PA Superior Court Finds Constables Have Authority to Detain Individuals on Suspicion of DUI

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Allen, holding that a constable has the authority to detain an individual if they are suspected of driving under the influence (“DUI”). This decision is significant because it expands the authority of constables (i.e. officials who are not police officers) to stop and detain citizens when they are suspected of committing a crime.

Commonwealth v. Allen

On April 24, 2017 at approximately 8:00 PM, Constables Metcalf and Gates with the Borough of New Oxford were at a residence serving two unrelated arrest warrants. While speaking with the occupant of the residence, Constable Metcalf saw a vehicle exit Route 30 at a high rate of speed, proceed airborne over an embankment, and enter a nearby yard. The vehicle travelled to the rear of the residence through the yard and stopped between the residence and a trailer.

The constables then went to the rear of the residence and observed the defendant in the driver’s seat. There were no other passengers in the vehicle. Constable Metcalf approached the vehicle as the defendant exited it, and the constable later testified that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol and marijuana as he approached the defendant. Additionally, he stated that the defendant was confused, slurring his speech, and had difficulties with his balance. It was his opinion that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

Constable Metcalf then contacted the Pennsylvania State Police. He was advised that a trooper would not be able to respond immediately because of other investigations. He then called the on-call Adams County Assistant District Attorney, who advised him to detain the defendant for further investigation for suspicion of DUI. Constable Metcalf then detained the defendant, placed him in the rear of his vehicle, and advised him of his Miranda rights. At the subsequent motion to suppress hearing, the constable testified that the defendant was not free to leave. Approximately an hour and a half later, a Pennsylvania State Trooper arrived and took over the investigation. Consequently, the defendant was charged with several counts of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances and various summary traffic violations.

The Motion to Suppress​

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. He argued that any evidence obtained by the troopers ultimately stemmed from an unlawful detention because the constables were not police officers with the power to detain him. The trial court granted in part and denied in part his motion. Specifically, the court granted his motion to suppress statements made by the defendant during his conversation with Constable Metcalf, but it denied his motion to suppress all other DUI-related evidence that was acquired by the Pennsylvania State Police. Subsequently, the defendant elected to proceed by way of a non-jury trial which resulted in him being found guilty on one count of DUI.

After finding the defendant guilty, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a county intermediate punishment sentence of 60 months, six months of which were to be served in a restrictive setting. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. Specifically, the defendant alleged that the trial court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress because the constables illegally detained him.

What is a constable and what authority does a constable have to make arrests?

If you live in Philadelphia, you may not have ever encountered a constable because the Pennsylvania Legislature abolished constables for cities of the first class such as Philadelphia in 1970. Other counties, however, still use constables. Constables are elected to a six-year position. 

Some of the powers bestowed upon constables are antiquated and not applicable to most of the citizens in the Commonwealth. For example, a constable has the authority to impound trespassing livestock. However, if you live in a borough in Pennsylvania such as New Oxford a constable has considerable power. There, a constable has the power to arrest for a breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous or disorderly conduct, or public drunkenness. Additionally, a constable can arrest anyone who is engaged in an unlawful act that imperils the person’s security or endangers the property of the citizens; or violates any ordinance of the borough for which a fine or penalty is imposed. The “breach of peace” element of the statute is rather broad and can include motor vehicle violations. For example, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that an expired registration sticker is a “breach of the peace” offense.

What is a motion to suppress? ​

A motion to suppress is a motion that asks the trial court to prevent the Commonwealth from using evidence against the defendant because it was illegally obtained by the police. For example, a motion to suppress could be filed alleging that the police stopped the defendant and they did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so. The purpose of a motion to suppress is usually to suppress physical evidence such as contraband like drugs or an illegal gun or incriminating statements made by the defendant. However, a motion to suppress is not limited to just suppressing statements or physical evidence, which is important in a DUI case.

In a DUI case, if the police illegally stop you, you may be able to suppress the police officer’s observations. This is particularly relevant in DUI cases where a police officer will testify to how the defendant acted after he was stopped by the police. For example, an officer might testify to the defendant’s balance; whether he smelled of alcohol or marijuana; whether he had blood shot eyes; how he or she performed during field sobriety tests, and other observations which suggested that the defendant was intoxicated and unsafe to drive. If a defendant in a DUI case was illegally stopped, not only could the defense attorney try to suppress physical evidence like drugs, alcohol, or the defendant’s blood test results, or any incriminating statements, but it also may be possible to suppress the officer’s observations of the defendant. This could be crucial in a DUI trial because a defendant can be found guilty of DUI based on an officer’s observations even if the prosecution does not introduce any drugs or alcohol in its case-in-chief.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. In its opinion, the Superior Court stated that the defendant’s actions amounted to a clear breach of the peace. The Superior Court characterized the defendant’s actions as “patently disruptive, intrusive, and dangerous.” Further, as stated above, motor vehicle violations can qualify as “breaches of the peace,” and the defendant’s actions indisputably qualified as motor vehicle violations. Because a constable has the statutory authority to detain individuals in boroughs for breaches of peace and because the defendant committed these acts in the borough of New Oxford, the defendant was not entitled to relief, and his conviction will stand.

Facing criminal charges? We can help. 

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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, 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 Finds Speculation Insufficient to Prove Mens Rea at Preliminary Hearing

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Wyatt, holding that the trial court properly dismissed involuntary manslaughter, homicide by vehicle, and related charges stemming from a fatal motor vehicle accident where the Commonwealth was able to show only that the defendant caused the accident without explaining how or why. The Superior Court held that the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas correctly granted the defendant’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (also known as a Motion to Quash in Philadelphia) because the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case of the requisite mens rea. This is an excellent case which illustrates that the preliminary hearing is not a mere formality and that the Commonwealth must prove each element of an offense by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes a showing that the defendant acted with criminal intent where required by statute. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to simply prove that something bad happened and that the defendant was involved.

The Facts of Wyatt 

In Wyatt, the defendant was driving a tractor-trailer southbound on Interstate 380. At around 10 am, the defendant’s truck crossed the median separating the north- and southbound lanes and crashed into oncoming traffic, causing the deaths of three people and serious injuries to five other people. The Commonwealth eventually charged the defendant with aggravated assault by vehicle, homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and other motor vehicle code violations. The defendant waived his preliminary hearing, but he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the case reached the Court of Common Pleas.

What is a petition for writ of habeas corpus?

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is the mechanism by which a defendant may ask the trial court to dismiss the charges prior to trial. It is essentially a motion to dismiss which asks the Court of Common Pleas judge to review the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing and determine that the magisterial district justice in the counties or Municipal Court judge in Philadelphia improperly held the defendant for court on some or all of the charges. The Commonwealth may respond by introducing additional evidence at the hearing on the motion, but most motions rely primarily on the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing.  

In some cases, the petition for writ of habeas corpus results in the preliminary hearing taking place in the Court of Common Pleas instead of at the magisterial district justice level. In Philadelphia, it is unusual to waive the preliminary hearing. Outside of Philadelphia, however, it is not unusual in a serious case to waive the preliminary hearing at the magisterial district court and then litigate a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas. Where the parties have agreed that the defendant may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus after a waiver of the preliminary hearing, the Court of Common Pleas judge will then essentially conduct a preliminary hearing, and the defense may ask the judge to dismiss the charges. That is what happened in this case.

In Philadelphia, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is more commonly called a Motion to Quash. It is essentially the appeal of the Municipal Court Judge’s ruling that the District Attorney’s Office met its burden at the preliminary hearing. The defendant may not argue at a hearing on a Motion to Quash or Habeas Petition that the witnesses were lying, but the defense may argue that the evidence was insufficient and that charges should be dismissed.  

The habeas hearing

At the hearing on the habeas motion, the Commonwealth called the affiant, a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper. The Commonwealth proceeded under a theory that the defendant had acted recklessly in crossing into the wrong lane of traffic and causing the accident. Under Pennsylvania law, the Commonwealth cannot prove the mens rea of recklessness solely by showing that an accident occurred and the defendant may have been to blame. Instead, 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 majority of the charges in this case such as homicide by vehicle and involuntary manslaughter required the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant at least acted recklessly. At the hearing on the motion, the Commonwealth argued that the defendant must have acted recklessly because the investigators were able to rule out most potential causes of the accident. For example, the trooper testified that the weather was fine and there was no evidence of a mechanical failure. The trooper also testified that the defendant had potentially received but not responded to text messages and that he had unrestrained dogs in the cabin of the truck. Other evidence showed that the defendant was not speeding, had not been driving erratically, and that he did not have any medical incidents and was not eating food or drinking at the time. The scene also did not reveal braking or skid-marks.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth argued that the lack of bad weather and mechanical failures, combined with the fact that the defendant had two dogs in the cabin, crossed into the other lane of traffic, and had potentially received text messages, circumstantially gave rise to an inference that the defendant must have acted recklessly. Without any concrete explanation as to why the defendant crossed into the wrong lane, the trial court found that prosecutors were merely guessing at the defendant’s intent and that they had failed to prove that the defendant acted recklessly - meaning they could not prove that he consciously disregarded a known risk.  

The Superior Court Appeal

The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal of the charges to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the charges on appeal. The court found that neither negligence nor the mere occurrence of an accident, even a fatal accident, without more, is sufficient to prove recklessness even at the preliminary hearing or habeas petition level. There was simply no evidence as to what caused the accident. The Commonwealth proved only that the defendant caused a tragic accident by crossing into the wrong lane of traffic; it completely failed to prove what caused him to do that. Therefore, the Commonwealth was unable to meet its burden of proving that the defendant did it with recklessness or any other level of criminal intent. Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the charges.  

Does the Commonwealth have to prove a mens rea at the preliminary hearing?

There is often a rush to prosecute someone who may have caused a fatal accident solely because of the headlines and other media attention that this type of accident may receive. This case, fortunately, shows that automobile accidents generally do not give rise to criminal charges where the Commonwealth cannot show that something more than a true accident occurred. Crimes require both that the defendant did something and usually that the defendant acted with criminal intent, and this requirement applies both at the trial level and at a preliminary hearing. This case re-establishes that accidents are not always criminal and that the Commonwealth must provide some evidence of each element of an offense even with the reduced burden it must meet at the preliminary hearing or habeas hearing. It also illustrates the importance of speaking with an attorney prior to giving a statement to law enforcement. In this case, the defendant did not say anything to police that could have later been used against him. Had he admitted to texting, not paying attention, or driving while tired, the outcome of the case could have been very different.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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. In just the past few months, we have won motions to suppress in cases involving drug possession, gun possession, and Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). We have also successfully obtained full acquittals, dismissals, and other successful results in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Homicide. 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 Supreme Court: Concerns About Officer Safety Do Not Justify Suspicionless Seizure of Motorist

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

It should go without saying that the police cannot stop, search, and interrogate people without a warrant or some prior observation of potential ongoing criminal activity. Nonetheless, trial and appellate courts throughout the state  state of Pennsylvania often attempt to justify coercive police detentions which occurred without reasonable suspicion or probable cause by finding that the police did not actually “stop” the defendant for Fourth Amendment purposes.

If the court can find that the police conducted a mere encounter and had to take some common sense steps to ensure officer safety, the court may try to justify a decision denying a motion to suppress. Unfortunately, many of these opinions ignore the fact that when a police officer approaches a person and begins asking questions or issuing commands, that person would never reasonably feel free to terminate the encounter and leave without following the orders of the officer.

In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Adams, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated once again that police cannot conduct a stop without reasonable suspicion, and a stop occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to some action taken by the officer. Further, there is no reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop when the suspect has done nothing more than park his or her car in a commercial parking lot late at night despite the fact that it may be a little bit unusual to park there. Instead, police must have specific, articulable facts from which they can conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and those facts must be based on more than mere speculation. Only then may police conduct a stop and potentially take actions related to officer safety such as frisking the defendant or limiting the defendant’s freedom of movement in some way.

Commonwealth v. Adams

In the case of Commonwealth v. Adams, a Pleasant Hills, PA police officer was on routine patrol at around 3 am. He observed a white Dodge Dart enter a parking lot that served two closed businesses - a hobby store and a pizza shop. The car drove behind the buildings. The officer waited to see if the car came back and left the lot, but it did not. The officer then drove behind the parking lot to locate the vehicle because he wanted to “simply check why a car drove behind two dark, closed businesses” at 3 am. He testified at a motion to suppress hearing that he recognized the potential for drug activity or an attempted burglary.

After driving behind the buildings, the officer saw the car parked behind the pizza shop. The car was off. There were no “no parking signs” behind the building, but there were also no marked parking spaces. The officer did not believe that this area would generally be used as public parking. Instead, he believed that it could be an area for deliveries and employee parking.

Despite having seen nothing more than a car parking in a parking lot early in the morning, the officer pulled his marked police cruiser behind the car. He did not activate his lights or sirens, but he did call for backup. Prior to backup arriving, he exited his police car and walked up to the parked vehicle. He shined his flashlight into the vehicle as he approached. When he reached the driver’s side door, he knocked on the window. The defendant, who was seated in the driver’s seat, opened the car door. The officer physically closed the car door himself, preventing the defendant from getting out of the car. He instructed the defendant to lower the window, and the defendant explained that he could not do so because he did not have the keys to the car. The officer, however, could see the keys on the floor in the back of the car. The officer then remained outside of the car until backup arrived, which was approximately a minute later.

Once backup arrived, the officer opened the defendant’s door and began to speak with him. The defendant told him that he owned the pizza shop and had just come from inside. Obviously, this was not true. The officer smelled alcohol on the defendant’s breath and asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant complied and “failed.” From there, things deteriorated until the defendant was eventually formally arrested and charged with DUI.

The Motion to Suppress

Following the filing of DUI charges against him, the defendant filed a motion to suppress. He argued that the police officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The trial court heard the motion to suppress and denied it, finding that the interaction between the defendant and the officer was only a mere encounter which did not require any level of suspicion. The court found that the officer was justified in preventing the defendant from opening the door by concerns about officer safety because the officer was alone, it was late at night, and the defendant was physically bigger than the officer. With the motion to suppress denied, the court found the defendant guilty at a bench trial of DUI and sentenced him to six months of probation.

The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. The Court agreed with the trial court, essentially finding that the police officer conducted only a mere encounter with the defendant and that even if it was a Terry stop, the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the defendant’s behavior and statements. The defendant filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed to accept the case.

What is a Petition for Allowance of Appeal?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not hear most cases. When a defendant is convicted and wishes to appeal, the defendant’s appeal is generally to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court is required to consider all timely-filed appeals and address issues which were not waived in the trial court. If the Superior Court denies the appeal, then the defendant may then file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Unlike Superior Court, the Supreme Court does not have to hear every case. Instead, the court chooses a limited number of cases in which it feels that there is an important or novel issue of law in question or where it believes the Superior Court has made a significant error. Thus, when a defendant loses in the Superior Court, the defendant may file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that court to review the ruling of the Superior Court. Most of these Petitions are denied, but in this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to accept the appeal.

The Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that both the trial court and Superior Court erred in finding that the police officer did not “stop” the defendant for Fourth Amendment purposes and that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop. First, the Court explained the standards for the three types of encounters between police officers and members of the public. The lowest level of interaction is a mere encounter. A mere encounter does not require a warrant or any level of suspicion, and police may simply walk up to any person and try to talk to them. The police may not do anything to restrict the person’s freedom of movement or require compliance during a mere encounter, but nothing stops an officer from trying to talk to someone.

The second level of interaction is an investigative detention or Terry stop. This type of encounter is something less than an arrest, but it allows police to investigate potential criminal activity. A Terry stop occurs when the police do something to indicate that the person would not be free to leave. For example, telling someone to stop, frisking them, or restricting their freedom of movement could result in a Terry stop. A Terry stop must be relatively brief or it could turn into a full blown arrest and require probable cause. During a Terry stop, police may sometimes take precautions to ensure their own safety such as frisking a suspect or requiring the suspect to remain in his or her vehicle. However, police may not engage in a Terry stop or take these safety precautions unless they have reasonable suspicion for the stop. The reasonable suspicion standard requires police to show that they have specific, articulable facts which would indicate to a reasonable officer that criminal activity is afoot.

The most restrictive level of interaction is a custodial detention. A custodial detention is the functional equivalent of an arrest and must be supported by probable cause. A custodial detention also constitutes a seizure. A police encounter is more likely to be considered a custodial detention if it is prolonged, takes place at the police station, involves handcuffs, or if the police tell the suspect that he or she is under arrest.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts made a mistake in finding that the interaction between the officer and the defendant was only a mere encounter. Instead, the Court concluded that the defendant would not have felt free to leave, and in fact could not leave, when the officer parked behind him, exited his car, shined his flash light into the defendant’s car, and physically closed the defendant’s door when the defendant attempted to get out of the car. Thus, in addition to not feeling free to leave, the defendant physically could not leave because the officer prevented him from doing so.

Because the Court concluded that the officer conducted an investigative detention by seizing the defendant and preventing him from exiting the car, the subsequent observations of the officer would be admissible as evidence at trial only if the officer had reasonable suspicion to conclude that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity prior to the officer’s decision to shut the defendant’s car door. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion because the officer had seen the defendant do nothing more than park in a public parking lot. While it was slightly unusual that the defendant chose to park in an empty lot behind two buildings at 3 am, it was not necessarily criminal. There was no evidence in the record that the parking lot was closed to members of the public at that time, and so the officer was not justified in believing that the defendant was going to commit a crime such as engage in a drug transaction or commit a burglary. Therefore, the Court ruled that the lower courts should have granted the motion to suppress.

This decision is particularly important because the Court stressed the fact that not every police action can be justified by merely reciting the magic words “officer safety.” If the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop, then the officer might have been justified in physically closing the door and restricting the defendant to his car. But the officer safety issue only comes into play after it has been determined that police have reasonable suspicion. Concerns about officer safety do not transform an otherwise illegal stop into a legal one. Thus, whether police may frisk a defendant or take other steps out of concerns for officer safety is a two-part test. First, the police must actually have reasonable suspicion. Second, they must reasonably believe that some action like a frisk or closing the car door is necessary for safety reasons. If they cannot satisfy both parts of this test, then the subsequently-obtained evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. This is a great opinion for privacy rights because it establishes that police cannot just stop and detain people on a whim or a mere hunch. They must be able to point to actual evidence of criminal activity, and simply reciting the phrase officer safety does not transform a constitutional violation into a legitimate stop.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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. In just the past few months, we have won motions to suppress in cases involving drug possession, gun possession, and Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). We have also successfully obtained full acquittals, dismissals, and other successful results in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Homicide. 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. 

Motion to Suppress Granted: Attorney Goldstein Wins Dismissal of Possession with the Intent to Deliver Charges

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein recently won a motion to suppress for a client charged with Possession with the Intent to Deliver a large amount of marijuana and related charges. Because the suppression of the evidence resulted in all of the marijuana and paraphernalia being excluded from introduction at trial, the Commonwealth was then forced to dismiss all of the charges against the client without obtaining any convictions.

In Commonwealth v. E.C., Philadelphia Police Officers pulled E.C. over in Southwest Philadelphia after allegedly observing him making an abrupt left turn without using his turn signal. Although E.C. stopped right away, police searched his car shortly after pulling him over. They claimed that they could smell marijuana coming from the car. This claim, if believed by a judge, would result in police having probable cause to search the car for marijuana despite the fact that Philadelphia no longer prosecutes most marijuana-related offenses.

Officers claimed that after they obtained E.C.’s paperwork for the car, they told him that they were going to search the car due to the odor of marijuana. In response, E.C. told the police that he had weed in his pants. Police then searched him and found a small amount of weed. When they searched the rest of the car, they found more marijuana, drug paraphernalia indicative of an intent to sell the marijuana such as scales and new and unused packaging, and a significant amount of cash. Police arrested E.C., and prosecutors charged him with Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Knowing and Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

Fortunately, E.C. retained criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein shortly after the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein reviewed the discovery and the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing and quickly realized that because of the amount of marijuana and paraphernalia found in the car, the defense to these charges would have to be a motion to suppress. Further, because the officers claimed in their paperwork to have smelled marijuana, Attorney Goldstein realized that he would have to convince the trial judge that the officers had not actually smelled marijuana and instead had conducted a warrantless search without probable cause. Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion.

At the motions hearing, the Commonwealth called one of the police officers to testify to the circumstances of the vehicle stop and the search. That officer testified mostly consistently with the paperwork. However, Attorney Goldstein was able to show through cross-examination that it was unlikely that the officers would have smelled marijuana because of the way in which the weed was packaged. Additionally, when the Commonwealth rested, Mr. Goldstein then called the officer’s partner to testify to see whether her version of events matched her partner’s version. On cross-examination, the partner testified that although she had also participated in the vehicle stop and search of the car, she had not smelled the marijuana that her partner had claimed to smell. Faced with this conflicting testimony about whether there was an actual odor of marijuana which would justify the officers’ subsequent commands and search, the trial judge found the officers not credible and granted the motion to suppress. The prosecution moved to withdraw the charges, and E.C. will be eligible to have his record expunged.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Aggravated Assault, 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.