PA Superior Court Approves Current Philadelphia Police DUI Checkpoint Procedures

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Mercado, holding that Philadelphia Police conducted a constitutional DUI checkpoint despite the fact that the officer who planned the checkpoint selected the location of the checkpoint without any data indicating how many DUIs have occurred at the location of the checkpoint. This is an extremely bad case for privacy rights which allows police to basically establish motor vehicle checkpoints at will without any prior research. The decision also conflicts with the court’s longstanding precedent in cases like Commonwealth v. Blee and Commonwealth v. Garibay.

The Facts of Mercado  

In Mercado, the Philadelphia police stopped the defendant at a DUI checkpoint on the 300 block of East Allegheny Ave in Philadelphia, PA. The officers noticed that the defendant had bloodshot, glassy eyes, and they smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from his vehicle and breath. The defendant subsequently admitted to smoking marijuana. He submitted to a “field sobriety test” and presumably failed, and the police then took him into custody on suspicion of DUI. They then transported him to the Police Detention Unit for a blood test.

Prosecutors later charged the defendant with DUI in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the results of the stop, including the blood test results, arguing that the police did not have sufficient data regarding prior incidences of DUI at 300 East Kensington Ave. to establish a constitutional checkpoint at that location.

At the motions hearing, the Commonwealth called the Philadelphia Police Lieutenant who ran the checkpoint to testify. The lieutenant testified that to determine the location of the checkpoint in question, he tabulated all DUI-related incidents in Philadelphia over the previous two years and broke those figures down by DUI-related incidents per police district. He found that the 25th police district, which is 2.3 square miles, had the most DUIs in the city during that period.

He did not have any data specific to the location of the checkpoint. However, he testified that he selected that location because it is one of the only locations in the district which would be large enough and safe enough to conduct a checkpoint involving eighteen police officers, two police cruisers, and one large processing center the size of a fire truck. He also testified that the 300 block of East Allegheny Ave is a main vein of travel within the 25th district.

The Motion to Suppress and Appeal

The Philadelphia Municipal Court granted the motion to suppress, finding that existing case law required the officer to have data specific to the location of the checkpoint in order to avoid a constitutional violation. The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and the motions court judge in the Court of Common Pleas affirmed the order granting the motion to suppress. The Commonwealth then appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

 The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the decision of the Municipal Court and ruled that the motion to suppress should not have been granted. The Court noted that DUI checkpoints are governed by the “Tarbert/Blouse” guidelines. Pursuant to those guidelines, the Commonwealth must be able to show that the checkpoint satisfied five requirements in order to be constitutional.

Those requirements are:

1. vehicle stops must be brief and must not entail a physical search;

2. there must be sufficient warning of the existence of the checkpoint;

3. the decision to conduct a checkpoint, as well as the decisions as to time and place for the checkpoint, must be subject to prior administrative approval;

4. the choice of time and place for the checkpoint must be based on local experience as to where and when intoxicated drivers are likely to be traveling; and

5. the decision as to which vehicles to stop at the checkpoint must be established by administratively pre-fixed, objective standards, and must not be left to the unfettered discretion of the officers at the scene.

Further, substantial compliance with the guidelines is all that is require in order to minimize the intrusiveness of a roadblock seizure to a constitutionally acceptable level.

The Court’s Opinion

The Court found that Philadelphia Police substantially complied with these rules. The officer testified that he selected the route based on statistical data demonstrating that the district in question accounted for the highest rate of DUI arrests in the city, and that Allegheny Avenue was the main avenue of East-West travel in the district. He also considered traffic volume and safety factors when selecting the location of the checkpoint. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the police should have had some kind of data relating specifically to Allegheny Avenue. Instead, the Court reasoned that the relatively high rate of DUIs in that district coupled with the safety considerations considered by the lieutenant made the selection of that location constitutional.

Unfortunately, this decision amounts to carte blanche for the police to establish a checkpoint anytime and anywhere. Previous decisions such as Commonwealth v. Blee and Commonwealth v. Garibay required actual numbers as to how many DUIs occurred on the street selected for the checkpoint. This opinion lets the police simply establish a checkpoint in any district where they can testify that the district has a large number of DUIs and on any road that could be characterized as a busy road. The opinion simply ignores the prior case law, and hopefully it will be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Hopefully, this opinion may be limited to the 25th District as that is the only district where police would be able to claim that the district has the highest number of DUIs. In other districts, police may still be required to have more information before establishing a checkpoint. Each DUI case involving a checkpoint should still be carefully evaluated for a potential “checkpoint motion” as well as a motion to suppress based on other grounds such as an illegal arrest or the failure to provide Miranda warnings.

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 obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Forgery, Access Device Fraud, Rape, 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.

Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Wins Acquittal for Client Accused of Rape

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients who were charged with serious felonies including violent crimes like Rape, Aggravated Assault, and Sexual Assault. In a recent, important win, defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire was able to obtain an acquittal on rape charges for a client following a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Rape cases are some of the most difficult types of cases to defend in Philadelphia criminal court. In many of these cases, there is no physical evidence, and the case comes down to whether the judge or jury believes the complainant or the defendant. This can be particularly problematic because many defendants do not want to or should not testify for various reasons having nothing to do with guilt or innocence. For example, the defendant may simply be a bad witness, may be too nervous to testify, or may have a criminal record that could become admissible if the defendant takes the stand. This can leave the court with a one-sided version of events that may not reflect what actually happened.

It is also surprising and sometimes frightening to many people that rape and sexual assault cases do not require a lot of evidence for the prosecution to obtain a conviction. In most rape and sexual assault cases, prosecutors are able to obtain a jury instruction to the effect that the fact-finder may find the defendant guilty in a case of sexual assault even if there is no corroborating evidence or any witnesses other than the alleged victim if the jury believes the testimony of the complainant. These types of cases are always challenging because the sworn testimony of one witness, without any other evidence, may be sufficient under Pennsylvania law for a defendant to be convicted of rape if the judge or jury believes that testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.

Against this legal backdrop, Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won an important case for a client accused of rape, sexual assault, and other related charges. In the case of Commonwealth v. R.M., Attorney Goldstein was able to successfully argue to the judge who presided over the bench trial that the complainant had fabricated the allegations and that the court should not believe her testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, the judge found R.M. guilty only of minor, non-sex crime misdemeanors and sentenced him to time served. The judge ordered immediate parole for R.M.  

In this case, the complainant alleged that she had been dating R.M. for a number of months. At some point, the relationship began to sour, and R.M. and the complainant had a physical altercation. The altercation allegedly began with a verbal argument and some slapping and hitting, but the complainant claimed that it eventually escalated into R.M. having sex with her despite her telling him not to. The complainant reported this incident to the police, and prosecutors charged R.M. with a number of Megan’s Law offenses.  

At trial, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that this testimony was entirely unreliable by thoroughly investigating the case and effectively cross-examining the complainant on significant inconsistencies in her statements.  

First, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that the complainant had a motive to fabricate the allegations against R.M. because R.M. had moved out of their shared home and begun dating another woman prior to the complainant making the allegations.  

Second, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that the complainant’s reaction to the alleged incident was suspect; instead of going to the police, the complainant went directly to R.M.’s probation officer to report the incident. This suggested that the complainant was more focused on getting R.M. locked up for revenge than in reporting an actual crime.

Third, Attorney Goldstein’s investigator obtained a copy of the Protection from Abuse Order that the complainant obtained against R.M. shortly after the alleged sexual assault. In this PFA, which was made just days after the incident, the complainant claimed that the incident had occurred on a different date and described it solely as a physical fight; she completely failed to mention any kind of sexual assault. Armed with this information as well as a number of inconsistencies between the complainant’s testimony at the preliminary hearing and at trial, Attorney Goldstein was able to successfully convince the judge that the Commonwealth’s evidence, which consisted only of the complainant’s testimony, was not enough to convict the defendant of any sex crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge found R.M. Not Guilty of all the sex crimes and released him from custody.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.  

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Forgery, Access Device Fraud, Rape, 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.

Attorney Goldstein Obtains Not Guilty Verdict in Indecent Assault Jury Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein obtained a full acquittal in a jury trial in the case of Commonwealth v. S.R. In S.R., the defendant was charged with one count of Indecent Assault for allegedly groping his friend while his friend was sleeping. The complainant, who was staying at his friend’s apartment for a few days in between leases, alleged that he awoke in the middle of the night to find S.R. with his hand in his pants. The complainant immediately confronted S.R., and S.R. allegedly admitted to having done the same thing two nights prior. S.R. promptly called the police and told the police what had happened. Police arrested S.R. and charged him with Indecent Assault as a misdemeanor of the second degree.

S.R. was initially convicted of the charge during a bench trial by a Municipal Court judge when represented by a different lawyer. However, because all defendants charged with a crime punishable by one year or more are entitled to have a jury trial, S.R. was able to appeal to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for a trial de novo. In a trial de novo, the Municipal Court verdict is set aside and the defendant is able to have an entirely new trial with a jury instead of a judge. S.R. exercised his right to a jury trial and was defended at trial by Attorney Goldstein.

Attorney Goldstein obtained a full acquittal following a two-day jury trial. Although the complainant testified similarly to his testimony at the Municipal Court trial, Attorney Goldstein was able to use his cross-examination skills to highlight a number of inconsistencies and problems with the complainant’s testimony and argue that the complainant was not telling the truth. For example, there were significant inconsistencies in the details of the alleged sexual assault between the complainant’s statement to police and his testimony at prior hearings. Further, instead of simply allowing the police to conduct their investigation and prosecutors to proceed with the case against S.R., the complainant continued to contact S.R. hundreds, if not thousands, of times while the charges were pending. Our investigators obtained phone records showing that even after calling the police, the complainant called S.R. hundreds of times in the year after the alleged assault and also sent S.R. hundreds of obscene, homophobic, and threatening text messages and voice mails. Further, Attorney Goldstein was able to introduce evidence that S.R. had good character and an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, law-abiding citizen.  

Using these inconsistencies, homophobic texts, and S.R.’s excellent reputation, Attorney Goldstein was able to convince the jury to reject the complainant’s testimony as false. Attorney Goldstein argued that there was simply more going on because the complainant’s reaction and ongoing harassment campaign, which continued for more than a year, was totally disproportionate to what was alleged. Thus, the jury likely concluded that the complainant must initially been interested in a relationship with the defendant but then had a change of heart. The jury quickly acquitted S.R. of all charges, and S.R. will be able to have his record expunged. The verdict is a huge win for S.R. because although Indecent Assault is a misdemeanor charge which may not carry jail time, it is a life-changing offense because it requires 15 years of mandatory Megan’s Law registration. S.R. will not have to register as a sex offender because of this acquittal.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers - Philadelphia

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 obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Forgery, Access Device Fraud, Rape, 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.

PA Superior Court Lowers Bar for Forgery Convictions

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Green, affirming the defendant’s conviction for forgery where the evidence showed that the defendant cashed a check that he knew should not have been made out to him. This decision is problematic for future forgery defendants as it could make it easier for prosecutors to prove that a given defendant had the knowledge necessary to be convicted of forgery.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Green

In August 2015, St. Moritz Labor Services, a temporary staffing agency, discovered 18 checks drawn on its account that had not been issued in accordance with company procedures. These checks were fraudulent duplicates of lawfully issued checks. The payees were not known to St. Moritz. Further, the amounts on the checks were much higher than St. Moritz standard payroll checks. One of these checks was made payable to the defendant. The defendant never worked for St. Moritz and had no affiliation with that entity. On August 3, 2015, the defendant cashed a St. Moritz check at a local K-Mart.

St. Moritz reported the checks to the police, and the police began an investigation. During the course of their investigation, Officer Green of the Whitehall Police Department contacted the defendant and asked to speak with him regarding a cashed check. According to Officer Green, the defendant stated “[I] only did it once.” After he was given his Miranda rights, the defendant stated that he cashed the check to pay off fines. The defendant stated that he received the check in the mail and he did not know where the check came from or who sent the check. The defendant confirmed that he never worked for St. Moritz and admitted that he did not have any reason to receive a check from that company.

Police arrested the defendant and charged him with forgery, access device fraud, and bad checks. At the preliminary hearing, a magistrate judge dismissed the access device fraud and bad check charges. The defendant proceeded by way of bench trial, and the judge found him guilty and sentenced him to two years’ reporting probation and restitution. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, a divided Superior Court panel reversed the judgment of sentence. Thereafter, the Commonwealth sought en banc review, which the Superior Court granted. On appeal, the defendant challenged whether the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the mens rea element of the forgery charge.

What is Forgery?

18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4101 provides for the crime of forgery. A person is guilty of forgery if, with the intent to defraud or injure anyone, the actor either: 1) alters a writing without his authority; 2) makes, completes, executes…issues or transfers a writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize the act; or 3) utters any writing that he knows to be forged.

As a practical matter, forgery is a difficult crime for the Commonwealth to prove. The Commonwealth typically needs multiple witnesses to prove their case, which often makes it difficult for the Commonwealth to get ready for a preliminary hearing or trial. Because prosecutors may not use hearsay evidence at a trial, they often have significant problems in proving forgery cases. For example, prosecutors generally need to present the testimony of the witness or witnesses who saw a defendant use the allegedly forged instrument, the officer who arrested him or her, the detective or bank investigator who investigated the case, and a custodian of records from the organization that owns the checking account in question. Getting all of these witnesses to appear at the same time can be difficult, and the failure to do so often results in the dismissal of cases.

Additionally, proving the mens rea for forgery is also difficult for the Commonwealth. Forgery is not a strict liability crime. In other words, just because one possesses a forged check does not mean that one is guilty of forgery. As such, trial courts are supposed to heavily scrutinize a defendant’s actions to see if they are guilty of this offense and whether there is any evidence that the defendant actually forged the document or had reason to know that the document was in fact forged. One of the seminal cases on this issue (and one that was analogized in the instant case) was Commonwealth v. Gibson. In Gibson, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the defendant in that case did not commit the crime of forgery even though he possessed a forged check. The reason was because, in Gibson, the circumstances did not show that he was trying to commit a fraud or any other type of wrongdoing. After presenting the forged check, the defendant in Gibson presented his identification when asked for it, did not attempt to flee when asked for said identification, and otherwise did not engage in any suspicious behavior when he attempted to cash said check. Because of the lack of suspicious or criminal behavior, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the defendant knew that the check was forged. Without the requisite level of knowledge, a defendant cannot be convicted of forgery.

A Divided Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms the Defendant’s Conviction

In this case, a divided en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for forgery. In the split decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that, unlike the defendant in Commonwealth v. Gibson, the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea to commit the crime of forgery. Specifically, the majority opinion focused on the defendant’s statement to the police that “he only did it once.” According to the Court, this statement and the defendant’s admission that he had no affiliation with St. Moritz or any reason to receive a check from them established that he had the necessary mens rea to justify a forgery conviction.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Forgery, Access Device Fraud, Rape, 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.