Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/25/19 Zak Goldstein 12/25/19

PA Superior Court: Constructive Possession Allows for Firearms Conviction Even When Firearm Not Immediately Accessible

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Gomez, affirming the defendant’s conviction for gun charges even though the gun was not on him and was not immediately accessible to him because it was in a locked safe. The Court also affirmed the defendant’s conviction for receiving stolen property with respect to the firearm, which had been reported stolen, because it found that the circumstances showed a guilty conscience on the part of the defendant. This second part of the holding is important because it highlights the fact that mere possession of stolen property, including a gun, cannot support a conviction for theft or receiving stolen property. Instead, a defendant must have knowledge that the property was stolen.

Commonwealth v. Gomez

The defendant was stopped in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania while operating his vehicle. After he was stopped, he repeatedly refused to provide his license, registration, and insurance information. The defendant was not the sole occupant in the car as there were two other individuals in the car with him. According to the officers, the defendant and his companions were making furtive movements and were acting “strangely.” Specifically, the defendant called his attorney and also invited people on social media to come witness the stop by the police. His companions were flailing their hands and kicking bags. Based on these actions, the officers stated that they believed they were in danger. After repeatedly asking the defendant and his companions to exit the vehicle, the officers broke the window and physically removed them from the car.

The police then searched the vehicle. They found and recovered two firearms that had the defendant’s DNA on them. These firearms had previously been reported stolen. One of the firearms was recovered in a locked safe, while the other was found in the front center console. Also, the key to the safe was found on the defendant’s key ring. In addition to the firearms, the police also recovered heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine, suboxone, marijuana, and other drug paraphernalia. The defendant was arrested and subsequently charged with possession with the intent to deliver (hereinafter “PWID”), various charges under the uniform firearms act (including persons not to possess a firearm (hereinafter “VUFA 6105”), receiving stolen property, and several traffic related offenses.

The Commonwealth chose to proceed under a bifurcated trial for the charges against the defendant. Specifically, the Commonwealth elected to try the defendant under the VUFA 6105 cases first and then would try him under the remaining charges. The reason the Commonwealth would do this is because they are then allowed to introduce the defendant’s prior conviction showing that he is prohibited from possessing a firearm. In the defendant’s case, he had a prior conviction for PWID which made him ineligible to possess a firearm.

The defendant chose a jury trial for the VUFA 6015 charges. At his trial, the above-mentioned facts were presented as well as his prior PWID convictions. Following the presentation of the evidence, the jury was instructed on the relevant law. Notably, defense counsel did not make any objections. At the conclusion of deliberations, the defendant was found guilty of the two charges. A few months later, the defendant proceeded with a bench trial on his remaining charges. The defendant stipulated to all the evidence presented at his previous trial. He was found guilty of the remaining charges. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to 12.5-25 years of state incarceration. The defendant then filed a timely post-sentence motion which was denied. The defendant then filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, the defendant made three arguments: first, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew the weapons were stolen; second, that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he had actual possession of the gun that was found in the safe (he did not appeal his conviction for the firearm found in the center console); and finally that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury regarding possession of the firearm. For purposes of this blog, only the defendant’s second argument will be addressed.

Can I Be Convicted of a Possessory Offense Even if I am Not Actually Holding the Contraband?

Yes. You can still be convicted of a possessory offense even if you are not in actual physical possession of the contraband. Constructive possession is a legal term of art that allows a trier of fact to find that a defendant was in possession of the contraband even when they are not physically controlling it. To find that someone “constructively possessed” contraband, the finder of fact will analyze the facts to determine if the totality of the circumstances shows that the defendant was the possessor of the contraband. The trier of fact is allowed to rely on circumstantial evidence in making its decision too.

How Can a Prosecutor Prove that I Knew an Object Was Stolen?

