twelve miles per hour is different than simply failing to come to a complete stop and “rolling” through an intersection. Second, the Court noted that the stop sign preceded a busy intersection and that a building obscured the view of one lane of the cross traffic. Third, the Court considered the fact that the evidence showed Moyer had failed to brake prior to the collision. Finally, the Court recognized that Moyer was familiar with the intersection and had driven through it numerous times. Therefore, she should have known the risks of driving through it without stopping. Although the decedent failed to wear a seatbelt and was driving with his passenger door open, the Court still found that it was Moyer’s reckless conduct that caused his death. Therefore, the Court upheld the convictions against Moyer.

Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

Defense Attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Homicide by Vehicle charges are extremely serious, and there are often defenses to these charges. In general, it is not enough for the Commonwealth merely to show that there was a car accident and someone died. Instead, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant acted with more than just negligence; that is that the defendant acted recklessly, which is more difficult to show. Here, the evidence showed that the defendant was traveling twelve miles per hour into a busy intersection without stopping, which apparently satisfied the standard. In many cases, it may be possible to challenge Homicide by Vehicle charges both by attacking the prosecution’s proof as it relates to the defendant’s mens rea and by challenging whether the defendant’s actions actually caused the death of the victim. If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of cases. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session.

Read the Case: Commonwealth v. Moyer

Lineup Motions in Philadelphia

In many cases involving charges like Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Burglary, an eyewitness’s ability to make an identification is the key issue in the case. Numerous studies have shown that eyewitness identification testimony, which is often accepted without hesitation by judges and juries as the best kind of evidence, is actually tremendously unreliable and the number one cause of false convictions. In the overwhelming majority of DNA-based exonerations, the defendant was convicted on the basis of a misidentification by an eyewitness or complaining witness who claimed to be absolutely certain that the defendant committed the crime.

Fortunately, courts have increasingly begun to recognize that eyewitness identifications are often mistaken. In most cases, the eyewitnesses truly believe that the defendant committed the crime, but they have made a terrible mistake. This can happen for any number of reasons, including human fallibility and problems with memory as well as undue police influence even where the police mean well. For this reason, the Philadelphia Police Department and other law enforcement agencies have begun to improve their identification procedures. For example, most Philadelphia Detectives now take steps to tell the complainant or eyewitness that the suspect may not be in a photo array, they show photos one at a time so the photo can be compared to memory instead of other photos on the page, and the photo array is conducted by a detective who does not know who the suspect is and therefore cannot subconsciously influence the witness’s identification.

What is a motion for a lineup?

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer

 In addition to these new procedures, there is a critical motion which can be made by the defense at the preliminary hearing in Philadelphia felony cases. Prior to the preliminary hearing in a case in which there will be some kind of eyewitness identification, the defense attorney may make a motion for a lineup. If the motion is granted, the complainant or eyewitness will be required to attend a lineup at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility and attempt to make an identification of the defendant prior to the preliminary hearing. These pre-trial lineups can be extremely important. If the complainant is unable to make an identification or identifies the wrong person, then the misidentification or failure to ID could have a dramatic impact on the case.

Winning a lineup motion in Philadelphia

Bringing a lineup motion does not require filing anything in writing in the Municipal Court because all motions are made orally. Instead, the defense attorney must inform the judge that the attorney has a motion for a lineup when the case is first called in the morning. If the prosecution agrees that a lineup is appropriate, then the judge will order a lineup and continue the preliminary hearing so that the lineup may occur. This is rare as the prosecution almost always opposes the lineup request due to the delay it causes in the case and the fact that a misidentification could be fatal to the case.

Therefore, once the defense makes the lineup motion, the prosecution will typically provide the Municipal Court judge with a summary of the evidence against the defendant and provide reasons for why the lineup request should be denied. The defense lawyer will then be given the opportunity to respond and argue that a lineup is necessary to protect the defendant (and Commonwealth) from a false identification. In some cases, the judge may want to question the witness about the circumstances of the identification and may allow the attorneys for each side to do so, as well.

The case of Commonwealth v. Sexton suggests some of the main factors that a court should consider in ruling on a lineup request and the remedy for when a lineup request is improperly denied. These factors include:

• Do the witness and defendant know each other? Have they seen each other before such that the witness knows what the defendant looks like? This question includes whether some type of identification has already occurred. If the police conducted a “show up” immediately after the incident where the witness was shown and identified the defendant, then the lineup may not be as helpful because the witness already knows what the defendant looks like and believes the defendant committed the crime. Likewise, if the defendant and witness know each other, the lineup will not be particularly useful.
  

• The witness’s opportunity to observe during the incident. This includes factors such as the length of the incident, whether the case involves a cross-racial identification, whether a weapon was involved, how close to each other the witness and suspect were, whether a weapon like a gun was involved, and whether the suspect had anything obscuring his or her face.
  

• Is there other strong evidence against the defendant? For example, if the witness would make a somewhat questionable identification but the defendant is also clearly on video committing a Robbery or Aggravated Assault, then the judge is likely going to find that the delay caused by ordering a lineup is not worth it.

In order to win a lineup motion in Philadelphia, the defense attorney must be able to make a strong argument that based on these factors, the likelihood of a misidentification makes the delay caused by the lineup worth it. For example, Attorney Goldstein recently won a lineup motion in the case of Commonwealth v. R.R. by arguing that a lineup was necessary because the alleged robbery took place in the dark at 2 am, lasted for less than a minute or two, the witnesses and defendants did not know each other, the case involved a cross-racial identification, and a gun was used. Further, there was very little corroborating evidence against the defendants other than the identification. Therefore, the Court granted the lineup motion.

What Is A Lineup?

Once ordered by the Court, the lineup will take place at 5 pm on a weekday at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility on State Road. The defense will be allowed to pick five “fillers” for a lineup of six people, including the defendant. The fillers will typically be inmates at the prison, and the defense attorney must be careful to help the defendant pick fillers who look similar to the defendant. The witness will then be shown the lineup through one-way glass and asked if they identify anyone. The witness’s response will be documented by both the defense attorney, the assigned prosecutor, and a Philadelphia Police Detective.

Will the case get dismissed if the witness fails to pick me out at a lineup?

The prosecution is not required to withdraw the case just because the witness fails to identify the defendant at a lineup. In some cases, they will do so, but in others, they will not. It depends on the strength of the initial identification and whether the prosecution has other evidence. For example, if one witness fails to identify the defendant, but another witness will be able to identify the defendant or the defendant was caught in possession of the proceeds of the burglary, then the prosecution may be able to proceed to trial even without the identification from the witness who failed to pick out the defendant. In other cases, the prosecution will still argue that the initial identification in which the witness picked the defendant out at a show up or out of a photo array was more accurate than the lineup. Each case is different, and whether the prosecution chooses to proceed despite the failure to identify at the lineup will vary depending on all of the circumstances of the case.

Can anything be done if the judge improperly denies the lineup motion or the prosecutor gives incorrect information during argument on the motion for a lineup?  

There is a remedy in cases where a lineup should have been ordered but was not, but it is typically not going to be dismissal of the case or suppression of the identification. In cases where the prosecutor in fact made knowingly false representations, it may be possible to successfully move for dismissal of the case or exclusion of the identification. However, in the more common case in which the prosecutor made a mistake or the evidence turned out to be different than expected, the Supreme Court has suggested that the jury should receive a jury instruction. The jury instruction in this type of case directs the jury to consider the identification of the defendant with caution and may inform the jury of some of the potential problems with eyewitness identifications. Most jurors do their best to follow the judge’s jury instructions carefully. This means that jury instructions are extremely important. In a close case, a jury instruction directing the jury to view the identification with caution could be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.  

Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Lineup Motions

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. and Demetra Mehta, Esq.

Lineup motions are most common in Robbery, Burglary, and Assault cases. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys have successfully represented hundreds, if not thousands, of clients in these serious cases. We have won dozens of lineup motions and taken countless cases to trial before judges and juries throughout Pennsylvania. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client who is facing criminal charges or may be under investigation. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our experienced, understanding defense attorneys.  

---

Recent Criminal Defense Awards

PA Superior Court: Defendant Must Be Permitted To Rebut Commonwealth's 404(b) Prior Bad Acts Evidence

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Yocolano, holding that the defendant's conviction must be reversed because the trial court improperly prevented the defendant from rebutting the Commonwealth's 404(b) Prior Bad Acts evidence. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, prosecutors may file a motion asking the trial court to allow them to introduce evidence of "prior bad acts" or crimes committed by a defendant. This type of evidence can be extremely prejudicial to the defendant, and the Superior Court has now ruled that the defense must be permitted to call witnesses to rebut this highly prejudicial testimony when such witnesses are available. 

Commonwealth v. Yocolano

In Yocolano, the defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault and various sexual assault charges against his paramour, who is referred to in the opinion as A.A. The testimony established that Mr. Yocolano and A.A. were in an on-again, off-again romantic relationship dating back to 2010 and had a child together. Throughout their relationship, there were multiple alleged instances of domestic violence. The police were called on several occasions. For example, in 2010, the police responded to a call that Mr. Yocolano had an altercation with A.A. where he chased her and caused damage to A.A.’s father’s house. In 2012, the police were called on several occasions including: an incident where police were called after Mr. Yocolano threatened A.A. with a machete; an argument between A.A. and Mr. Yocolano; A.A. calling the police on Mr. Yocolano after expressing suicidal thoughts after an argument between the two; A.A. filing a police report against Mr. Yocolano after he threatened and choked her; and Mr. Yocolano punching A.A. in the head and threatening to kill her and her family. In October of 2012, A.A. obtained a Protection from Abuse “PFA” against Mr. Yocolano. This incident led to the charges in question, and Mr. Yocolano was subsequently arrested.

Both before and during the trial, the Commonwealth filed multiple 404(b) motions in Mr. Yocolano’s case. Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence from the 2010 incident and three incidents from 2012. The prosecutors also sought to introduce two PFA’s against Mr. Yocolano filed by women other than A.A. on the fourth day of trial, and the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce all of the prior bad acts evidence. 

What is a 404(b) Prior Bad Acts Motion?  

In most cases, a prosecutor may only use evidence against a defendant relating to the crimes alleged in the complaint. This means that prosecutors cannot simply tell a judge or jury that the defendant is a criminal or has a criminal record. A 404(b) Motion, commonly referred to as a “Prior Bad Acts Motion,” allows the Commonwealth to introduce prior acts against a defendant in the present criminal case against him under certain limited circumstances. A 404(b) motion cannot be used to prove a person’s character (i.e. that because a defendant did something bad once in their life, they are a bad person and thus did this crime), but rather it can be used to show motive, opportunity, intent, absence of mistake, knowledge, lack of accident, preparation, and plan. In domestic violence cases, 404(b) motions are common, and appellate courts have held that in some cases, they may be used to show “the continual nature of abuse and to show the defendant’s motive, malice, intent and ill-will toward the victim.” Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241, 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). Accordingly, prosecutors routinely argue that prior convictions or allegations of violence between the defendant and the complainant provided the defendant with the motive for the criminal behavior alleged in the current case or would show that the injuries could not have been caused as the result of an accident. 

Defending Against 404(b) Motions 

Obviously, prosecutors gain a tremendous advantage when they are permitted to inform a judge or jury of a defendant's prior record. The judge or jury become much less likely to be sympathetic and far more likely to believe that if the defendant committed a crime before, he or she must have committed a crime again. However, it is possible in many cases to successfully oppose these motions or limit the damage. In some cases, it may be possible to show a lack of similarity between the conduct or that the prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh any probative value. It also may be possible to successfully argue that the prior conviction does not establish any of the requirements which the Commonwealth must show. In other cases, it may be possible to call eyewitness from the other incidents to show that the other allegations are also false. Therefore, if you are charged with a crime and a prosecutor is seeking to introduce prior bad acts against you, it is imperative that you have a skilled attorney who can litigate a motion to prevent these prior bad acts from being introduced into trial or attempt to limit the damage by thoroughly investigating the allegations. In Mr. Yocolano’s case, his attorney was unsuccessful in opposing the three incidents from 2012, the incident from 2010, and the prior PFA’s which were filed by other women. 

Although the defense could not keep this highly prejudicial evidence out, the defense had thoroughly investigated the case and located a number of witnesses which were ready to rebut the prior bad act allegations. During the trial, the defense attempted to introduce evidence that would rebut the 2010 incident. However, the trial court precluded the defense from introducing evidence to rebut the claim, holding that it was “collateral.” Specifically, the trial court only allowed the defendant to introduce evidence that would rebut the allegations from December 6, 2012 (the day on which the crimes for which he was on trial allegedly took place) and was not allowed to introduce any evidence that would rebut the “prior bad acts” that the trial court had found admissible. Given all of this prejudicial testimony from other incidents, the defendant was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 18-36 years of incarceration.

Yocolano appealed, and the Superior Court reversed the conviction. The Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in preventing Mr. Yocolano from introducing evidence that would rebut these claims. The Superior Court cited an important Pennsylvania Supreme Court case called Commonwealth v. Ballard which held that “where the evidence proposed goes to the impeachment of the testimony of his opponent’s witness, it is admissible as a matter of right.” The Superior Court properly recognized that Mr. Yocolano should have been allowed to “test the veracity of A.A.’s version of events.” 

Protection from Abuse Orders and Rule 404(b)

The Superior Court also held that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the two PFA’s from different women to be introduced. Rule 404(b)(3) states that a prosecutor must provide “reasonable notice” if they seek to introduce these prior bad acts. Reasonable notice typically means that the prosecution must inform the defense in writing and in advance of the intent to introduce prior bad acts evidence. There are exceptions which allow the prosecution to introduce prior bad acts during trial where the prosecution can show good cause for the failure to provide prior notice. 

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for prosecutors to provide the defense with previously undisclosed evidence on the day of trial. Most judges will either permit the defendant to continue the case or preclude the last-minute evidence from being introduced. However, in this case, the Commonwealth provided the unrelated Protection from Abuse Orders against Mr. Yocolono on the fourth day of trial. The Commonwealth stated that the reason for the late discovery was because the prosecutor had just looked in the computer system mid-trial and happened to find the records. 

The Superior Court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that this constituted good cause. The Court held that the Commonwealth’s excuse did “not qualify as a valid legal excuse.”  Further, the Superior Court was skeptical that these third-party PFA’s would have met the substantive requirements of 404(b). In Mr. Yocolono’s case, the trial court failed to analyze the facts of the two other PFA’s and identify “a close factual nexus sufficient to demonstrative the connective relevance of the third-party PFAs to the crimes in question.” Based on all of these errors, the Superior Court ordered that the sentence be vacated and that the defendant receive a new trial. 

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help 

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta, Esq. and Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

Domestic violence and other assault cases are often more complicated than they would seem. In cases where the prosecution seeks to introduce prior bad acts evidence, the defense must thoroughly investigate the case and strongly oppose these 404(b) motions both on the law and on the facts. If you are facing criminal charges, you need an attorney who has the knowledge and expertise to defend 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.