Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
PA Supreme Court: Police May Often Search Commercial Trucks Without a Warrant
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Maguire, holding that individuals engaged in highly regulated commercial activities such as commercial trucking are not entitled to the same constitutional safeguards as the general public. This decision is highly relevant to those engaged in the trucking industry because it permits the government to set up checkpoints that would normally not be constitutional if they were designed to stop and search the general public. Therefore, those who are employed in this industry must be especially careful when engaged in commercial activities.
Commonwealth v. Maguire
On May 20, 2015, the Pennsylvania State Police and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter “DEP”) set up a commercial vehicle inspection program in accordance with 75 Pa.C.S. § 4704 which permits the police to set up a “systematic vehicle inspection program…to determine whether they meet standards established in department regulations.” The inspection was scheduled one month in advance, and it occurred at a Clinton County landfill located in McElhatten, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State Trooper Beaver, a motor vehicle enforcement officer, and a motor carrier enforcement supervisor comprised the team that conducted the checkpoint inspections. This team was stationed in a lot in front of the scale house near the entrance of the landfill.
This team established and utilized a procedure where the first team member available would stop the next truck entering the landfill. At approximately 2:50 PM, it was Trooper Beaver’s turn to inspect a truck when he observed the defendant driving his truck. Trooper Beaver exited his vehicle and motioned for the defendant to pull into the lot where the team was located. The defendant complied with his request. Trooper Beaver then engaged the defendant in conversation and asked him to provide him with documents pertinent to the truck and its operation. While speaking with the defendant, Trooper Beaver detected smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath. He then reviewed the defendant’s documents and did a walk-around inspection of the truck.
Following the inspection, Trooper Beaver had the defendant exit the truck and told him that he smelled of alcohol and asked whether he had been drinking. The defendant stated he had one beer prior to his trip to the landfill. At this point, Trooper Beaver noticed a cooler on the floor of the truck near the gearshift. Inside this cooler, he saw three Busch light beers and two bottles of water. The defendant was then asked to perform a field sobriety test, which he failed. The defendant was then placed under arrest and transported to the Jersey Shore Hospital for blood testing. He was subsequently charged with DUI and five other counts of unlawful activities.
The Motion to Suppress
The defendant then filed a motion to suppress the evidence. In his motion to suppress, the defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because Trooper Beaver and his team did not comply with the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines which were promulgated to test the constitutionality of systematic, police-conducted vehicle checkpoints which were used to stop members of the general public (specifically for DUI’s). The trial court held a hearing at which Trooper Beaver was the only witness to testify. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered the parties to submit post-hearing briefs. The Commonwealth filed a brief arguing that the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines are inapplicable to the commercial vehicle safety checkpoints that were used in the instant case. The trial court agreed with the defendant and granted his motion to suppress. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal.
On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth. The Superior Court held that the Tarber/Blouse guidelines did not apply to a checkpoint for commercial vehicles. Instead, the trial court should have analyzed the checkpoint under the factors discussed in the United States Supreme Court’s case in New York v. Burger (these are guidelines that are directed at commercial related activities). Based on these Burger factors, the Superior Court held that the search was constitutional and reversed the trial court. The defendant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.
What are the Tarbert/Blouse Guidelines?
The Tarbert/Blouse guidelines are factors that a court uses to determine whether a checkpoint is constitutional. Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police stop you at one of these checkpoints, this is technically a seizure. These checkpoints are commonly used to deter and arrest people who are suspected of driving under the influence. Pennsylvania appellate courts have held that these checkpoints are constitutional, so long as they sufficiently comply with the Tarbert/ Blouse guidelines.
According to the guidelines:
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.
It is important to remember that it is not required that all of these guidelines are present. Rather, they are just guidelines to determine whether the checkpoint in question is sufficiently compliant with the constitution.
What are the Burger Factors?
The Burger Court recognized owners of a commercial business or vehicle in a closely regulated industry have a substantially reduced expectation of privacy, and therefore, the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements are lower for these individuals. Therefore, a warrantless inspection is constitutional if: 1) there is a substantial governmental interest informing the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection was made; 2) warrantless inspections are necessary to advance the regulatory scheme; and 3) the statute’s inspection program is applied with such certainty and regularity as to prove a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision and held that the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines were not applicable to the instant case. The Court reasoned that when the defendant was stopped, he was engaged in the trucking business, which is a closely regulated industry. Additionally, the Court stated that “owners of certain closely regulated businesses should expect that their businesses would be subject to warrantless administrative searches.” Therefore, the defendant had a reduced expectation of privacy when he was engaged in his trucking business. As such, his case will be remanded to the trial court and the Commonwealth will be able to use all the evidence that was suppressed in their case against him.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Philadelphia 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.
Note: Goldstein Mehta LLC’s Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog was recently recognized as one of the Top 50 Criminal Defense Blogs on the web by Feedspot.com. We greatly appreciate this recognition.
PA Superior Court: Pointing a Gun at Someone May Be Aggravated Assault
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Miller, holding that the trial court properly found the defendant guilty of Aggravated Assault for the act of merely pointing a gun at the complainant. This is a poorly reasoned case which fails to follow the statutory language of the Aggravated Assault statute by allowing a conviction for Aggravated Assault even where the defendant did not actually do anything to try to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant.
The Facts of Miller
In Miller, the defendant became involved in a road range incident with the complainant. The complainant was driving home when he turned onto a street which was blocked by the defendant’s car. The defendant started yelling at the complainant, so the complainant pulled over and got out of his car. The defendant got out of his car, and the two began to argue. The defendant then went back to his car, retrieved a handgun, and pointed it at the complainant’s head with his finger on the trigger. He repeatedly stated things like “What’s your problem now, fucker? I got a gun. I’m going to kill you. I’m going to shoot you.” The complainant put his hands up defensively and said that was not necessary, and the defendant continued to threaten him and say that he should kill him.
At some point, one of the defendant’s friends came out of his house and began yelling at the defendant to put the gun away. He did, but then the two men argued some more. The defendant then started to go back to his car to get the gun again, but the complainant’s wife grabbed the gun and threw it. Police arrested the defendant, and he later yelled “I shoulda just fucking killed them. I shoulda just shot them.” He made a number of other similar statements which did not help his case.
The Criminal Charges
Prosecutors charged the defendant with Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Terroristic Threats, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, Disorderly Conduct, and Harassment. He proceeded by way of jury trial and was found guilty of all charges. The trial judge sentenced him to four to ten years’ incarceration in state prison, and the defendant appealed.
The Superior Court Appeal
On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for Aggravated Assault. Specifically, Aggravated Assault requires either that a defendant cause or attempt to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant. Here, the defendant did not cause serious bodily injury to the complainant because he did not do anything other than point the gun, but the Court found that the conviction could be upheld because he attempted to cause serious bodily injury.
Can you be convicted of a aggravated assault just for pointing a gun at someone?
Sometimes, depending on the facts. Here, the Court upheld the conviction. The Superior Court reasoned that for aggravated assault purposes, an attempt can be found where the accused who possesses the required, specific intent acts in a manner which constitutes a substantial step towards perpetrating a serious bodily injury upon another. Intent ordinarily must be proven through circumstantial evidence and inferred from acts, conduct or attendant circumstances.
Here, the Court found that the jury was free to believe that the defendant meant what he repeatedly said to the complainant: that he intended to shoot him. The threat, in conjunction with the act of pointing the gun at the complainant’s head, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for Aggravated Assault. Further, the encounter was only defused because the neighbor came out and began yelling at the defendant to stop, thus suggesting that the defendant may have carried through with the threat had someone else not intervened. Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction.
Potential Defenses to Aggravated Assault Charges for Pointing a Gun
This really is a bad opinion – Aggravated Assault requires an actual attempt to cause serious bodily injury, and here, it does not appear that anything actually happened which prevented the defendant from causing that serious bodily injury if he wanted to do so. Where a defendant shoots at someone and misses or points a gun at someone who flees and escapes, it may make sense for a court to find that there was sufficient evidence of Aggravated Assault. But where the defendant points the gun at someone and has every opportunity to shoot but does not do so, there should not be a conviction for Aggravated Assault.
In general, Pennsylvania case law now seems to hold that pointing a gun at someone may be Aggravated Assault where there are some intervening circumstances which arguably lead to the defendant deciding not to carry through with the threat. However, where the defendant does nothing more than point the gun at a complainant and then voluntarily stops on his or her own, there is still case law that supports the idea that this type of action should only be a Simple Assault. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania courts often do not take the fact that Aggravated Assault is a first-degree felony seriously enough. This makes it extremely important to hire an experienced criminal defense lawyer if you are facing charges or under investigation for assault.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
Assault Lawyers in 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 at trial and on appeal. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, VUFA, PWID, Rape, and 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 Wins Motion to Quash First-Degree Murder Case
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the dismissal of all charges in a first-degree murder case by successfully litigating a Motion to Quash (also known as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus). In the case of Commonwealth v. M.B., the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge dismissed all of the charges against M.B. after Attorney Goldstein moved for dismissal on the grounds that the Commonwealth had failed to present a prima facie case of the client’s participation in a homicide at the preliminary hearing.
In M.B., prosecutors alleged that the defendant, his brother, and their cousin had been at a block party in Southwest Philadelphia. At some point, the defendant became involved in a verbal argument with the decedent. The defendant’s brother and the man began fighting, and the defendant briefly jumped into the fight. Other partygoers broke up the fight, and the defendant, his brother, and their cousin left. The decedent also left the party shortly thereafter and went home.
A few hours later, the defendant, his brother, and their cousin went to the man’s house, which was not far from where the block party had been taking place. Surveillance video showed them entering the block prior to the shooting and leaving shortly thereafter. Witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing that as they approached the house, the brother told the defendant and the cousin to go sit down across the street, which they did. The brother then knocked on the decedent’s door. The decedent opened the door and began cursing at the brother. The brother pulled out a loaded handgun and shot him one time in the torso, killing him. The brother then crossed the street, and the three of them all left. Surveillance footage showed them walking off of the block together.
Investigators eventually recommended homicide charges against M.B. despite the fact that he had not been the shooter and had done nothing more than wait across the street while his brother went over to the house. They declined to charge the cousin. They also obviously charged the shooter, but they had not located him at the time of M.B.’s preliminary hearing.
The Philadelphia Municipal Court conducted a preliminary hearing in the case against M.B. while M.B. was represented by different counsel, and the Court held M.B. for court on charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy. Essentially, the Commonwealth argued, and the Court agreed, that M.B. must have conspired with his brother to kill the decedent and told his brother where the decedent lived. Therefore, because conspiracy can potentially result in liability for the underlying substantive criminal offense, the Court held M.B. over for trial on the murder and conspiracy charges. If convicted, M.B. would be facing a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole.
M.B. retained Attorney Goldstein following the preliminary hearing. Attorney Goldstein promptly obtained the transcript from the preliminary hearing and filed a Motion to Quash. A Motion to Quash asks the Court of Common Pleas judge to review the findings of the Municipal Court judge or magistrate and dismiss the charges because the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case that the defendant actually committed a crime. Here, the defense argued that M.B. had done nothing more than walk with his brother to the decedent’s house. There was no evidence that M.B. knew what his brother was going to do, encouraged his brother to do it, or had actually been the person who provided his brother with the decedent’s address. Further, the Commonwealth had declined to charge the cousin with the shooting. Thus, the evidence showed that it was just as likely as not that the men had gone over to the house to talk to the decedent and resolve the issues from the block party instead of going there to shoot him. Even if the brother planned to shoot the decedent, there was simply no evidence that M.B. had encouraged or facilitated it in any way. Instead, the evidence suggested that the brother may have gotten mad when the decedent opened the door and began cursing at him and acted on his own.
The Common Pleas judge reviewed the transcript, watched the video from the surveillance cameras, and held a hearing for both sides to make argument. The judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein that the evidence showed only that M.B. had been merely present at the scene of a crime. Under Pennsylvania law, it is well-established that mere presence alone is not enough to infer that a person was part of a criminal conspiracy or intended for the crime to occur. Therefore, the judge dismissed all charges against M.B. in this first-degree murder case.
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 at trial and on appeal. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, VUFA, PWID, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta Rated 2019 Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta Selected to 2019 Super Lawyers
Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. and Demetra P. Mehta, Esq., Criminal Defense Attorneys at Goldstein Mehta LLC, have been named to the 2019 Pennsylvania Rising Stars list. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state.
Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process, which results in a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in their practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.
loading ...
loading ...