Mere possession of a stolen good is not sufficient to convict a defendant of RSP. A prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the object was stolen or should have known that it was. To prove this, a prosecutor, like he can to prove possession, can use circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant knew or should have known an item was stolen. Prosecutors will often use the timing of a stolen good to show that a defendant had knowledge that it was stolen. For example, let’s assume that someone reports their car stolen at 12:00 PM. If a defendant was seen with the vehicle at 12:30 PM, a prosecutor can argue that he stole the car (or at the very least knew it was stolen) given the length of time between when the car was reported stolen and when the defendant was seen with it. This is just one example. Prosecutors can also argue that a defendant’s statement, how he was acting when he was arrested, alterations to the object, etc. can be sufficient proof to show that the defendant knew or should have known the object in question was stolen.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for illegally possessing the firearm in the safe. Regarding whether the evidence was sufficient to find that the defendant possessed the firearm, the court analyzed the facts of the case. The Superior Court found that even though that the gun was in the safe, and not immediately accessible to him, there was sufficient evidence to show that it was his firearm. Specifically, the defendant’s DNA was on the gun; he was in possession of the key to the safe where the gun was found; and the gun was found in his vehicle. As such, the Superior Court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of illegally possessing the gun in the safe.

Additionally, the defendant’s other issues that he raised on appeal were also rejected. The Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he knew or should have known that the firearms were stolen. The Superior Court agreed with the defendant’s argument that there was not any direct evidence presented at trial that he knew the guns were stolen. However, the Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he knew or should have known they were stolen. In support of this, the Superior Court referenced the defendant’s prior convictions showing that he was not eligible to possess the firearms and his actions during the traffic stop. The Superior Court conceded “that this is not evidence that he knew the firearms in his possession were stolen…Nevertheless, these circumstances are sufficient to enable a fact-finder to infer that [the] defendant believed that the firearms were probably stolen.” Accordingly, he will be forced to serve his sentence and will not get a new sentencing hearing or a new trial.

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, 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.

Zak Goldstein 12/22/19 Zak Goldstein 12/22/19

PA Superior Court Reverses Theft Conviction Due to Insufficient Proof of Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Vallespil, holding that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime unless the Commonwealth proves that the offense took place in Pennsylvania. In this case, the prosecution simply failed to introduce any evidence whatsoever as to where the theft crime took place.

Commonwealth v. Maldonado-Vallespil

On October 31, 2017, the defendant contacted the complainant. The defendant had been working for the complainant, but on this day, he told the complainant that he would not be working for him anymore. On that same day, the complainant arrived at work and noticed that some of his tools were missing. The complainant then contacted the police. Shortly after the police arrived, the complainant called the defendant with the police present and asked that he return the tools. The defendant admitted to previously having the tools, but he said that he had sold them. The defendant stated he would need to speak with the buyer of the tools to get them back. The Commonwealth never introduced any evidence as to where the defendant was at the time of the call or where the complainant had last seen the tools.

The police told the defendant that he needed to return the tools the following day. No charges were filed that evening so that the defendant would have time to get the tools back. The defendant then reached out to the complainant requesting more time, but his request was denied. The defendant subsequently failed to return the tools. The defendant was then arrested and charged with theft from a motor vehicle, receiving stolen property, and theft by unlawful taking. The defendant elected to have a jury trial.

At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s case, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to establish jurisdiction. Following argument, the trial court denied that motion. At the conclusion of the defense’s case, defense counsel again moved for a judgment of acquittal, but again his motion was denied. After deliberations, the jury acquitted the defendant of all charges except receiving stolen property. On that charge, the defendant was then subsequently sentenced to one to five years in a state correctional facility. The defendant filed a timely appeal. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the Commonwealth failed to establish the location of the criminal act.

Why does the location of the crime matter?

The reason it matters is because in Pennsylvania (and everywhere else in the United States), a person can only be convicted for a crime in the state in which they committed said crime. In Pennsylvania, jurisdiction is governed by 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 102. Specifically, §102(a)(1) states that an individual can only be convicted if “the conduct of which is an element of the offense or the result which is such an element that occurs within this Commonwealth.” Further, in Pennsylvania, it is not enough that the crime took place in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth must also establish the particular county in which the crime occurred because district attorneys only have jurisdiction to prosecute cases that occurred in their particular county. In other words, if a defendant commits a crime in Philadelphia, the District Attorney for Bucks County ordinarily cannot prosecute the case unless certain exceptions apply. This is why, if you have ever watched a preliminary hearing in Philadelphia, one of the first questions a prosecutor will ask is whether a particular location is in the city and county of Philadelphia. The reason they do that is so they can establish jurisdiction.

The Superior Court’s Decision

In a divided opinion, the Superior Court held that the Commonwealth failed to establish jurisdiction and thus the defendant’s conviction must be vacated. In its opinion, the Superior Court carefully analyzed the trial record. After doing so, the Superior Court found that “nowhere in the testimony presented at trial is there any indication that [the defendant] or the tools were within the Commonwealth when [he] ‘received, retained, or disposed’ the tools.” More specifically, the Superior Court stated “the Commonwealth never established the defendant’s location, at the time he received, retained or disposed of the tools.” As such, the defendant’s conviction will be vacated, and he will not be subjected to another trial.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Theft Defense Lawyers

Zak Goldstein 12/11/19 Zak Goldstein 12/11/19

Can My Probation Officer Search My House Without a Warrant?

Can A Probation Officer Search My House While I Am On Probation or Parole?

An issue that frequently comes up when litigating motions to suppress in drug and weapons cases is whether the police or probation department need a search warrant to search the house of a someone who is on probation or parole. In general, both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions require law enforcement officers to get a search warrant before conducting a search of a private residence. However, there are a few limited exceptions to this rule, and two of those exceptions apply to people who are on probation or parole.

Probation Officers May Conduct Limited Home Visits

First, a probation or parole officer may conduct a limited home visit of a probationer’s home without a warrant as part of the conditions of probation or parole. The probationer may be lawfully compelled to show the probation officer around the house, and if the officer sees anything incriminating in plain view, these items can be used against the probationer. Evidence such as drugs, guns, or other contraband may be used to establish violations of the terms of the supervision or to bring new criminal charges.

Probation Officers Do Not Need A Search Warrant - But They Do Need Reasonable Suspicion

Second, the probation officer may conduct a full search of a probationer’s house where the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there may be contraband in the house. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, and the officer is not first required to obtain a warrant before conducting the search. Instead, the officer must simply get authorization from a supervisor. Although probation officers may use these exceptions either to conduct a home visit or search based on reasonable suspicion, they are not allowed to act as a “stalking horse” for or at the direction of the police department or other law enforcement agencies who wish to use the probation as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search.

For both types of searches, probation officers may typically search the entire house. The search is not limited to the room in which the probationer stays. This is because the owner of the house will generally sign a release prior to the probationer or parolee being allowed to stay in the house. In some cases, however, it may be possible to challenge the scope of an overly broad search with respect to a defendant other than the probationer.

Recent Caselaw on Probation and Parole Searches in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently considered these exceptions in the case of Commonwealth v. Parker, 2016 Pa Super 280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). In Parker, the Superior Court upheld the ability for probation officers to search a probationer’s home without any prior allegation of wrongdoing by the probationer, reversing the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress crack cocaine which was allegedly found in Mr. Parker’s home.

When Parker was released from custody on a prior case, he agreed to the standard terms and conditions of probation to which many defendants must agree in counties through Pennsylvania. Specifically, he agreed to allow his probation officer to visit his home at any time to confirm compliance with the conditions of supervision. He also agreed that he would not possess any contraband and that he would permit the officer to search his home and vehicle based upon reasonable suspicion that contraband could be found.

The case began when probation officers arrived at Parker’s home to conduct a home visit. Upon entering the house, they noticed, “apparently in plain view, clear, empty, corner-cut baggies; cigar packages, which were opened and discarded on the floor; and small rubber bands.” The officers believed from past experiences that such items are commonly used for drug distribution, and they also observed a shotgun in an open closet in the kitchen. The officers then went up to Parker’s room, where they found bullets, knives, and a bong all in plain view. The probation officers contacted police officers. The police officers came to the scene, but they opted not to obtain a warrant and left. The probation officers then contacted a supervisor, who authorized a search of the home, and the probation officers proceeded to find cocaine in the refrigerator. At that point, the officers called the police back to Parker’s home, and the police arrested Parker.

Grounds for the Motion to Suppress the Results of the Probation Search

Parker moved to suppress all the items, arguing that the probation officers conducted an illegal search by entering his home without reasonable suspicion and that they should have obtained a warrant before searching the refrigerator. Parker also alleged that the probation officers had used their authority to evade the warrant requirement and act as a “stalking horse” for the local police department. Parker’s attorneys suggested that the police wanted to conduct a search but did not have the probable cause necessary for a warrant.

The trial court rejected the argument that the probation officers could not enter the home to conduct a basic tour and observe any contraband in plain view, but the trial court ruled that the officers should have obtained a search warrant before searching the refrigerator. Because the officers had already called the police to the scene, they did, in effect, act as agents of the police department, and therefore, they should have obtained a warrant before finding the cocaine in the refrigerator.

Standards for Probation Searches

The Superior Court reversed the suppression of the cocaine and reaffirmed the prior decisions which set these standards. The Superior Court concluded that first, under existing caselaw, probation officers may lawfully conduct a home visit, tour the house, and seize any evidence of contraband which is in plain view. Second, once the probation officers find drug packaging, weapons, and bullets which have been left out in the open, the officers do not have to obtain a warrant to search the rest of the house because they have reasonable suspicion that other contraband might be found. Third, the court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the probation department had acted as a stalking horse for the police department because there was no evidence at the motion to suppress that the police had in any way directed the search. Accordingly, the court ruled that the full search of the house was permitted despite the absence of a warrant.

There Are Limits on Probation and Parole Officers

Although the Superior Court ultimately ruled against Mr. Parker, the decision does show that even though defendants who are on probation at the time of a search have fewer rights than people who are not on probation, there are still real limits on the ability of a probation officer to search a house. First, the probation officer is limited to walking through the house and viewing only items which are in plain view. The officer cannot show up for a home visit and begin tearing the house apart. Second, the officer must have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a full search without a warrant. This standard requires the officer to point to specific and articulable facts for why the officer believed contraband might be found. The officer cannot conduct a search for drugs simply because the defendant was under supervision for drugs.

Can the Police Search My House If I Am On Probation?

Although probation officers do not need a warrant to search the house of a probationer or parolee, the police cannot use the probation department to evade the warrant requirement and engage in a warrantless search. Unless the evidence is first uncovered by probation officers because it was in plain view during a home visit or because the officers had legitimate reasonable suspicion, police officers must still obtain a search warrant prior to searching the home of someone who is on probation. When the police or probation department violate these rules, the evidence could be excluded following a successful motion to suppress. This rule is called the “stalking horse doctrine.”

Our Philadelphia Probation Lawyers Can Help With Probation Violation Hearings

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Probation Violation Lawyer

Different standards apply to probationers, but law enforcement must still follow the law. If you or someone you know are facing narcotics or weapons charges for drugs or other contraband found in your house, car, or on or near your person, you need the advice of a skilled criminal defense lawyer immediately. Critical exculpatory evidence and witnesses could be lost due to delay, and there may very well be defenses ranging from a motion to suppress due to an illegal search to a lack of evidence of constructive or actual possession. We have even won motions to suppress significant quantities of drugs and guns due to illegal parole searches. Contact the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC at 267-225-2545 for a free, confidential, and honest case evaluation.

Zak Goldstein 12/9/19 Zak Goldstein 12/9/19

Can Federal Agents Force You to Give up Your Computer Password?

Whether the government can force a suspect in a criminal investigation to provide the password to a computer or cell phone is an issue which frequently comes up in cases involving illegal pornographic material and other computer crimes. As a general rule, the Fifth Amendment provides the right against self-incrimination, meaning the government cannot compel a suspect or criminal defendant to say something which could lead to criminal liability. However, there are a number of exceptions to this blanket rule, and whether or not the exceptions apply could depend on whether you are being investigated with a crime by federal agents or local police or charged with an offense in state or federal court. This article focuses on a recent Third Circuit decision which allowed federal prosecutors to compel the production of a computer password from a suspect. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, has found that a state court may not issue such an order as doing so would violate the Fifth Amendment.

United States v. Apple MacPro Computer

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that in at least some circumstances, the police may obtain a court order requiring an individual to produce the password to a computer, hard drive, or cell phone. In United States v. Apple MacPro Computer, the Third Circuit upheld a contempt citation issued against a suspect (John Doe) who was being investigated for child pornography due to the Doe’s refusal to produce the password to certain hard drives which investigators recovered pursuant to a search warrant.

The procedural history of the case is a little bit convoluted, but the facts are fairly straight-forward. During a child pornography investigation, Delaware County investigators executed a search warrant on Doe’s residence. They recovered a number of phones, computers, and hard drives. Federal agents subsequently obtained a search warrant to examine the seized devices. Doe provided the password for one of the phones, but he refused to provide the passwords to various other devices. Forensic examination of one of Doe’s computers showed evidence that the computer had been used to access child pornography, but investigators were not able to view the full contents of the computer without the password because of encryption on the device.

In addition to seizing and examining the computers, the Delaware County investigators interviewed Doe’s sister. Doe’s sister confirmed that she had previously lived with Doe and Doe had actually shown her hundreds of images of child pornography on the encrypted hard drives. She also told investigators that Doe had videos of children engaged in sex acts on the devices.

Based on this showing, the federal investigators obtained an order under the All Writs Act compelling Doe to provide the relevant passwords. The All Writs Act is a relatively obscure federal statute which gained notoriety during the investigation of the San Bernadino terrorist attack when the FBI sought to compel Apple to unlock the attacker’s iPhone. It permits federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Under the Act, federal courts may issue orders “as may be necessary or appropriate to effective and prevent the frustration of” previously issued orders in cases in which the court already had jurisdiction.

Doe filed a Motion to Quash the order, arguing that the order violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The federal court denied the Motion to Quash and directed Doe to unlock the devices for the investigators. Doe did not appeal, but he refused to unlock some of the devices, claiming that he had forgotten the passwords. He was eventually held in contempt by the District Court, and the Court ordered that he remain in federal custody until he was willing to unlock the devices.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Due to the unusual procedural posture of the case, the Third Circuit applied a highly deferential plain error standard of review to the District Court’s decision. First, the Third Circuit panel found that the District Court had properly issued the order under the All Writs Act. Second, the Third Circuit agreed that ordering Doe to unlock the phone would not violate his Fifth Amendment rights because of the “foregone conclusion” exception to the Fifth Amendment. Noting that the Fifth Amendment applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating, the Third Circuit recognized that the mere act of producing evidence such as a physical object or some type of records in response to a subpoena or court order can be incriminating because the act of production concedes the existence of the evidence and the possession and control thereof by the defendant. In that situation, the Fifth Amendment applies and would prevent compelled production of evidence.

What is the foregone conclusion doctrine?

However, there is also a “foregone conclusion” exception. The Fifth Amendment does not protect an act of production when the existence, custody, and authenticity of the evidence is a “foregone conclusion” that “adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information.” Thus, because the government could prove through the forensic examination of the devices and the testimony of Doe’s sister that 1) the devices existed and the Government already had custody of them, 2) Doe possessed, accessed, and owned all the devices, and 3) there was child pornography on the devices, the foregone conclusion doctrine applied. Therefore, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s finding of contempt.

As the case makes clear, the issue of whether a suspect or criminal defendant can be compelled to produce a password is not totally settled, and it depends heavily on the facts involved. In cases where the government can prove that the defendant had ownership of the devices and used them to view child pornography or that they contain some other critical evidence, the government may be able to punish a defendant who refuses to unlock the device. However, in many cases, this will be a difficult showing for the government to make as the government will not often have witnesses like Doe’s sister who observed the defendant viewing the child pornography or damaging admissions from the defendant about who owned the devices. Likewise, it is very important that the government was able to determine that the devices contained contraband even on the unencrypted portions of the drives.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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, 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.