Goldstein Mehta LLC Rated in Top 20 Best Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta of Goldstein Mehta LLC have just been selected by Expertise to their 2016 list of the 20 Best Criminal Defense Attorneys in Philadelphia. We greatly appreciate the recognition and will continue to fight hard for our clients' rights every day in and out of the courtroom. Learn more about the ranking system here. 

SORNA/Megan's Law Update - PA Supreme Court Reduces Registration Requirements for Many First Time Offenders

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently announced some important changes for defendants previously facing or subject to registration on “Megan’s Law” for certain non-violent sexual offenses such as possession of child pornography. The Court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) requires fifteen years of registration on Megan’s Law instead of lifetime registration for many first-time offenders convicted of multiple counts at the same time.
 
Previously, the State Police, who are responsible for implementing the registration component of SORNA, required first time offenders who were convicted of multiple counts of possession of child pornography or other Tier I or Tier II Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) offenses at the same time to register as Tier III offenders and to register for life. This interpretation of the statute had a tremendous impact on virtually all potentially Tier I defendants because police and prosecutors have enormous discretion in determining how many counts with which to charge any given defendant. For example, the prosecutor decides how many charges to bring against a defendant who possessed multiple prohibited images or multiple computers containing prohibited images. Prior to the Court’s ruling, if the prosecutor brought multiple counts, the defendant would potentially be subject to lifetime registration under the State Police’s interpretation of the Act. If the prosecutor brought only one count, then the defendant would be subject to fifteen years of registration. Prosecutors often could use this leverage to extract guilty pleas out of defendants with defensible cases by agreeing to allow the defendant to plead to only one count and thereby avoid lifetime registration in exchange for a guilty plea. 
 
However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just rejected the State Police’s interpretation of the statute. In the companion cases of Commonwealth v. Lutz-Morrison and A.S. v. PA State Police, the Supreme Court ruled that first time offenders without prior sex offense convictions are properly classified as Tier I or Tier II offenders (depending on the Tier of the offense) and subject only to fifteen or twenty-five year registration requirements regardless of how many counts the prosecutor chooses to file. The Court’s ruling hinges on language in the registration statute making someone with “[t]wo or more convictions of offenses listed as Tier I or Tier II sexual offenses” a Tier III offender." The Court held that because the SORNA law is a recidivist statute, meaning it is meant to provide an increasing level of punishment as an offender commits subsequent offenses, the statute “requires an act, a conviction, and a subsequent act to trigger lifetime registration for multiple offenses otherwise subject to a fifteen- or twenty-five-year period of registration.”
 
It appears likely that the Court’s interpretation will be applied retroactively, meaning that offenders who were already deemed lifetime offenders by the State Police may have the opportunity to be re-classified. It is not yet clear whether the State Police will require each offender to file suit, file some sort of paperwork with the State Police, or whether the State Police will re-classify offenders automatically. It is also possible that there may be statutory time limits on an offender’s ability to petition for reclassification. Therefore, it is critical that you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately if you are facing potential sex offense charges or already subject to lifetime registration under these or similar circumstances. 

The top-rated attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have extensive experience representing individuals charged under Pennsylvania's SORNA and Megan's Law statutes. Our attorneys are extremely knowledgeable about recent developments in the law and able to use that knowledge to our clients' advantage. Call 267-225-2545 today for a free, confidential consultation. 

Related Articles: 

Appealing Retroactive Megan's Law Tier Increases

BREAKING NEWS: Retroactive Application of SORNA/Megan's Law Found Unconstitutional in Pennsylvania

Birchfield v. North Dakota - States May Not Punish DUI Blood Test Refusals

DUI Defense Update - Birchfield v. North Dakota

DUI Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a critical opinion which has already had a dramatic effect on Driving Under the Influence ("DUI/DWI") litigation in Pennsylvania and many other states. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to criminally penalize a motorist for refusing to submit to a DUI blood test when the police have not obtained a search warrant for the motorist's blood. This holding is a major development in Pennsylvania because the DUI statute, 75 Pa.C.S. 3802, provided enhanced criminal penalties for a motorist who refused the blood draw and was later found guilty of DUI. Now, unless the police obtain a warrant, a motorist cannot be punished with additional jail time or other additional criminal penalties for refusing the blood draw. The prosecutor may be able to comment on the refusal at trial, but the motorist cannot receive additional jail time or a higher gradation on a conviction. 

New Defenses in Drug DUI Cases and Blood Test DUI Cases

The holding is also critically important for many defendants who have already been arrested for DUI and either refused the blood test or had their blood drawn without a warrant. Birchfield is particularly important because the Court also recognized that where the arresting officers improperly inform a defendant that the failure to submit to a blood draw will result in criminal penalties, the trial court may be required to exclude the results of the blood test as the product of unconstitutional coercion. 

The Impact on DUI Charges in Philadelphia

This holding is particularly relevant in Philadelphia and much of Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, DUI blood draws are supervised by the Accident Investigation Division of the Philadelphia Police Department. Prior to each blood draw, the AID Division would read what are known as the O'Connell warnings to the defendant. The O'Connell warnings historically included a statement to the defendant that refusal to submit to a blood test, even where the police had not obtained a warrant, would result in increased criminal penalties should the defendant be convicted of DUI at trial. Likewise, the State Police read a very similar form when they supervised DUI-related blood testing. The warnings may now be constitutionally defective and could require a court to exclude the results of the blood draw obtained pursuant to these coercive warnings.  

Contact a Philadelphia DUI Defense Attorney Today

Philadelphia DUI Lawyers

If you have been arrested for DUI, it is absolutely critical that you consult with experienced defense counsel. As I have explained in previous posts, there are often defenses available which only an experienced criminal lawyer will recognize. Prosecutors are handling these cases differently in different jurisdictions, and many state trial courts have not yet ruled on how Birchfield changes the rules in Pennsylvania. If you have been charged with DUI and the Police conducted a blood draw or asked you to submit to a blood draw, you need an experienced criminal lawyer to evaluate your case, recognize the potential defenses, and make the right legal arguments on your behalf. Call 267-225-2545 today for a free, honest consultation. 

Types of Narcotics Offenses and Potential Defenses

Narcotics Offenses

TYPES OF DRUG CHARGES IN PENNSYLVANIA

If you have been arrested on narcotics charges, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. We handle all types of narcotics cases - Simple Possession ("K&I), Possession with the Intent to Deliver ("PWID"), Criminal Use of a Communications Facility ("CUCF"), Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana ("SAM"), cases involving confidential informants or sales to undercover narcotics officers, and more. Our talented attorneys have won motions to suppress the evidence and prevailed in even the toughest cases at preliminary hearing and trial. 

If you are caught with drugs, there are a number of potential charges you could face. First and foremost, you could be charged with Possession with the Intent to Deliver. In Pennsylvania, PWID is a felony regardless of the type of a substance sold. PWID requires the prosecutor to show not only that you had actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, but also that you either sold or intended to sell the controlled substance to someone. Second, if the police did not observe drug sales, you could be charged with Simple Possession or Knowing and Intentional Possession, which requires the Commonwealth to show that you were in possession of a controlled substance. Third, if a cell phone was involved in a drug transaction, you could be charged with Criminal Use of a Communications Facility. 

DEFENSES TO DRUG CHARGES

It is critical that you speak with an experienced attorney as quickly as possible because there are a number of potential defenses to these charges. Our Philadelphia criminal trial lawyers have won numerous motions to suppress where the police conducted a search or made an arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If the police violated your rights, it may be possible to have the evidence suppressed and the charges dismissed. In PWID cases, we also work with the best expert witnesses in narcotics distribution to show the prosecutor, judge, or jury that drugs were not possessed with the intent to deliver. Through prompt and thorough investigation of a case, we may also be able to show that the narcotics belonged to someone else by finding witnesses or surveillance footage, or we may be able to show that the police just plain got the wrong guy. We have also been able to successfully negotiate for clients to participate in pre-trial diversionary programs which do not result in permanent convictions or other serious consequences. 

CONSEQUENCES FOR DRUG CONVICTIONS

Even misdemeanor narcotics charges are serious. Many cases carry significant jail time, and there can be countless life-changing collateral consequences to a conviction ranging from the loss of driving privileges to the loss of professional licenses, student financial aid, and employment. If you are charged with selling or possessing illegal drugs, you need an experienced lawyer who can investigate and evaluate your case, determine if your rights have been violated, and provide you with all of the options and a strong defense. You should not assume that you have to plead guilty just because the police found drugs on or near you. The Commonwealth has to prove that the search was legal and that the drugs were yours, and we have the experience to challenge them every step of the way. 

CALL A PHILADELPHIA DRUG LAWYER TODAY

If you or a loved one has been charged with a narcotics offense in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 267-225-2545 now for a free, confidential, and honest consultation.