Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Money Laundering and Racketeering (RICO)

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Professional Licensure Issues

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark: