Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Smith lat month, remanding the case back to the trial court in order to determine proper sentencing. Smith was arrested and charged with four counts of possession of cocaine, four counts of intent to deliver cocaine, and three counts of delivery of cocaine. The arrest occurred following a prolonged police investigation, during which the defendant, Smith was observed committing four separate narcotics transactions. Smith was sentenced in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to seven to fourteen years imprisonment, in accordance with Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum sentencing statute.

Smith appealed his sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing the police purposely manipulated their investigation in order to increase the mandatory minimum associated with his sentence. In fact, a first offense carries a mandatory minimum of three years, five years for a second conviction, and ultimately seven years for subsequent convictions. Smith’s position was that the police could have arrested and charged him following the first or even second observed offense, rather than allowing him to continue his illegal activity. Judge Klein wrote the opinion of the Superior Court, remanding Smith’s case to the trial level for further examination. In the opinion, Judge Klein explained that police are well within their powers to delay making an arrest, if the purpose of prolonging their investigation is for example, to determine a supplier or a more important member of a criminal conspiracy. However, if the purpose of the prolonged investigation is merely to increase the potential sentence associated with a conviction, the Court must impose the mandatory minimum sentence associated with the initial count.

The Superior Court remanded the case for determination of whether the prolonged investigation had purpose or was rather an abuse of police discretion. It is important to note that even in the scenario outlined in Smith, a prior conviction will automatically bump the mandatory minimum sentence to the higher level. If charged with a narcotics offense, it is imperative you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. Attorney Marc Neff has over twenty years of experience successfully defending clients charged with narcotics, and all other criminal violations. If you have been charged with a crime or believe you are under investigation and could potentially be charged, there are defenses available to you. All consultations are confidential. Contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff as soon as possible, at (215)563-9800 or via e-mail at Marc@nefflawoffices.com.

A case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States this past summer has held the use of cellular telephones between buyer and seller, to make misdemeanor drug purchases, does not constitute facilitating under United States statue; facilitation would otherwise constitute a felony. Federal Investigators suspected a man of trafficking and/or dealing drugs, and subsequently obtained a warrant to issue a wiretap on his cellular phone. While monitoring the wiretap, Investigators observed six phone calls between the man and a customer, some made by the man and some initiated by the customer. The six phone calls related to two transactions, each for one gram of cocaine. The sale of the cocaine is treated as a felony under United States statute; however the purchase of such minor quantities constitutes misdemeanor offenses.

Nevertheless, the buyer was arrested and charged with six felonies, one count for each phone call which took place between buyer and seller. The Government charged the buyer under 21 U.S.C. §843(b), a section of the Controlled Substances Act which makes it illegal to use any communication facility in facilitating felony distribution and other drug crimes. The Government argued that the communication between buyer and seller via cell phone facilitated the seller in his efforts to distribute controlled substances.

The Court held the Government’s interpretation of the statute was too broad, reversing the buyer’s felony convictions from the lower courts. The Court determined that the facilitation statue was not intended to increase the penalties of misdemeanor purchasers, rather to increase penalties of traffickers involved in the sale, purchase and distribution of larger quantities. The Court reasoned that in modern society, cellular telephones are prevalent and unfortunately are also used in making drug purchases. The use of a cellular phone in making a misdemeanor purchase does not facilitate the seller in making the sale, rather it creates a buyer-seller relationship which otherwise would not have existed. Punishing a purchaser under the felony statute, for making a purchase otherwise constituted as a misdemeanor, was not Congress’ intent in legislating the Controlled Substance Act.

Drug Possession

Possession of a controlled substance is a crime which carries many harsh penalties. Depending on the quantity of controlled substance you are found to possess, you may even be charged with intent to deliver or drug trafficking. Such charges carry even greater penalties. Larger quantities mandate longer minimum sentences as well.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently overruled a long established precedent, found in New York v. Belton, which allowed police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of a recent occupant’s lawful arrest. In the case of Arizona v. Gant, Gant was stopped for a minor traffic violation. It was discovered by the officer that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended. A total of five police officers arrived on the scene and subsequently arrested Gant and his two passengers, securing each of them in individual patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant’s vehicle, finding a jacket which contained cocaine in one of the pockets.

