Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/9/25 Zak Goldstein 12/9/25

No Forced Abandonment: Superior Court Upholds Recovery of Gun Discarded During Police Chase

Criminal Defense Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire — Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

In a recent published opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a Philadelphia trial judge’s decision to suppress a firearm that the defendant discarded while fleeing from police. The case, Commonwealth v. Joyner, clarifies the line between a mere encounter and an investigatory detention, and it reinforces that evidence abandoned during flight is admissible where police had reasonable suspicion to pursue the defendant before they discarded some kind of contraband.

The Facts of Joyner

The defendant faced charges including prohibited possession of a firearm (VUFA § 6105), carrying without a license (VUFA § 6106), carrying on the streets of Philadelphia (VUFA § 6108), and possession of a controlled substance. Before trial, he moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that his abandonment of the gun was coerced.

At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified that while patrolling a high-crime area, he observed the defendant walking with his right arm stiffened against his side and a heavy, square-shaped object in his pocket that the officer believed was a firearm. When the defendant saw the marked police vehicle, he turned and walked in the opposite direction. The arresting officer pulled alongside him and asked whether he had a gun. The defendant twice said no even though the officer could see an object that looked like a gun and kept walking. As the officer opened his door to get out, the defendant ran. The police chased him, heard the sound of metal hitting the ground, and ultimately recovered a firearm and oxycodone pills.

The defense argued that the defendant had been forced to abandon the contraband by an illegal stop. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer’s questioning escalated the interaction into an unlawful investigatory detention under Commonwealth v. Hicks. It also found that the officer’s conduct coerced the defendant into discarding the gun, requiring suppression under Commonwealth v. Barnett. The prosecution appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court disagreed. It held that the interaction remained a mere encounter up until the moment the defendant fled. The court emphasized several factors:

The interaction occurred in daylight on a public street.
Police did not activate lights or sirens.
No officer exited the car or blocked the defendant’s path until after he ran.
Asking whether someone is carrying a gun does not by itself create a detention.

Because the defendant remained free to leave and in fact chose to leave, the questioning did not constitute a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Once the defendant fled, however, the legal calculus changed. The court held that the arresting officer then had reasonable suspicion to pursue him based on the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances included:

The officer’s observation of a heavy, square object consistent with a firearm.
The high-crime nature of the area.
The defendant’s evasive behavior when he saw police.
His immediate, unprovoked flight when approached by police.

Under well-established Pennsylvania law, unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can supply reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors. Because the officers had reasonable suspicion at the moment of pursuit, the defendant’s abandonment of the gun was not coerced. The firearm was therefore admissible, and the court reversed the grant of the motion to suppress.

The Superior Court distinguished Barnett, noting that in that case police lacked reasonable suspicion when they attempted to stop the defendant. Here, the officer had already developed reasonable suspicion before formal pursuit began.

The Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Joyner reinforces several key principles for suppression litigation in Pennsylvania:

Police may question a person about a firearm without necessarily creating a detention.
Hicks limits firearm-based seizures but does not apply to consensual encounters.
Flight, when combined with other factors, can create reasonable suspicion.
Evidence discarded during a legally justified pursuit is admissible, not forced abandonment.

The case now returns to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings, including potential litigation on an unresolved Miranda issue.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Zak Goldstein 11/18/25 Zak Goldstein 11/18/25

PA Superior Court Holds Physician-Patient Privilege Does Not Apply to Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Introduction

In a recent decision, In the Interest of J.E., 2025 PA Super 245, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed a novel issue of statutory interpretation: whether juvenile delinquency proceedings constitute “civil matters” for the purposes of the physician-patient privilege under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5929. The Court ultimately ruled that while juvenile proceedings are not criminal in nature, they are also not "civil matters" as contemplated by the statute, meaning the privilege does not act as a bar to the admission of medical records in delinquency hearings. Under the statute, the physician-patient privilege only applies to civil matters, so it does not apply in juvenile criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

The case arose from an incident that took place in November 2023, where J.E., a minor, was taken to Lankenau Hospital by his family for a gunshot wound to his left hand. During his treatment, J.E. made statements to both an emergency room physician and a surgeon indicating that he had accidentally shot himself with his own gun. These statements were recorded in his medical records.

J.E. was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm by a minor and possession of a firearm prohibited. Prior to his adjudicatory hearing, the defense filed a motion in limine to exclude the medical records, arguing that the statements in the records were protected by the physician-patient privilege. The defense contended that because Pennsylvania law has long held that juvenile proceedings are "civil inquiries" rather than criminal trials, the statutory privilege applicable to "civil matters" should apply. The trial court denied the motion, the records were promptly admitted, and J.E. was adjudicated delinquent. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Ruling on Appeal

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, relying on a strict statutory interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5929. The statute states that physicians shall not be allowed to disclose information in "any civil matter."

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument, reasoning that:

Distinct Legal System: The Juvenile Act created a unique, separate legal system that is neither wholly civil nor wholly criminal. Although the system aims for rehabilitation rather than punishment, it is a distinct statutory framework designed to hold children accountable. It does not result in a civil case.
Statutory Language: The legislature did not explicitly include juvenile proceedings in the text of § 5929. Furthermore, the Juvenile Act itself distinguishes between "civil matters" and juvenile proceedings, suggesting they are not synonymous.
Precedent: The Court noted that previous caselaw distinguishing juvenile proceedings from criminal ones did not automatically categorize them as "civil matters" for all purposes. The Court cited In re J.B. to show that the judiciary views criminal, civil, and juvenile proceedings as three distinct categories.

Key Takeaway

This decision clarifies that the physician-patient privilege in Pennsylvania is limited strictly to "civil matters" as traditionally defined (e.g., lawsuits for damages or equitable relief). It does not extend to the unique quasi-civil nature of juvenile delinquency court. Accordingly, incriminating statements made by minors to medical personnel for the purpose of treatment may be admissible in subsequent delinquency hearings.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania? We can help.

Zak Goldstein Criminal Defense Lawyer — 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 successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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 11/8/25 Zak Goldstein 11/8/25

PA Supreme Court: Prosecution May Not Remove Defendant from ARD for Truthful Answers

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Jenkins, ruling that a judge cannot revoke a defendant’s Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) status simply for failing to mention an uncharged arrest on their ARD application where the prosecution never asked about uncharged arrests on the application itself. The decision limits the idea of “deception by omission” and makes clear that ARD participants can only be removed for violating actual, written conditions of the program, not for conduct that merely offends the “spirit” of rehabilitation.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was arrested for DUI in May 2021 and later applied for ARD in Adams County. Before charges were filed for a second DUI arrest that summer, the defendant truthfully completed his ARD application, which required him to disclose any pending criminal charges but said nothing about uncharged arrests.

He was accepted into ARD, but when prosecutors later learned of the earlier uncharged arrest, they moved to revoke his participation, arguing that he violated ARD “Rule #1” prohibiting violations of the law and that omitting the arrest “defeated the spirit of ARD.” Both the trial court and the Superior Court agreed with the District Attorney. The defendant appealed the order kicking him out of ARD to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Reverses

Chief Justice Debra Todd, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected that reasoning. The justices held that the defendant had not violated any ARD condition. He didn’t commit a new crime after admission, and his application contained no misrepresentation because he simply was not asked about uncharged arrests.

The Court emphasized that ARD revocation must rest on a violation of specific conditions found in statute or rule, not on implied ones. Citing Commonwealth v. Foster and Commonwealth v. Rosario, the Court refused to invent an “implied condition” that defendants must self-report uncharged arrests. The ARD statute, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3807, and Rule 318 allow removal only if a participant commits a new offense or violates an enumerated condition, and neither applied here. In other words, a defendant must answer the questions asked truthfully, but they do not have to answer questions that are not asked.

Rejecting the Commonwealth’s “Spirit of ARD” Argument

The Commonwealth urged the Court to follow older cases like Boos and Jones, which allowed revocation when applicants concealed disqualifying convictions or lied on their forms. The Court distinguished those cases: the defendant’s application was truthful, and the ARD paperwork never asked about uncharged arrests. That was the Commonwealth’s problem, not his.

Justice Todd wrote that if prosecutors want such information, they must ask for it explicitly, not rely on defendants to guess what’s relevant. In her words, “We find no basis on which to expect an applicant to guess at what information he is expected to disclose.”

Takeaway

This decision restores clear limits on when ARD can be revoked. Courts cannot terminate a defendant’s participation based on uncharged conduct that occurred before admission or on vague notions of “deception by omission.”

If an ARD application doesn’t ask about arrests, an applicant has no duty to volunteer them. The opinion also suggests that counties should update their ARD forms if they want that information in the future. The ruling is an important reminder that the ARD process is governed by written rules, not by unchecked prosecutorial discretion or moral intuitions about candor.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania or New Jersey?

Zak Goldstein 11/7/25 Zak Goldstein 11/7/25

Attorney Goldstein Wins Federal Suppression Motion in Electronic Contraband Case

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, of Goldstein Mehta LLC recently secured a major victory in federal court when a judge granted his motion to suppress all evidence in a serious federal criminal case. The ruling, issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, resulted in the exclusion of every item seized by investigators and effectively ended the government’s case.

The client had been charged in federal court with offenses involving the alleged possession and production of unlawful digital material. The prosecution’s entire case depended on evidence taken from a series of search warrants that allowed agents to seize and examine the client’s computers, phones, and other electronic devices.

Attorney Goldstein challenged the legality of those searches in a “four corners” motion, arguing that the warrants were unconstitutional because they were not supported by probable cause. In particular, he demonstrated that the affidavits failed to draw any meaningful connection between the conduct being investigated and the belief that illegal material would be found on the client’s electronic devices. Instead, the government relied on a boilerplate assumption that people accused of sexual misconduct are likely to possess such material on their electronics. Attorney Goldstein argued that this “profile-based” reasoning violated long-standing Third Circuit precedent, which requires a clear factual nexus between the alleged crime and the evidence sought.

The federal judge agreed, ruling that the affidavits were too speculative to support probable cause and that the warrants were so deficient that the “good faith” exception did not apply. The court found that no reasonable officer could have believed that the affidavits established a sufficient basis to search the client’s home and devices. Because the subsequent search warrants were based on evidence obtained from the initial unconstitutional searches, all of the evidence in the case was suppressed.

This outcome is a tremendous win and a relatively rare event in federal criminal litigation. Federal suppression motions are extremely difficult to win. Courts often defer to the government’s investigative process, and they routinely apply a good faith exception where, as here, investigators obtain a search warrant even if the warrant itself turns out to be lacking. Attorney Goldstein’s success demonstrates the value of a deep understanding of constitutional law and the willingness to challenge law enforcement overreach through careful, methodical, and aggressive litigation.

Facing federal criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client, and we frequently spot issues and defenses that other lawyers miss. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.