Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes , Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

The Superior Court of New Jersey recently upheld a conviction of a high school student for possession of a controlled dangerous substance, distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, and distribution within 1,000 feet of a school. The evidence used to convict the defendant was obtained through a “reasonable suspicion” search of the student’s vehicle by the school’s assistant principal.

On May 15, 2006, Egg Harbor Township High School officials were notified by the school nurse of a student whom she suspected to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Upon questioning, the student told school officials that he had purchased a green pill from the defendant earlier that morning. Defendant was called into the vice-principal’s office for questioning and was subsequently searched, based on the other student’s confession. Upon search, a number of white pills were found which the defendant described as a nutritional supplement. The defendant’s locker was then searched which produced no further evidence. The vice-principal, knowing that the defendant had driven to school and had his vehicle on campus, instructed the defendant to allow a search of his car. The High School’s policy forbade students to drive their vehicles to school unless special permission was granted; the policy was so strict that any student caught driving to school without permission would be issued an alternative education placement and any passenger would be issued a central detention. A search of the vehicle produced what the vice-principal believed to be a number of controlled substances, including marijuana. Police were notified and the defendant was subsequently arrested and charged.

The defendant was convicted on charges of possession and distribution within a school zone, and appealed. On appeal, the defendant raised the legality of the search of his vehicle, in that the reasonable suspicion standard which applies while in school, does not apply to a search of his vehicle; rather probable cause would be needed to conduct such a search. Although the United States Constitution prohibits law enforcement from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, which has led both state and federal courts to apply the standard of probable cause, school students are subject to search without probable cause or warrant. In the interest of student and faculty safety, as well as a school official’s role as disciplinarian, the standard of reasonable suspicion has been held to apply to searches of students and their possessions on campus. The United States Supreme Court has provided a two-pronged inquiry for determining the legality of a search on school grounds: Whether the action was justified at its inception; and whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial interference.

In this case, the Court held that a student’s vehicle has the potential to be used a storage for contraband brought onto campus, and because of the school district’s policy about student vehicles, was subject to the same reasonable suspicion standard as a student’s locker. The Court did not rule on whether the same standard would apply to a student’s vehicle parked on the street but not technically on school grounds.

Drug cases, particularly those involving students are serious matters. An experienced criminal defense attorney can assist you with these often complicated matters. For a confidential consultation regarding a Pennsylvania or New Jersey criminal matter, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff or email Marc@nefflawoffices.com

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

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:

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled recently in the case of Commonwealth v. Brown, regarding a police stop and seizure based on information obtained from a confidential informant. Thomas Brown was stopped by police in the Northeast section of Philadelphia, after police received information that Brown was to participate in a drug transaction at the corner of Academy Road and Grant Avenue, within a two-hour timeframe. Police arrived at the intersection and observed Brown appear, exit his vehicle, and return to his vehicle with a brown paper bag. Police subsequently stopped the vehicle and searched the car, finding bottles of pills, a firearm in the trunk, and a tally book in the glove compartment.

At trial, Brown argued that he had a possessory interest in the car, requiring police to have either Brown’s permission or probable cause to search the vehicle. The trial court determined that Brown was driving the vehicle when he was stopped, the vehicle he was driving was known to the police through the confidential informant, and the vehicle had not been reported stolen. There was also no evidence that the owner of the vehicle did not give permission to Brown to use the vehicle. Therefore, the court determined that Brown in fact did have a possessory interest in the vehicle.

Upon this finding, the police were required to have a reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. Reasonable suspicion is dependant upon both the content of the information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. The Commonwealth produced no evidence to show that the confidential informant used in this case had been reliable in the past; rather that the CI had merely been “used” in the past. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the information obtained from the confidential informant had not been proven reliable. The issue therefore became whether an unreliable source who gives information of a car appearing at a busy intersection within a two-hour timeframe, with nothing else, was enough to satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement. The Court agreed that it did not, and further stated that witnessing the driver return to his vehicle with a brown paper bag was not illegal and did not corroborate with the CI’s information. The illegality of the police stop and seizure was upheld by the Superior Court.