At trial, the Arizona trial court refused to grant Gant’s motion to suppress the cocaine as evidence, following the decision in Belton which allowed the arresting officers to perform such a search. However, on appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed the conviction and distinguished this case from the circumstances in Belton. In Belton, a single officer was on scene and confronted by four unsecured suspects. Here, five officers were faced by three suspects; all of whom were secured in custody. The reasoning behind the search in Belton (Belton was arrested on a drug offense) was that: a) the outnumbering of unsecured suspects to officers on the scene posed the risk that one of the suspects could stealthily remove evidence from the vehicle prior to search; and b) that evidence of the drug offense would likely be found in the vehicle. Here, Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license. The police could not have reasonably expected to find evidence of such offense upon search of the vehicle. Further, as all suspects were in custody, no exigent, circumstances existed to perform a warrantless search.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States who affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court decision, overturning a twenty-eight (28) year old precedent established in Belton. The Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. By doing so, the Court established a greater expectation of privacy in one’s vehicle.

In 2006, the State of New Jersey departed from the holding in Belton on State Constitutional grounds, ultimately ruling similarly to the Arizona Supreme Court; see State v. Eckel, 185 N.J. 523 (N.J. 2006).

Suppression of Evidence

In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution builds their case with evidence; some evidence stronger than other. There are rules regarding evidence, both State and Federal, which govern what evidence is admissible. Often, some or all of the evidence the prosecution wishes to use was obtained illegally, either by police or third party. An experienced criminal defense attorney is an expert in the field of evidence. Upon reviewing a defendant’s case, a criminal defense attorney will determine if some of the evidence can and should be suppressed, and will take the appropriate action.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff via phone at (215) 563-9800 or e-mail Marc@nefflawoffices.com for a confidential consultation.

The New Jersey Supreme Court by a 4-3 majority extinguished the requirement of exigent circumstances for police officers to obtain a search warrant via telephone or other electronic means. These telephonic warrants will now be viewed under the same light as warrants obtained in-person, with their validity no longer being predicated on a finding of exigency for the search. The Court felt that the use of electronic or telephonic means to obtain a search warrant would increase efficiency of law enforcement while remaining just and fair to the suspect; the threshold of probable cause would still have to be met.

In coming to this conclusion in the decision of State v. Pena-Flores, the New Jersey Supreme Court also laid-out guidelines for Police officers to determine when exigent circumstances exist, in order to conduct a warrantless search. In Pena-Flores, Police officers stopped a vehicle late at night for a traffic violation. Upon approach of the vehicle, the officers detected the smell of raw marijuana. The officers ordered the passengers out of the vehicle. They were searched, but no contraband was found. The vehicle, however, had tinted windows making it difficult for the officers to see inside. The officers, based on the facts that the stop was late at night and they were the only two officers available, concluded they had sufficient probable cause and exigent circumstances to search the vehicle; the officers then found two bags of marijuana on the passenger-side floor. The vehicle’s occupants were then placed under arrest and the police continued their search of the vehicle, which produced a handgun and several other bags of marijuana.

The trial court determined that due to the circumstances of the stop, the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle, however, once the initial bags of marijuana were found, the search should have ceased. Once the occupants were placed under arrest, the court determined that exigent circumstances no longer existed and that the officers should have either obtained a telephonic search warrant or impounded the car. Therefore, the evidence obtained following the suspects’ arrests was suppressed. This ruling was affirmed upon appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the exigent circumstances in the Pena-Flores case were enough to justify a complete search of the vehicle, despite the fact that the suspects were in custody, because the officers could not see into the vehicle and therefore their safety was at issue. More importantly, the Court determined that exigent circumstances should be determined on a case-by-case basis, listing the following guidelines for law enforcement and the prosecution: Time of day, location of the stop, nature of the neighborhood, unfolding of the events which established probable cause, the ratio of officers to suspects, the existence of confederates who know of the car’s location and could remove its contents, whether the arrest was observed by passers who could tamper with the car or evidence, whether it would be safe to leave the car unguarded, and whether the delay of obtaining a search warrant would put the officers at a significant risk. The Court also authorized a warrantless police search of a vehicle for documents where the driver cannot produce the legally correct documents.

Drug Offenses

Drug offenses are a serious matter in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; certain offenses such as trafficking are considered felonies and carry mandatory minimum sentences. The Fourth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution affords individual rights pertaining to police search and seizure. Very often, an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney will have evidence found inadmissible due to an illegal police search, and will have charges against the defendant dropped or greatly reduced.

If you have been charged with a drug offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately. We are glad to assist you in your defense and help you get your life back.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Depending on the circumstances of the search and seizure, the government must show they had reason to search based on a finding of either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Conducting a search of a person’s home generally requires probable cause; in order to obtain a search warrant. Court’s have held that a person’s temporary abode, such as a hotel room, also requires the same standard prior to conducting a search. However, there are certain instances where the interests of security weighs greater than a person’s right to privacy, such as during a border search conducted by United States Customs officials. The Supreme Court of the United States has held not only that there is an exception allowing for a warrantless search of a person at the physical boundaries of the United States, but also the functional equivalent of the border; this includes the first port where a ship docks upon arrival from a foreign country.

James Edward Whitted was a passenger aboard a cruise ship which had docked in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands upon arrival from the foreign port of St. Maarten. United States Customs officials, along with drug-sniffing dogs, had arrived to perform a routine search of the ship prior to debarkation. As part of the routine search, Customs officials use a computerized database called the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (“TECS”) which lists all vessels arriving from foreign ports and allows the officials to access the ships’ manifests of crews and passengers. Based on this information, officials selected ten staterooms aboard the “Adventure of the Seas” cruise ship to be searched upon the ship’s arrival; Whitted’s room was chosen based on information contained in the database. According to the TECS report, there was a “one-day lookout” for Whitted based on the suspicion of authorities in San Juan, Puerto Rico (one of the ship’s previous destinations), which alerted Customs officials to the possibility of drugs, an outstanding warrant, or something of that nature. The report also showed that Whitted had traveled to other drug source countries in the Caribbean and South America, had a previous criminal record, and bought his cruise ticket at the last minute, paying for it in cash.

Customs officers arrived at Whitted’s cabin where they knocked on the door but received no response. They entered the state room in which Whitted was not present, and prepped the room for the canine search (removed objects which could pose a threat to the canine during the search, i.e. sharp objects). Once prepped, although before being given the command, the canine burst into the room and immediately alerted the officers to a particular bag. The bag contained ladies shoes, men’s sandals, shaving cream, and perfume. After ascertaining from the ship’s crew that no woman was staying in the room with Whitted and observing that the shaving cream container seemed suspicious, officers used x-rays to examine the objects. Inside the objects, officers found pebbles, which later upon field-test was determined to be heroin. When Whitted arrived back to his cabin, officers took an oral declaration from him, stating that it was in fact his stateroom, his bag, and that he had been traveling alone. Whitted was later arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and importation of a controlled substance into the United States.

