Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 7/20/18 Zak Goldstein 7/20/18

PA Supreme Court: Participants in a Multi-Person Fight Are Not Automatically in a Conspiracy Together

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explains Conspiracy and Accomplice Liability and Reverses an Aggravated Assault Conviction

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

We previously wrote about the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Chambers. There, the Superior Court found that mace could constitute a deadly weapon where the use of the mace rendered the complainant vulnerable to and unable to defend himself from additional assaults from other people. This week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction in Chambers, finding that the Commonwealth failed to prove either the existence of a conspiracy or accomplice liability beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court reversed the defendant’s convictions for Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).

The Facts of Chambers

In Chambers, the defendant was charged with Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, and related charges as a result of his participation in a street fight into which additional persons entered. The incident began when the complainant drove to an apartment complex in Philadelphia. Once the complainant arrived, he saw Chambers standing next to a Jeep which was blocking entrance to the driveway. The complainant beeped at the Jeep and asked Chambers and the Jeep’s occupants why they were blocking the driveway. He asked them to move. When they did not answer, the complainant continued to yell at them. Chambers did not say anything, but he gave the complainant a nasty look.

The complainant eventually drove up on the curb in order to drive by the Jeep and park. As he drove by, some kind of words were exchanged with Chambers. The complainant parked his car, approached Chambers, and asked Chambers why they were blocking the driveway. The verbal argument escalated into a fist fight, with Chambers throwing the first punch. The complainant defended himself. Once the incident became physical, other people jumped in and helped Chambers. A female approached the complainant from behind, tore his glasses from his face, and began scraping and scratching his cheek and forehead. The complainant continued to throw punches to defend himself, but he could not see what was going on. Chambers climbed on his back, pinned him down, and began punching him repeatedly. While Chambers was doing that, a woman sprayed mace in the complainant’s face. The witnesses did not identify any weapons other than the mace as being used during the fight.

Philadelphia Police eventually arrived on the scene and saw Chambers punching the complainant in the face. As the officer arrived, he heard some of the females in the group yelling at Chambers to stop. The officer grabbed Chambers, pulled him off of the complainant, and put him in his handcuffs. The complainant attempted to leave, but the officer grabbed him and also put him in cuffs. Chambers repeatedly yelled that he was going to kill the complainant in front of the officer. The officer observed that the complainant had a large cut on his face, and the complainant told the officer that someone cut him with a knife. The officer, however, searched everyone at the scene and did not find a knife. Additionally, witnesses testified that no one used a knife. There were also defense witnesses who testified that the complainant was much bigger than Chambers and had in fact instigated the fight. This defense witness also testified that he did not see a knife, but he heard Chambers yelling that the complainant had a knife and asking for others to find the knife.

Police transported the complainant to the hospital and decided not to charge him with any crimes. The complainant suffered broken ribs, a burned retina, a concussion, and a laceration above his eye which required stitches. Police decided to charge Chambers with aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, possessing instruments of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.

Chambers proceeded by way of bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and the trial judge found him guilty of conspiracy and Aggravated Assault as a felony of the second degree. The trial judge’s decision to grade the Aggravated Assault as a second degree felony ultimately turned out to be critical to the appeal because Aggravated Assault as a second degree felony is very different from first degree felony Aggravated Assault.

F1 Aggravated Assault requires the causation or the attempt to cause serious bodily injury. F2 Aggravated Assault, however, involves causing or attempting to cause bodily injury with a deadly weapon. Recognizing that Chambers himself had not used any kind of weapon against the complainant, the Commonwealth argued that Chambers had at a minimum attempted to cause serious bodily injury. The trial court found that Chambers did not cause serious bodily injury but had instead cause bodily injury with a deadly weapon under a theory of conspiracy liability because of the female who entered the fight and sprayed the complainant with mace. Thus, in the initial appeal, the Superior Court upheld the decision of the trial court, finding that the mace could be a deadly weapon under the right circumstances.

The Supreme Court Appeal

Following the Superior Court’s decision, Chambers appealed again to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not have to hear every appeal and instead chooses the cases which it wishes to review. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to review the case. This time, Chambers’s defense attorneys argued that the Superior Court erred in finding that he was on the hook for the F2 Aggravated Assault of the unknown female with the mace because Chambers had not used a deadly weapon himself and had not instructed or encouraged anyone else to join the fight or use a weapon.

The Supreme Court agreed. It recognized that because Chambers had not used the mace himself, the convictions could only be sustained if Chambers had engaged in a conspiracy to commit Aggravated Assault or had acted as an accomplice.

What is a Criminal Conspiracy?

First, the Court rejected the idea that Chambers had acted as part of a conspiracy to assault the complainant. Conspiracy is defined by the Pennsylvania Crimes Code as follows:

(a) Definition of conspiracy. - A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or

(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a).

Thus, in order to prove a conspiracy, the Commonwealth must show an agreement to commit a crime, shared criminal intent between the conspiracy members, and an overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Once the Commonwealth proves these three things, a defendant may be convicted of both conspiracy as a separate crime and the underlying offense or offenses that the conspirators planned to commit.

The difficulty for the Commonwealth in proving conspiracy is that unless it has obtained the testimony of a cooperating witness or has engaged in a wiretap, it is difficult to prove the existence of a prior agreement. This is particularly true when a fight breaks out and a bunch of people jump into the fight. The mere fact that people help each other during a fight, even when those people know each other or are friends, does not mean that they made a prior agreement to commit a crime. Of course, even a quick signal to start a fight such as a nod to the other person could be evidence of a conspiracy. But here, there was no evidence of that. Chambers exchanged words with the complainant and then engaged in a one on one fight. There was simply no evidence whatsoever that Chambers encouraged other people to jump in or use mace. Accordingly, the Court found that the Commonwealth failed to prove a conspiracy and therefore any liability for the underlying offenses beyond the Simple Assault, REAP, and Terroristic Threats that Chambers committed himself.

What is Accomplice Liability?

Second, the Supreme Court also rejected the Superior Court’s reasoning that Chambers acted as an accomplice. Pennsylvania law provides the following definition for accomplice liability:

(c) Accomplice defined.—A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (1) with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he:

(i) solicits such other person to commit it; or

(ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or

(2) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.

(d) Culpability of accomplice.—When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense.

18 Pa.C.S. § 306.

The Supreme Court rejected the accomplice liability for two reasons. First, the Commonwealth had never before suggested that Chambers acted as an accomplice. It did not allege that he was an accomplice in the Bills of Information which it submitted prior to trial, and it never argued at trial that Chambers was an accomplice of the woman with the mace. Second, there was simply no evidence in the record whatsoever that Chambers had encouraged anyone else to do anything. He did not tell anyone else to join the fight and he did not ask anyone to use mace on the complainant. He did not even make any non-verbal signals towards the others who joined the fight. He simply had not done anything to solicit another person to commit a crime, and he had not aided or agreed or attempted to aid a person in committing a crime. Although he did hold the complainant down, the Court viewed it as clear that he held the complainant down for the purposes of punching the complainant himself. He did not hold the complainant down so that other people could mace him.

This is an excellent case because conspiracy is one of the most over-charged offenses in Pennsylvania. In virtually every case in which more than one defendant is charged with a crime, the Commonwealth will tack on a conspiracy charge even when there is little or no evidence that the defendants agreed in advance to commit a crime. This is particularly true in cases involving fights among large groups of people. It is a fundamental to criminal law that people should be responsible for their own actions and not the actions of others. Thus, a person should not be on the hook for someone else’s decision to jump into a fight and use a weapon if that first person had nothing to do with that decision and was engaged in a “fair” one on one fight.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

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, and Attempted Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today .

Zak Goldstein 7/17/18 Zak Goldstein 7/17/18

When is Simple Assault a misdemeanor of the third degree in Pennsylvania?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Hodges, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving at sentencing that a “mutual combat” Simple Assault should be graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree instead of a misdemeanor of the second degree. This is an important decision because it makes it easier for the Commonwealth to obtain the conviction for the higher-graded Simple Assault, and that charge cannot be expunged or sealed.

What is the gradation of Simple Assault in PA?

Under Pennsylvania law, there are two types of Simple Assault. The most common variety of Simple Assault is a misdemeanor of the second degree. It simply involves knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to another person. For example, punching someone in the face one time is usually going to be a Simple Assault unless very severe injuries occur. A misdemeanor of the second degree is punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Simple Assault (M2) also cannot be expunged or sealed pursuant to a limited access order. Therefore, a conviction for Simple Assault as an M2 will stay on your record for life unless you obtain a pardon from the Governor.

Alternatively, Simply Assault can also be a misdemeanor of the third degree. The statute provides that when the Simple Assault was part of a mutual combat, then the court should instead grade Simple Assault as an M3. An M3 is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine. More importantly, Simple Assault (M3) is subject to Pennsylvania’s new limited access order law. This means that if you are convicted of Simple Assault (M3), you may petition the court to seal the conviction after ten years if you remain arrest-free during that period. Although this is not quite the same as an expungement, it drastically reduces the likelihood that potential employers are going to find out about the prior conviction. Law enforcement agencies and state licensing authorities will still have access to it, but the general public will not. Additionally, it is not possible to receive a state prison system for an M3, whereas an M2 could result in a state prison sentence because of the potential two year maximum.

Who has to prove whether the Simple Assault is an M3 or an M2?

The issue in Hodges is whether the Commonwealth or the defendant bears the burden of proving the degree of the Simple Assault. In Hodges, the defendant was convicted of Simple Assault by a jury. He appealed, arguing in the Superior Court that the trial court gave him an illegal sentence when it sentenced him on Simple Assault as a misdemeanor of the second degree because the Commonwealth never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not engaged in a fight by mutual consent.

The Superior Court rejected this argument. It found that the issue of whether the charge should be graded as an M2 or an M3 is a sentencing issue which must be determined by the trial judge. Where the factfinder concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed a Simple Assault, the default gradation is the misdemeanor of the second degree. However, the defendant may then introduce additional evidence or make argument at sentencing that the judge should reduce the gradation of the charge to the third-degree misdemeanor based on the mutual consent section. In Hodges, the defendant never made that argument at sentencing, and therefore, the claim was waived. Had the defendant made this argument at sentencing, it is possible that the court would have reduced the gradation of the charge. Unfortunately, his defense attorney did not.

Notably, the VUFA 6106 gun charge statute which prohibits carrying a concealed firearm without a license has a similar gradation scheme. By default, a violation of VUFA 6106 is a felony of the third degree. However, the appellate courts have held in prior cases that the defendant may ask the court to find that a VUFA 6106 conviction should be graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree if the defendant can show that he or she was otherwise eligible to obtain a concealed carry permit and was not facing any other charges at the same time. Thus, the Superior Court has held that it is the defendant's burden in these types of cases to show that the defendant is eligible for a reduction in gradation. It is extremely important that defense counsel be aware of this burden as it may be too late to make the argument on appeal as it was for Hodges.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges in PA or NJ, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients in assault cases and against all types of criminal charges. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 6/24/18 Zak Goldstein 6/24/18

SCOTUS: Defendant May Waive Double Jeopardy by Moving to Sever Felon in Possession of Firearm Charge

The United States Supreme Court has decided the case of Currier v. Virginia, holding that a defendant may waive double jeopardy protections by consenting to the severance of criminal charges and moving for separate trials on different charges. Specifically, the defendant may waive his or her double jeopardy rights by moving to sever a felon in possession of a firearm charge from the other charges in a criminal case.

The Facts of Currier v. Virginia

In Currier, prosecutors charged the defendant with burglary, grand larceny, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in Virginia. Coincidentally, the defendant was not eligible to possess a gun because he had prior convictions for burglary and grand larceny. Because the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, prosecutors would have been allowed to introduce his prior convictions for burglary and grand larceny in his trial as the existence of those prior convictions is an element of the statute. This would have been detrimental to his case because the jury would have heard both that he had prior convictions in general and that he had prior convictions for the exact same thing with which he was charged.

Accordingly, the defendant and the Government agreed to sever the charges and hold two separate trials. As discussed in the Court’s opinion, there is no universal way to handle this issue and each jurisdiction is different. In Virginia, a defendant can have two trials: one for the unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and a second trial for the other charges. In this case, Petitioner elected to have two trials. This is not the normal procedure in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, the prosecutors will ordinarily proceed against the defendant on the non-felon in possession charges first. If the prosecution obtains a conviction on all of the charges other than the felon in possession charge, then the defense will typically allow the trial judge to make the decision on the remaining gun charge. If the jury acquits on all of the other charges, then the prosecution will usually move to nolle prosse the remaining gun charge. In some cases, the prosecution does still insist that the jury hear the felon in possession case after it has ruled on the other charges. However, Philadelphia does not typically conduct two separate trials in these types of cases.

The first trial, for the charges of grand larceny and burglary, went very well for the defendant. He was acquitted of both charges. When he appeared for his second trial, his defense attorneys moved to dismiss the gun charge. They argued that it would violate his constitutional right against Double Jeopardy. In the alternative, he asked that the prosecution not be allowed to introduce any evidence pertaining to the grand larceny and burglary charges because he was acquitted of those charges. The trial court denied the defense's request, and the jury found him guilty of the gun charge. The court sentenced him to a lengthy period of incarceration. He appealed through the Virginia state appellate system, and both the Virginia Court of Appeals and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his double jeopardy motion. He appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the case.

What is Double Jeopardy?

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime after he or she has been acquitted or convicted of the crime. These situations can become more complicated than one would expect, but a simple example of double jeopardy is this: Imagine a defendant is charged with robbing a bank. The defendant goes to trial, and the jury acquits him of robbing the bank. The same jurisdiction cannot then re-try him again for robbing the bank, even if prosecutors later uncover more evidence that would have likely led to a different verdict.

It is important to note that under the federal constitution and subsequent case law, this protection only applies to the particular jurisdiction that tried the defendant. In other words, just because a defendant is acquitted of a crime at the federal level does not mean that the state government cannot prosecute for the crime too. However, the rules governing this depend on the jurisdiction. Pennsylvania offers much broader Double Jeopardy protections in comparison to other states. Thus, if a defendant is acquitted in federal court, Pennsylvania prosecutors cannot then bring charges. The reverse, however, is not true - if a defendant is acquitted in Pennsylvania court, the federal government can still bring charges. Click here to learn more about double jeopardy in general.

The Double Jeopardy Clause also has a collateral estoppel component to it. What this means is that the government cannot re-litigate a fact that was decided in a defendant’s favor. To give a basic example of this, let’s assume that a defendant punched a person in the face and took their phone. This is technically a robbery, but it is also a simple assault. Let’s also assume that at trial, the government chooses only to proceed on the robbery charge and the defendant is found not guilty. The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents the government from re-arresting the defendant for simple assault because he was already found not guilty of an essential fact of the case (i.e. punching the complainant) in the robbery trial.

This idea of collateral estoppel, as discussed in Currier, is not a universally accepted idea by legal jurists and remains controversial. However, as the justices noted in their opinion, collateral estoppel was not the issue in this case, though it is a little confusing (as discussed below). The issue in Currier, according to the justices, was whether a defendant can waive his Double Jeopardy protections by seeking a severance of the charges filed against him.

The Court Holds that a Defendant Can Waive His Double Jeopardy Protections When He Agrees to Severance of the Charges

In Currier, the Supreme Court held that a defendant may waive his Double Jeopardy protections when he elects to have two trials. In making its decision, the Court looked at its prior decisions that addressed the issue. In its research, the Court concluded that when a defendant elects to have two trials, he is no longer entitled to Double Jeopardy protections. The Court stated that the Double Jeopardy Clause was designed to protect against government oppression, not from the consequences of a defendant’s voluntary choice.

The defendant, of course, argued that he had no real choice. If he had not elected to sever his cases, than the jury would have heard that he had prior convictions for the same offenses, and he would not have received a fair trial. However, the Supreme Court noted that though he was entitled to have separate trials under Virginia law, it was not a constitutional right to have separate trials. Thus, he was not forced to give up one constitutional right to secure another. Additionally, the Court held that because the defendant consented to the severance of the cases, the prosecution could still introduce evidence relating to the charges for which he had already been acquitted.

This decision will likely prove confusing and frustrating for criminal defendants because even though the defendant was found not guilty of the burglary and the grand larceny charges, the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence for those crimes in his second trial. The Court made clear that its decision was based on the text of the Fifth Amendment and therefore held that the Double Jeopardy Clause only prohibits re-litigating offenses, not issues or evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the normal rules of evidence apply and thus a trial court must decide whether to allow the introduction of evidence and facts from the prior trial.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

If you are facing criminal charges in state or federal court, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of criminal cases in trial and appellate courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you are under investigation or have been arrested, we offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session free of charge. Call 267-225-2545 to discuss your case with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 6/23/18 Zak Goldstein 6/23/18

US Supreme Court: Police Must Obtain Search Warrant for Cell Phone Location Data

The United States Supreme Court has decided the case of Carpenter v. United States, holding that police must obtain a search warrant based on probable cause prior to getting cell phone location data from a cell phone provider. In Carpenter, law enforcement officers had obtained cell phone location data for the defendant which linked the defendant to various gunpoint robberies without a search warrant. Therefore, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

The Facts of Carpenter v. United States

In 2011, police arrested four men for robbing a number of Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Detroit. One of the men confessed that over the previous four months, the group (along with other individuals) had robbed nine different stories in Michigan and Ohio. The suspect identified 15 other people who had participated in the robberies. He gave the FBI some of their cell phone numbers. The FBI then reviewed his call records to identify additional numbers that he had called around the time of the robberies.

Based on this information, the FBI began to suspect Timothy Carpenter, the defendant, of participating in some of the robberies. The FBI obtained court orders under the Stored Communications Act to obtain cell phone records for Carpenter and other suspects. That statute permitted the FBI to compel the disclosure of cell phone records from the cell phone provider based on a showing of specific and articulable facts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. These court orders are not the same as a search warrant, and the showing necessary to obtain one is much lower than the probable cause standard which law enforcement officers must meet when seeking a search warrant.

The FBI agents obtained two orders from federal magistrate judges directing MetroPCS and Sprint to disclose cell site location data for Carpenter’s phones. The first order sought 152 days of cell-site records from MetroPCS, and MetroPCS produced 127 days worth of records. The second order directed Sprint to produce two days of records for when Carpenter’s phone was roaming in Ohio, and Sprint produced the two days worth of records. In total, the FBI obtained 12,898 location points cataloging Carpenter’s movements – an average of 101 data points per day.

The Criminal Charges Against Carpenter

The Government eventually charged Carpenter in federal court with six counts of robbery and six counts of carrying a firearm during a federal crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) and 1951(a). Prior to trial, Carpenter’s defense attorneys filed a motion to suppress the cell phone location data, arguing that the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained the location data without a search warrant supported by probable cause. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Carpenter proceeded to trial, and seven of his co-conspirators testified against him. They indicated that he was the leader of the robbery operation. In addition, an FBI agent offered expert testimony regarding the cell phone data. The agent explained that each time a cell phone taps into a wireless network, the carrier logs a time-stamped record of the cell site and the particular sector that were used. With this information, the FBI agent was able to produce maps that placed Carpenter’s phone near the scene of four of the charged robberies. According to the Government, this data showed that Carpenter was right where the robbery occurred at the exact time of the robbery. The jury found Carpenter guilty of all of the charges except one of the gun charges, and the trial court sentenced him to more than 100 years in prison.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. It held that Carpenter lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone location data because the information had been shared with his wireless carriers. Given that cell phone users voluntarily convey cell-site data to their carriers in order to use the phone, the court concluded that the business records produced by the carriers are not subject to Fourth Amendment protection on the basis that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in something that a person has shared with someone else.

The Supreme Court Appeal

Carpenter’s defense lawyers appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court accepted the case. In what it described as a narrow opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ruled that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress the cell phone location data. The court noted a number of recent opinions in which the Fourth Amendment has been applied to protect not just places, but also other types of information that people would expect to be private. For example, in Kyllo v. United States, the court held that police could not use a thermal imager to detect heat radiating from the side a defendant’s home (as part of searching for a marijuana grow operation) without a search warrant. Likewise, in Riley v. United States, the court found that law enforcement generally must obtain a search warrant prior to searching a suspect’s cell phone and that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to a cell phone. Finally, in United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that police must obtain a search warrant prior to secretly planting a GPS tracker underneath a suspect’s car and monitoring the tracker for 28 days.

At the same time, the court noted that the third-party doctrine would normally defeat Carpenter’s claim. The third-party doctrine provides that police are not required to obtain a search warrant in order to obtain information which a person has voluntarily shared with third parties. Thus, police may obtain bank records via subpoena without obtaining a search warrant because a person has voluntarily shared their financial information with the bank. Likewise, police need not obtain a search warrant in order to obtain a list of outgoing phone numbers dialed on a landline telephone because the information provided by such a pen register is limited and the numbers are used by the telephone company for a variety of legitimate business purposes.

After analyzing these various cases, the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the FBI should have obtained a search warrant for the cell phone data. Although the third-party doctrine has typically applied in cases such as this, where the defendant shared all of the information voluntarily with the cell phone companies, there is something different about a system that creates such a detailed and comprehensive record of the person’s movements. Accordingly, given the unique nature of cell phone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user’s claim to Fourth Amendment protection. The court therefore held that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his or her physical movements as captured by the cell phone companies.

Although the court reversed the conviction in this case, it did note that the decision is meant to be a narrow one. It does not necessarily apply to real-time cell phone location data or “tower dumps” (a download of information on all of the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval). It should also not call into question the prior opinions on bank records and pen registers or prevent the use of evidence obtained from security cameras. Finally, it does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security, and there may also be situations in which exigent circumstances eliminate the need for a search warrant.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients. We are experienced and understanding defense attorneys with the skill and expertise to fight even the most serious cases at trial, on appeal, and in Post-Conviction Relief Act litigation. We offer a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to each potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with a defense lawyer today.