Drug offenses 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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

A Philadelphia teenager was sentenced this week for an incident which occurred last November in which two Philadelphia Police officers were wounded. The teenager was a run-away who was living illegally in a Northeast Philadelphia; unbeknownst to the owner and property manager. He and his cousin ran an operation from a room in the house in which they would sell crack-cocaine out-of the window.

On November 13, 2007, a dozen officers from the Philadelphia Police’s Narcotics Field Unit arrived at the home with a search warrant, announcing themselves when they arrived. Instantaneously, bullets began flying out-of the rear bedroom window of the house; the teen had grabbed a Glock-pistol and began firing. Two officers were wounded, one shot in the leg and the other in the hip. When the bullets stopped, the officers carefully entered the home and arrested the two men.

The teenager pled guilty to attempted murder, recklessly endangering another person, weapons, drugs, and criminal-trespass offenses in July. At his sentencing hearing this week, he stated that he was unaware that the people outside on the day of the incident were police officers, and had he had known, he would never have fired on officers doing their job. The officers, however, announced themselves as police officers and were either in uniform or plain-clothed with bullet-proof vests, displaying police across the chest. He was sentenced to 25-50 years in prison for the charges stemming from the November incident. His cousin pled guilty to drug offenses and will be sentenced next week.

Felony Crimes

Felony offenses are the most serious crimes and carry potential prison sentences of over one year if convicted. In Pennsylvania, violent crimes committed while visibly possessing a firearm carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 5-years in prison if convicted. Other circumstances can increase the sentence.

If you have been charged with a felony criminal offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately. We will assist you in your defense and can potentially lessen or eliminate the charges against you.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government, and as such State Governments, via the Fourteenth Amendment, from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments for people charged and/or convicted of criminal offenses. For years, arguments whether the death penalty constitutes excessive or cruel and unusual punishment have been heard by many courts across the nation, both federal and state. For Richard Cooey, however, the death penalty in general was not of his concern but rather how the death penalty applied in his specific case. Cooey, an Ohio man, was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering two University of Akron students in 1986. His co-defendant received life imprisonment for his role in the crimes, due to the fact he was only seventeen when the incident occurred. Cooey was sentenced to death.

Cooey appealed to the Ohio state courts and the United States Supreme Court, arguing that Ohio’s lethal injection process would not be humane due to his obesity. Cooey, who is 5’-7” and 267 pounds argues that his obesity will make it extremely difficult to find viable veins in his arm to be used as the injection site. The United States Supreme Court denied his appeal early this week, just as the Ohio State Appellate Court and State Supreme Court had earlier. The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to rule on Cooey’s second motion which is still awaiting a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court. In his second motion, Cooey argues that Ohio’s lethal injection protocol will cause an agonizing and painful death. Ohio uses a three-injection cocktail, as many states use for lethal injections. One of the three injections is an anesthetic which Cooey argues will have a reduced effect due to migraine medication he is prescribed. Cooey petitioned the Court to order the state to use a single injection method, rather than three. His attorney’s cited two past cases in Ohio, in which men of similar sizes to Cooey had their sizes cause complications during the injections; the last man executed had his execution delayed nearly 2-hours because viable veins could not be found. As Cooey awaits a ruling on the issue, he has been transferred to the “death house” where he passed a pre-execution examination and awaits his punishment.

Capital Crimes

Capital crimes, or capital offenses, are those crimes which are punishable by death. Generally, capital punishment is only associated with first-degree homicide, however it can also apply to crimes of treason, espionage, other crimes against the United States, or as part of military justice. Capital offenses are governed by both state law and federal law, depending on the crime.