Whitted was convicted after the District Court ruled not to suppress the drugs found via the search and seizure, and appealed based on the argument that he had a high expectation of privacy in his stateroom; therefore the search of his room was not a routine border inspection but rather required reasonable suspicion. The government responded that the search was routine based on the fact that it was performed regularly by Customs officials rather than on its intrusiveness or the privacy interest at stake. Alternatively, the government also urged that the TECS report gave them reasonable suspicion to search Whitted’s quarters. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Whitted that a stateroom aboard a cruise ship qualifies as a temporary abode and therefore, a search of such room would not be a routine border search but rather require reasonable suspicion. However, the Court also agreed with the government’s contention that reasonable suspicion existed to search Whitted’s cabin. Based on the TECS report, Whitted was placed under a “one-day lookout” after being found suspicious by authorities in Puerto Rico. The report also contained information of past criminal activity, past visits to drug producing countries, and the purchase of his cruise ticket in cash at the last minute; whereas the typical cruise passenger books well in advance using some method of credit. Due to these circumstances, the Court found that the Customs officers had a “particularized and objective basis” for conducting the search of Whitted’s cabin, and under a totality of the circumstances approach, had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. Whitted’s motion to suppress the evidence against him was denied and his conviction was subsequently upheld.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available, including challenging the constitutionality of a police search. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

Lancaster County Police were responding to a noise complaint when they found the defendant, Shawn Van Aulen, outside of his apartment with a bag of marijuana in his hand. The officers conducted a search of the defendant, finding a glass smoking device and a marijuana grinding device as well. Following the search, the officers requested, and were granted, permission to enter the apartment for the purpose of discussing the noise complaint with the remaining occupants. Upon entering the apartment, the officers found six or seven people in the living room. The officers were permitted to search the remainder of the apartment for any additional people present; the officers found two females in the defendant’s bedroom. In the closet of Van Aulen’s bedroom, the officers saw four marijuana plants, lights, and other paraphernalia used to grow marijuana. Van Aulen was arrested and charged with manufacture of marijuana, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia. He was convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to five-years of probation. Van Aulen then appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the issue of whether the legislature intended to include growing a small number of marijuana plants for personal use under the definition of “manufacture”.

Van Aulen relied on what he believed to be an inconsistent treatment of the offenses of possession of a small amount of marijuana versus manufacturing the same amount; possession of the amount Van Aulen was found to have would constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of 30 days in jail and/or a $500 fine. Manufacturing the same amount of marijuana is considered a felony, punishable by up-to five-years of imprisonment and/or fines of $15,000. The Court used the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device, and Cosmetic Act (“CSDDCA”) to interpret the legislature’s meaning of “manufacture” under the law. The Act criminalizes “the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance”, and further defines “production” as “manufacturing, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of a controlled substance”. The Act makes no reference to amount or quantity, or distinctions between controlled substances. The Court noted it was bound to follow a strict interpretation of the law. Further, the Court cited Commonwealth v. Burnsworth, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case which ruled harsher penalties for manufacturing a controlled substance than simply possessing the substance were merited because it is a rational deterrent to increased production and sale of drugs. Based on the Court’s findings, the Court ruled that growing even a small amount of marijuana for personal consumption constitutes “manufacture” under the CSDDCA, meriting the harsher penalties. Van Aulen’s sentence was upheld.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available, including challenging the constitutionality of a police search. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

A Pennsauken, New Jersey resident was sentenced earlier this week for his role in a Philadelphia area heroin ring in 2005 and 2006. The heroin sold by Castellar and his associates was laced with a powerful painkiller, fentanyl, which caused over 100 deaths in the Philadelphia region due to overdose. The operation was run out of a rented house in Pennsauken. Castellar admitted to selling the spiked heroin in bulk to dealers, as well as in smaller quantities to drug users and addicts. Castellar and his six associates came to the attention of authorities in 2006, when a naked man was spotted running from the rented home in Pennsauken screaming about gunmen invading the property; heroin-mill workers are typically forced to work in the nude to prevent stealing of the product.

The prosecution could not prove that Castellar’s ring was responsible for all of the laced heroin produced and sold during the two-year span, however showed that fentanyl related deaths declined sharply following his arrest in 2006. Castellar has been imprisoned since his arrest and pled guilty to conspiring to distribute over 100 grams of heroin in April 2007. He was sentenced this week to six-years in a federal prison, followed by five-years of probation following his release.

Drug Possession

Possession of a controlled substance is a crime which carries many harsh penalties. Depending on the quantity of controlled substance you are found to possess, you may even be charged with intent to deliver or drug trafficking. Such charges carry even greater penalties. In Pennsylvania, possessing over fifty grams of heroin with intent to traffic carries a minimum penalty of 5 year in prison for a first offense, and 7 years for subsequent offenses. A person may also be charged federally, as in the case above, which carries federally mandated minimum sentences to be served in federal prison.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available, including challenging the constitutionality of a police search. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

A man convicted, after pleading guilty to six-counts of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver (“PWID”) and criminal conspiracy, appealed his sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the basis he was not advised that his convictions were subject to Pennsylvania mandatory minimum statutes. The appellant, Michael Rush, was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven to fourteen years for each PWID count and concurrent terms of five to ten years for each criminal conspiracy count; an aggregate sentence of twelve to twenty-four years in prison. The trial court applied Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum statute to the PWID charges. The statute considers factors such as the type of controlled substance involved, the amount seized, and the amount of capital used or available for use in the operation; when imposing a fine, the minimum fine may be increased so as to prevent a convicted felon from being able to continue the operation after being penalized. The mandatory minimum statute also increases the minimum sentence when a person has a prior conviction for PWID.

Michael Rush appealed first on the issue that he was not aware he was subject to mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking; had he known, he would have withdrawn his guilty plea. The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that this argument had no merit because the appellant could not show that his claim was preserved for appeal. In order to withdraw a guilty plea, a motion must be made in the trial court. Not only did Rush fail to do so, but the court determined that he could not support a motion with relevant arguments even if he had. Rush’s second issue on appeal is the determination of the mandatory minima applied. The relevant statute provides that a mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment applies to a conviction of PWID with the circumstances in this case. The statute also provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years when a person has a prior conviction for drug trafficking. Rush argued that he did not have a prior conviction before being sentenced on the six-counts in this case. The Court, however, determined that pleading guilty to each count constituted a prior conviction at the time of sentencing. The Court further found that one of the six convictions, although technically his first, was not subject to the four year minimum because at the time of sentencing, Rush had other convictions. Therefore, the Court affirmed appellant’s sentence of twelve to twenty-four years.

Drug Possession

Possession of a controlled substance is a crime which carries many harsh penalties. Depending on the quantity of controlled substance you are found to possess, you may even be charged with intent to deliver or drug trafficking. Such charges carry even greater penalties. For example, possessing between 2 and 10 grams of crack-cocaine with intent to traffic carries a minimum penalty of 1 year in prison for a first offense, and 3 years for subsequent offenses. Larger quantities mandate longer minimum sentences as well.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

New Jersey’s Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987 stated in part that based on criminal history, the extent of the offense, and other criteria, a person could be sentenced to a term of probation if found guilty or if he/she plead guilty to a drug offense. Under the original legislation, such a sentence would have required the judge to suspend the defendant’s driving privileges for a period of 6-months to 2-years. As a result of changes in drug laws last year, the New Jersey legislature authorized judges to forego the suspension of a driver’s license if the defendant could demonstrate an extreme and compelling hardship due to the loss of such privileges. The amendments signed into law yesterday will now allow judges to forego suspension of driving privileges in the cases of extreme hardship and will also allow a judge to reinstate a convicted person’s driving privileges if they are currently in a suspended status and can show evidence of hardship.

The amendments state in part that a suspension of driving privileges may be foregone when the suspension will result in extreme hardship and alternate means of transportation are not available. Extreme hardship was defined by the New Jersey Superior Court in a 2007 appellate case; State v. Bendix. In Bendix, the defendant was convicted of two disorderly persons offenses relating to possession of cocaine and paraphernalia. The defendant was a state certified mechanic and argued that the loss of his license would not only affect his getting to work, but also his ability to road test vehicles he worked on, drive customers to and from his garage, and also that New Jersey law required a state inspector to be a licensed driver. Further, the defendant claimed that two employees he had hired in anticipation of losing his license had become disabled and had to quit respectively. The trial court expressed great concern in considering the defendant’s situation a hardship, noting that if granted a hardship, the court would have to grant many others a hardship based on their difficulty in getting to work. On appeal, the Superior Court took into consideration the defendant’s job as a mechanic as his means of earning a livelihood and therefore, granted the hardship.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and throughout the United States. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available. Contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately so that we may assist you in your situation.

Philadelphia police officers arrested a man suspected of trafficking drugs, after observing him twice engage in hand-to-hand transactions with individuals who approached the suspect. The suspected dealer, Lawrence Lee, was observed accepting money from individuals, walking across the street to a vacant lot, and then returning with small objects in his hand which he would give to the buyer. Following the first sale observed by police, the buyer was stopped, searched, and a small, pink-tinted bag containing crack-cocaine was recovered. After observing the second sale, police arrested Lee and recovered a small amount of cash. Upon searching the vacant lot where Lee was observed during the sales, 49 pink-tinted bags of crack-cocaine were recovered.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously has held that police experience and training are insufficient factors to establish probable cause, when police observe a single hand-to-hand transaction which they believe to involve drugs. However here, police observed multiple transactions and also had recovered crack-cocaine from the first alleged customer. Lee appealed his convictions, one count each of possession of a controlled substance and intent to deliver a controlled substance, on the basis that the prosecution did not establish all of the elements of the intent to deliver. In Pennsylvania, the intent to deliver can be implied by having a large quantity of a controlled substance. Pennsylvania law requires mandatory minimum prison sentences for conviction of trafficking, based on the quantity of contraband recovered. Police recovered 2.6 grams of crack-cocaine from Lee; enough to constitute a mandatory minimum sentence for his trafficking conviction. Lee brought an expert witness to testify on his behalf that some of the drugs recovered were for Lee’s personal use and not intended to be sold. The defense had hoped that this would, at the least, bring the amount of drugs “intended to be sold” under the 2.0 gram threshold for the mandatory minimum sentence. However, the Superior Court found that since there was no paraphernalia recovered, among other factors, they were free as the fact-finder to find the expert testimony incredible, and therefore upheld Lee’s conviction on both counts.

Drug Possession

Possession of a controlled substance is a crime which carries many harsh penalties. Depending on the quantity of controlled substance you are found to possess, you may even be charged with intent to deliver or drug trafficking. Such charges carry even greater penalties. For example, possessing between 2 and 10 grams of crack-cocaine with intent to traffic carries a minimum penalty of 1 year in prison for a first offense, and 3 years for subsequent offenses. Larger quantities mandate longer minimum sentences as well.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently upheld a Cumberland County trial court’s decision to suppress evidence obtained through a traffic stop. Terry Moyer was stopped when a Corporal from the Pennsylvania State Police noticed a hole in his rear taillight. The Corporal turned on a spotlight and observed frantic movement between the driver, Mr. Moyer, and his passenger. The Corporal approached the driver and proceeded to initiate the traffic stop. The Corporal returned to his vehicle with Mr. Moyer’s information and as he was examining the driver’s information, another State Police vehicle approached. Examination of Mr. Moyer’s record showed a prior conviction for marijuana possession. The Corporal asked Mr. Moyer to exit the vehicle, proceeded to show him the hole in his taillight, and issued him a warning card; at this time, both officers were standing at the rear of Mr. Moyer’s vehicle. The Corporal noticed that Mr. Moyer’s eyes were red but told him that he was free to leave.

Just prior to Mr. Moyer re-entering his vehicle, the officer requested of Mr. Moyer that he could ask him a few more questions. Mr. Moyer reluctantly complied, to which he was asked if he had any drugs or paraphernalia on his person or in the car. The Corporal then asked if he could search the vehicle to which Mr. Moyer reluctantly agreed. A crack-pipe was found in the vehicle and another on Mr. Moyer upon his search. A subsequent blood test of Mr. Moyer showed cocaine use.

The Defense argued that the State Police action constituted a detention, requiring a reasonable suspicion to initiate a search of the defendant’s vehicle. The Commonwealth argued that since Mr. Moyer was told he was free to go following the traffic stop, the events which followed constituted a mere encounter between police and civilian, not requiring reasonable suspicion. The United States Supreme Court has ruled previously that a totality of the circumstances approach must be taken in determining what type of encounter such situation constitutes. One part of this test is whether a reasonable person would believe they were free to leave or to reject an officer’s request for search. In the case of Mr. Moyer, both the trial court and the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that although Mr. Moyer was told he was free to go, the subsequent actions of the officer made him believe that he was not in fact allowed to leave. Further, he was not told he could refuse the officers’ request to initiate a search. For the foregoing reasons, the evidence against Mr. Moyer was properly suppressed.

Drug Offenses

Drug offenses and Driving under the Influence are serious matters in Pennsylvania; certain offenses such as trafficking are considered felonies and carry mandatory minimum sentences. The Fourth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution affords individual rights pertaining to police search and seizure. Very often, an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney will have evidence found inadmissible due to an illegal police search, and will have charges against the defendant dropped or greatly reduced.

If you have been charged with a drug offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately. We are glad to assist you in your defense and help you get your life back.

A Philadelphia, Pennsylvania man, who was arrested outside of a bar when patrolling police officers witnessed what they perceived to be a drug deal, has had his conviction overturned by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Philadelphia Police were driving by when they observed the defendant exit the bar and approach a man who had been standing out front. The officers, experienced members of the Narcotics Field Unit, parked their vehicle and observed the defendant engage in conversation with the man. The officers saw the defendant hand the man currency with his left hand and receive some object(s) with his right, which he then placed in his pants pocket. The defendant then walked to a vehicle and entered the passenger side. The officers approached the vehicle and ordered the defendant to exit. Upon searching the defendant, the officers discovered two containers of crack-cocaine and arrested the defendant.

The defendant appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The defendant based his appeal on the premise that the evidence against him should have been suppressed. The Superior Court held that despite the totality of the circumstances present in this case (specifically the extent of the officers’ knowledge and experience, the area in which the crime occurred, etc.), the Court’s hands were tied based on a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Dunlap. In Dunlap, the facts were similar to those in this case, and the Supreme Court ruled that police observation of a single transaction was not enough to constitute probable cause to search a suspected drug-dealer; since there was only one transaction observed, the object transferred could not be assumed to be illegal contraband.

Drug Possession and Delivery

Delivery of a controlled substance is a crime which carries harsh penalties. Depending on the quantity of controlled substance you are found to possess, you may even be charged with intent to deliver or drug trafficking. For example, possessing between 2 and 10 grams of crack-cocaine with intent to traffic carries a minimum penalty of 1 year in prison for a first offense, and 3 years for subsequent offenses. Larger quantities mandate longer minimum sentences as well.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available, including challenging the constitutionality of a police search. Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer immediately, so that your situation can be assessed and a defense to your charges can be developed.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases on June 2, 2008, pertaining to charges of money laundering. In the first case, the charge of money laundering could only be applied to profits from an illegal gambling ring, and not payouts to bettors or employees. In the second case, the Court held that money laundering charges cannot be applied to a person simply hiding a large amount of cash in the trunk of a vehicle; the driver was stopped on the way to the Mexican border.

According to the Associated Press, the government brings money laundering charges against nearly 1,300 people every year, and the Court agreed with defense attorneys that the bounds of the law have been stretched too far. The Anti-Money Laundering law was passed in 1986 intended to remedy problems associated with organized crime and drug-trafficking. The law has frequently been applied in the world of white-collar crime; often tacked on to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which applies to American’s who bribe foreign officials.

The intention of the Anti-Money Laundering was for law enforcement to fill a gap and prevent the concealment and reinvestment of money derived from criminal activity. Between $8 billion and $25 billion dollars of Mexican and Columbian “drug money” is transported out of the United States every year. The Court’s rulings increase the government’s burden in money laundering cases. Specifically, prosecutors must show that money transported in money laundering cases was done so to conceal the defendant’s ownership, source, or control.

Money Laundering

Money laundering is the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money. A violation of the law carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence, along with heavy fines upon a conviction.

If you have been charged with the crime of money laundering, contact an experienced Pennsylvania Criminal Defense Attorney immediately. There are defenses available to you, and a Pennsylvania Criminal Defense Attorney will assist in developing your defense.

Dr. Phil Astin pled not guilty to a 175-count indictment, alleging conspiracy and illegal distribution of prescription drugs, in Federal Court in Atlanta, Georgia on Monday. Astin was the doctor for professional wrestler Chris Benoit and is accused of providing him with illegal steroids, which led to Benoit’s mental health problems and caused him to kill himself, his wife, and his seven-year old son.

Although medical examiners could not link steroid use to Benoit’s actions in June of 2007, they allege that Astin prescribed anabolic steroids to Benoit and other patients. The 175-count indictment involves 17 patients of Dr. Astin and replaces a 7-count indictment of Dr. Astin following Benoit’s death last year.

Drug Offenses
Distribution of illegal drugs and other controlled substances is a serious crime in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and in all other states. Certain factors, such as the age of those being distributed to, affect the penalty associated with the crime. For example, trafficking drugs to minors carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 1-year in Pennsylvania, and the mandatory minimum increases with other aggravating factors. As a professional, being convicted of such a crime will not only have criminal implications, but professional licensure penalties as well.

If you are accused of a drug related crime, there are many defenses available to you. Call the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately, so that we can begin assisting you in your legal matters.

California rapper Warren G, best known for his 1990’s hit single “Regulate”, was arrested Sunday after the vehicle he was a passenger in was stopped by police for running a red light in Hollywood, California. Police stopped the vehicle, driven by G’s friend Ryan Butler, at about 1:40 am, and upon searching the vehicle discovered a bag containing $1,236 and another containing 0.89 ounces of marijuana. The marijuana was found in the trunk. The car belonged to someone else.

Both men posted bail and were released Sunday morning. The Los Angeles District Attorney determined there was not enough evidence to charge Warren G or Butler with the crimes. The men claimed that the marijuana found in the trunk belonged to someone else who was not present at the time of the stop, and further, they did not know the drugs were there.

Drug Offenses

Drug offenses are a serious matter in Pennsylvania; certain offenses such as trafficking are considered felonies and carry mandatory minimum sentences. The Fourth Amendment of the United States’ Constitution affords individual rights pertaining to police search and seizure. Very often, an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney will have evidence found inadmissible due to an illegal police search, and will have charges against the defendant dropped or greatly reduced.

If you have been charged with a drug offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately. We are glad to assist you in your defense and help you get your life back.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently decided a case which overturned the conviction of a defendant charged with possessing illegal drugs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Police arrested a man after witnessing an exchange of currency for an unknown object; without seeing any other suspicious activity. The man arrested was searched and found to be in possession of crack-cocaine. The officers testified that the area they were surveying was a high-crime area and that based on their training and length of experience on the drug strike force, they had probable cause to determine that the exchange was made for illegal drugs.

The Court determined that police training and experience were factors to be considered, however, police training and experience alone were not sufficient for a finding that probable cause existed in this case. The officers witnessed a single transaction and the object of the transaction, although suspicious, was unknown. The Court held that the officers had a reasonable suspicion to believe they had witnessed a drug transaction, but with nothing further, did not have probable cause to perform the search which led to defendant’s arrest.

Drug offenses are serious matters which involve serious penalties. If you have been charged with a drug offense, there are many defenses which may be available. Contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately so that we may assist you in your situation.