If you are under investigation or have been charged with a capital offense, it is imperative that you contact a criminal defense attorney immediately. Marc Neff is experienced in successfully defending people suspected or charged with all criminal offenses. Our office works closely with experts in the fields of DNA, forensic toxicologists, forensic pathologists, and others. For a confidential consultation, contact Mr. Neff at (215) 563-9800 or via email Marc@nefflawoffices.com.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

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 standard for conducting a police search following a traffic stop has long been stricter than the Federal standard. In New Jersey, state law not only requires police to show probable cause to conduct a search, but also that there is a safety risk to them or the public; otherwise, police are required to obtain a search warrant prior to conducting a search of the stopped vehicle. The Federal standard, as adopted by most states, only requires a showing of probable cause. At issue are two cases, currently being heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In both cases, vehicles were stopped for traffic violations and upon a finding of probable cause, the vehicles were searched and drugs and weapons were recovered. In both cases, State Appellate Courts found the searches to be improper because the police did not obtain a search warrant.

Advocates for keeping New Jersey law as is argue that the United States Constitution contains protections against illegal searches and seizures, and that even if obtaining a warrant is an extreme burden, it is a burden the Constitution envisioned. The opposition argues that New Jersey state law is too restrictive on police and that it should be changed to match the Federal standard. The current law requires judges to be on-call 24/7 to issue search warrants for traffic stops. Further, they argue that a quick 5-minute search based on probable cause is less intrusive than detaining the driver and passengers while a warrant is being obtained. Other questions to be determined relate to “warrant substitutes”, such as when an officer sees contraband in plain-view during the traffic stop. In this instance, obtaining a search warrant can be seen as an unnecessary obligation since it will undoubtedly be issued. Advocates for keeping the existing law argue that judges should be more readily available to issue warrants; not merely dispensing with the requirement to obtain warrants.

Suppression of Evidence

In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all 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 and what is not. 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 actions to do so.

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.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently upheld a conviction for a second Driving under the Influence offense, appealed by a minor who argued that his acceptance into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program did not constitute a prior conviction. William Joseph Love, a minor, was charged with DUI, DUI as a minor, and careless driving in February of 2006. In June of 2006, the Commonwealth accepted Love into the ARD program; a one-time program similar to probation where if the offender satisfies all of the criteria set forth, criminal charges will be expunged from their record. Then, in September of 2006, Love was arrested again on charges of DUI and related offenses, including driving on a DUI-related suspended license. His ARD was subsequently revoked, causing him to have to stand trial for the February 2006 offense. Love was convicted of the September 2006 offenses in September of 2007, and then pled guilty to the earlier offenses in November of 2007. Later in November of 2007, Love was sentenced for his conviction on the second offense.

The trial court determined that Love’s acceptance into the ARD program for his first offense constituted a “previous conviction” within the past 10-years, allowing the recidivist enhancement of Pennsylvania’s DUI statute to take effect; the enhancement allows for increased penalties for repeat offenders. Love argued that his acceptance into the ARD program did not constitute a previous conviction, and further that he had not been convicted or sentenced for his first offense prior to being convicted of his second. The Pennsylvania Superior Court looked to both State statue and case-law precedent to determine that acceptance into ARD and other preliminary dispositions in fact constitute the equivalent of a conviction for sentencing purposes. Therefore, it did not matter that Love had yet to be convicted or sentenced for his first offense before being convicted of his second; his acceptance into ARD for the first offense constituted a conviction for the purpose of sentencing on his subsequent violations.

Drunk Driving

Driving under the influence in Pennsylvania is a serious matter, as it is in every state, and carries minimum penalties required by Pennsylvania statute. The mandatory minimum is based on elements of the conviction, with increases in the mandatory minimum based on any previous conviction for DUI or comparable offense within the past ten years. Penalties can range from 6-months probation to up to one year in prison; along with other fines and penalties.

If you have been arrested for Drunk Driving, DUI, DWI, or Underage Drinking, contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney immediately. There may be defenses available to you, which can reduce or eliminate penalties associated with these charges.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter enacted controversial gun laws in the city, earlier this year, three of which were upheld as constitutional by Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler-Greenspan. The laws, which are stricter than Pennsylvania State gun laws, require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 24-hours of discovering their disappearance, impose criminal penalties for failing to do so, and also restrict unstable individuals and individuals subject to an order of protection from owning guns. Following Philadelphia’s lead, a coalition of regional mayors which includes Mayor Nutter and the Mayors of Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, Lancaster, Reading, Pottsville, and York pledged to introduce legislation which would impose possible fines and/or jail time for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm.

The announcement, which took place this week during a news conference held at Philadelphia’s City Hall, was hoped to put pressure on the state legislature to enact statewide gun laws. All of the Mayors agreed to propose legislation within the next few weeks for their respective cities, and all also said that they are prepared to be sued; just as in Philadelphia where proposed legislation was challenged by the National Rifle Association before being upheld in part. Under the Philadelphia legislation which was upheld, failure to report lost or stolen firearms can result in a fine of up to $1,900 and 90 days in jail. Several attempts to pass statewide legislation for gun control have failed recently, however, a bill increasing penalties for “straw” purchases, or legal purchases of firearms which are then delivered illegally to felons, passed the House in April of this year. Mayor Nutter hopes to expand the coalition of Mayors to include other Pennsylvania cities such as Erie, Pittsburgh, and Williamsport.

With gun laws ever changing both locally and nationally, it is extremely important to seek the expertise of an experienced criminal defense attorney when charged with a gun-related offense. An experienced criminal defense attorney has the skill to interpret the changing laws and develop the best available defense to your charges. If you have been charged with a gun-related offense, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

Louis J. Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa are former New York City Police Detectives who in 2006, were both convicted on Federal Racketeering charges. The former detectives were convicted of working closely with some of New York’s organized crime families, partaking in conspiracy, kidnapping, bribery, obstruction of justice, leaking police information, and the killing or assisted killings of at least eight people. The Detective’s work with the New York Mafia took place mostly in Brooklyn, and occurred during the 1980’s and 1990’s. The duo was arrested in 2005 in Las Vegas on charges of money laundering and narcotics distribution. The prosecutor used these charges to bring the Detective’s prior criminal activity under the umbrella of an ongoing criminal enterprise, so that they could be prosecuted under the Federal RICO statute. Eppolito and Caracappa were convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial judge; however, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, the trial judge set aside their sentence because he determined that the RICO statute’s 5-year statute of limitations had run. He ruled that the criminal activity which occurred in Las Vegas was unrelated to the Detective’s work with the New York mob, and therefore they could not be tried for their activity during that time.

Setting aside the conviction opened an exception to the double jeopardy rule, allowing the prosecution to appeal the trial court decision. In an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court found that the Detective’s actions were intertwined in that all of the activity was for the same purpose; making money. Eppolito and Caracappa were compensated for their work with the New York Mafia. They continued to commit criminal acts in Las Vegas for the same purpose. Taking a broad approach, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s assertion that the Las Vegas acts were “singular, sporadic acts of criminality” and ruled that the acts were part of a criminal enterprise which in fact did not end before 2000. Due to this finding, the statute of limitations for the RICO statute was found not to have tolled, and the Court reinstated the convictions and life sentences for Eppolito and Caracappa.

RICO

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a federal law that provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes within a 10-year period, and has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results, can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison for each count they have been charged. In addition, the offender must forfeit all profits and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."

RICO charges are extremely serious and carry severe penalties if convicted. Generally, charges stem from long federal investigations. If you are the subject of a RICO investigation or have been charged, it is absolutely imperative that you contact a criminal defense attorney with experience in these areas. The Law Offices of Marc Neff has successfully defended people against such charges for over 20 years. If you feel you are under investigation, or have been indicted/charged, contact our offices immediately so that we may assist in your defense.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Money Laundering and Racketeering (RICO)

Bookmark: