As part of Mr. Heckman’s sentence, the Court imposed lifetime supervised release to follow his prison term and issued three special conditions on his parole; lifetime mental health evaluations, a lifetime ban on internet access and a restriction on any interaction with minors, to be enforced by the United States Probation Office. Mr. Heckman appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing the special conditions as applied to his parole were unconstitutional.

The Third Circuit disagreed with Mr. Heckman in regard to the condition requiring lifetime mental health evaluations, citing the government’s responsibility to rehabilitate offenders and also to protect society from repeat offenders. The Court, however, overturned the restrictions on internet access and interaction with minors.

In holding the lifetime internet ban unconstitutional, the Court cited a line of cases also from the Third Circuit, which discuss the ban on internet privileges in cases of child pornography offenses. At first, the Third Circuit was skeptical to issue such bans as the constitutional infringements on the First Amendment could potentially outweigh the benefit to society. Slowly, on a case by case basis, the Third Circuit has begun upholding reasonable bans on internet access, most recently supporting a ten-year ban in United States v. Thielemann. The Court, however, has never upheld a lifetime ban on internet access, in part due to the necessity for internet access in today’s society; for example to search for employment. The Court further explained that Mr. Heckler did not necessarily use the internet to endanger minors; rather he used the internet as a means to transmit pictures which had already been taken. The Court cited a prior case where the offender used the internet to facilitate a sexual relationship with a minor from another state. In that case, the ban on internet privileges was merited as the offender had used the internet to endanger a minor.

Regarding the restriction on interaction with minors, the Court held that the delegation of supervisory and executive powers to the United States Office of Parole was unconstitutional. The Court therefore remanded the special condition on sentence back to the District Court for more specificity in compliance with the Constitution.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately. You may schedule a confidential consultation by calling (215) 563-9800 or by email, marc@nefflawoffices.com.

The Uncle who was responsible for violating Amy as a child currently remains in prison, yet in the world of child pornography, Amy’s pictures continue to circulate. Every time someone is arrested for possession of child pornography containing one or more of her photographs, Amy receives notification from the Federal Government. Amy’s lawyer has begun filing lawsuits against those individuals based on child exploitation. He had Amy examined by a psychiatrist and also had her write a victim impact statement. He then hired an economist to examine the psychiatrist’s findings, estimate counseling, diminished wages and lawyer’s fees, and determine the total monetary damages faced by Amy due to her sexual abuse. This number was determined to be $3,367,854.00.

The idea of restitution gives the Court another means by which to punish child pornography offenders. Prison sentences for offenders have consistently been extended and conditions of parole have become more and more restrictive, to the point where equal protection under the Constitution has become an issue raised in defense of violators. By holding offenders financially liable for their actions, Courts have an alternative to increasing prison sentences, which may then be challenged as unconstitutional.

Since Amy has begun seeking restitution from those possessing her pornographic photographs, Amy has collected $170,000.00; $130,000.00 contributed by an executive from a pharmaceutical company convicted of possession of child pornography. Amy is suing under a theory of joint and several liability; seeking contribution from all those convicted of possessing her photographs until she receives the total of $3,367,854.00.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately. You may schedule a confidential consultation by calling (215) 563-9800 or by email, marc@nefflawoffices.com.

The Third Circuit noted that the longest internet ban ever upheld by that Court was a ten year ban, following a twenty year prison sentence. The Eleventh Circuit recently upheld an unconditional lifetime ban on internet privileges, where the defendant was sentenced to six years imprisonment for traveling across state lines to have sexual relations with a minor. The judiciary system affords broad discretion when applying “special conditions” to probation and parole. This concept is rooted in the need for judges to weigh each defendant’s qualities, on a case by case basis, in order to determine how to best protect society and rehabilitate the defendant upon their release from custody. The variance in the Circuit Court opinions illustrates the broad discretion afforded to the Courts. Inevitably, the issue of internet privilege bans is one that must be brought before, and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The argument for banning internet privileges is obvious; to prevent convicted child sex offenders from committing future harm upon release from prison. Those against internet bans raise the Civil Rights issues involved. As we advance further into the twenty-first century, the internet becomes more and more a vital part of our everyday lives. We use the internet to buy things, sell things, communicate, research, and even find employment. Banning one’s internet privileges not only prejudices a defendant in today’s society, but also severely impacts their future when the internet becomes even more necessary. Although the right to internet access is not provided by the Bill of Rights, proponents of the argument cite to the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech as one way an internet ban is unconstitutional. Some proponents of banning privileges, such as the Motion Pictures Association, have proposed a “three-strike” policy when dealing with copyright infringers. Such a policy, when applied to child sex offenders, would likely invite extreme criticism. Until the issue is decided by the Supreme Court, however, the imposition of internet bans will be decided on a case by case basis, impacted by the area of the country where the crime occurred.

Crimes against Minors

Knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is a violation of both State and Federal laws. If you are being investigated or have been arrested and charged with sexual abuse of a minor, attempting to do so, or other crimes against minors such as possession of child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

For a confidential consultation call (215) 563-9800 or email marc@nefflawoffices.com.

Government prosecutors argued vehemently that the Government has a responsibility to ensure sexual predators are not released into the public, in a society where the recidivism rate for sexual offenses remains high. Precedent was argued, in that inmates who suffer from highly contagious diseases have had their confinement extended beyond their sentences due to the danger they pose to outside society. A comparison was made between communicable diseases and sexual deviation which prosecutors argued is a mental illness. According to federal prosecutor Elena Kagan, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure imprisoned individuals are released responsibly into society.

Many were shocked by the Supreme Court’s choosing to hear the appeal in Comstock, as lower courts had ruled that continued confinement of federal inmates, who have completed their sentences, overstepped the government’s authority. The government cannot constitutionally detain citizens due to fear they will commit a crime without evidence to justify their suspicions. Mental illness alone cannot be grounds for confinement without some showing of a risk posed by the defendant. Other constitutional issues to be considered are potential violations of the Bill of Rights, for example the Fourth Amendment right to due process and the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A criminal sentence is generally determined based on established statutory guidelines. Many mitigating and aggravating factors are considered when determining the sentence of a convicted defendant. A Supreme Court reversal of the lower courts’ decisions in Comstock would essentially void the sentencing process, as defendants who complete their mandated sentences could suffer further confinement regardless of the term of imprisonment they were given. Conceivably, a convicted sex offender, sentenced to five years imprisonment, could serve a life sentence based on their perceived threat to society upon release. Justice Scalia went as far as to say that allowing such practice is a recipe for “the federal government taking over everything.”

Those convicted of crimes are still subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States. An experienced criminal defense attorney protects a defendant’s rights during legal proceedings, while imprisoned and beyond. If you have been charged with, or convicted of a sexual offense, you still have constitutionally protected rights which the Law Offices of Marc Neff will ensure are not infringed upon. For a confidential consultation, please contact our office at 215-563-9800 or via email at marc@nefflawoffices.com.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently decided an appeal by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case of Commonwealth v. Antoszyk. Nolan Antoszyk was arrested and charged, after police obtained information from a confidential informant alleging he had recently been at the home of Antoszyk and witnessed bulk quantities of marijuana for sale. Based on this information, officers wrote and signed an affidavit of Probable Cause and used the affidavit to obtain a search warrant for Antoszyk’s home. Upon conducting the search, police found bulk quantities of marijuana; just as the confidential informant had alleged.

The defense moved to suppress the evidence seized in the search, based upon an argument of illegal search and seizure. At the suppression hearing, the confidential informant was called to testify, upon which he admitted under oath that the information he gave to police was false; although the allegations proved true, the confidential informant had never actually been to the home of the defendant or witness bulk quantities of marijuana for sale.

As the police search warrant cited no independent source of information other than the confidential informant, the trial court granted the suppression Order. On appeal, the Superior Court upheld the ruling, citing Commonwealth v. Edmunds and Commonwealth v. Clark. Under a Federal Constitutional analysis, and based on the case of Herring v. United States, suppression would not have been warranted because the United States Constitution allows for what is known as the “good faith” exception. The good faith exception allows police officers to rely upon a search warrant when they have reason to believe their actions are legal. Here, the officers believed the confidential informant was telling the truth about Nolan Antoszyk, and therefore their actions would have been legal under the Federal Constitution. However, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State Constitution does not provide for the good faith exception; an added protection to those privacy rights which are already guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Without this exception, the search warrant which was solely based upon false information was found illegal, despite the fact that the allegations were true, and all of the evidence obtained via the search warrant was suppressed.

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.

Garcia-Rivera entered an open guilty plea submitting to sentencing by the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. At sentencing, his lawyers argued he was extremely remorseful, fully employed, cooperating with the victims’ attorneys in the civil trials and cooperating with the state Attorney General’s office in an ongoing investigation. The trial court sentenced Garcia-Rivera to the standard nine (9) to twenty-three (23) months incarceration for the first count, to be followed by a consecutive twenty-three (23) month period of probation for the second count. The court, on record, stated that Garcia-Rivera did not have a criminal record or troubled history, thereby meriting probation for the second count rather than consecutive prison terms. However, the court reasoned that the twenty-three (23) month probation, to be served consecutively with the prison term, still fell within the standard sentencing range.

On appeal by the Commonwealth, The Superior Court remanded the case for sentencing, finding the twenty-three (23) month probation actually fell in the mitigated sentencing range for involuntary manslaughter. The opinion referenced all of the mitigating factors discussed on record during Garcia-Rivera’s sentencing hearing, however found that the trial court based its decision solely on his not having a criminal record; a factor already considered in standard sentencing guidelines versus increased sentencing. Therefore, the Court found the sentencing judge was not justified in sentencing the defendant to probation and remanded the case for resentencing; for either mitigating factors to be considered on record in sentencing, or for a second consecutive prison term to be served.

Garcia-Rivera counter-argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences for the same act. Counsel for Garcia-Rivera argued that because both victims were killed in the same accident, the defendant should not be sentenced for each death but rather have two deaths factored into his one sentence. The Superior Court based their decision on Pennsylvania’s REAP statute, which states a person is guilty of reckless endangerment when s/he put another person in danger of death or serious injury. The Supreme Court has held the REAP statute could be used to impose multiple sentences for multiple victims, in a case where defendant recklessly drove his vehicle into a crowd of people. In the case of Commonwealth v. Frisbie, the Supreme Court reasoned that if the REAP statute provided for one sentence where multiple victims were put in danger, the statute would read another person or persons, rather than just a single person.
Sentencing

A sentencing hearing is held following a plea of guilt or a finding of guilty at trial. The purpose of the hearing is to hear both mitigating and aggravating factors, which may affect the duration of a defendant’s sentence. Some crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences, while others use guidelines which are advisory. Often times, a defendant can lower the level of his offense through mitigation; for example, cooperating with and assisting Police in an on-going investigation. There are other mitigating factors which are used to reduce a defendant’s sentence as well. An experienced criminal defense attorney is well versed in these mitigating factors, and can assist the defendant in reducing a potential sentence. If you have been charged with, or believe you are under investigation for a crime, please do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff for a confidential consultation.

In the case of U.S. v. Velez, Kuehne, and Ochoa, a Miami attorney, Benedict Kuehne, was hired by the defense team of a reputed Columbian drug lord to examine the source of funds used to pay Defendant’s legal fees. Kuehne enlisted the assistance of a Columbian attorney and a Columbian accountant, to help examine the money trail. After careful examination, Kuehne wrote opinion letters finding the money was legitimate and forwarded the $5.3 million which had been paid to him, as an intermediary, to the defense team. The Government alleged Kuehne had used falsified documents in determining the legitimacy of Defendant’s funds.

The District Court dismissed the count of the indictment relating to money laundering, holding transactions made for the purpose of securing legal representation were exempt under Federal statute. On appeal, the Circuit Court affirmed the ruling, differentiating the criminal statute from civil forfeiture. The statute governing civil forfeiture, 21 U.S.C. § 853, contains no exemption for funds paid for legal representation. In Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. U.S., the Supreme Court of the United States refused to read into the statute an exemption for criminal proceeds used to pay attorneys’ fees, stating Congress has the authority to legislate such a clause should they so choose. 18 U.S.C. § 1957, rather, explicitly exempts such transactions from criminal penalty.

Velez exemplifies the exemption in the Federal money laundering statute for transactions relating to legal representation. Although funds accepted for legal representation may be forfeited civilly if investigation reveals those funds are tainted, an attorney is not subject to criminal penalties for accepting those funds. The Sixth Amendment’s guaranteed right to legal representation in criminal proceedings should not be infringed upon by attorney apprehension of criminal penalty, solely for acceptance of payment.

For a confidential consultation in matters involving money laundering or serious felony drug crimes, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff at (215) 563-9800 or email Marc@nefflawoffices.com.

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.

The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act has long been in place in our justice system. It was created with the intention of removing juveniles from the ordinary criminal justice system in hopes of rehabilitation and to assist troubled youths in becoming productive adult members of society. As part of the Act, juvenile offenders generally do not have their names or a picture released to the public when charged with most criminal offenses and further safeguards the record of juvenile proceedings from unauthorized disclosure.

The Constitution of the United States also provides protection against Ex Post Facto laws, or laws which retroactively change the legal consequences of a person’s actions. The Constitution shields citizens from being punished for acts previously committed which did not carry consequence at the time they were committed. However, consequences must be deemed punitive in order for the Constitution’s clause to apply; regulatory or civil application, such as adult registration in a sex offender database, is not considered a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause.

A juvenile who was adjudicated for a sex offenses which he committed between the ages of thirteen (13) and fifteen (15), was required to register in the national sex offender database as per SORNA’s requirements. The juvenile’s offenses constituted aggravated sexual assault due to the young age of the victim. The Juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to two (2) years detention in a juvenile facility, to be followed by supervised release; the adjudication occurred one (1) year prior to the passage of SORNA. As per the FJDA, the juvenile’s record was sealed.

On appeal from the District Court’s imposition of the SORNA requirement upon the juvenile, following his adjudication for delinquency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that applying the SORNA requirements to the appellant violated the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution. The Court discussed the difference between applying SORNA retroactively to adults versus adjudicated juveniles. The FJDA seals a juvenile’s criminal record upon adjudication, allowing only authorized personnel to view juvenile offenses of an individual. The FJDA provides this protection in hopes of rehabilitating juveniles so they can become productive adults, rather than burden their early adult lives with a criminal record which would affect employment, credit, home rental and purchase, etc. Contrarily, an adult criminal record is open to the public upon search.

Based upon this analysis, the Court held application of SORNA’s registration and reporting requirements unconstitutional as applied to adjudicated juveniles, as the effect would be punitive rather than merely regulatory. The Court also mentioned that an opposite finding could require juvenile offenders, adjudicated decades ago, to register; potentially ruining families, businesses, and the lives of those who have been successfully rehabilitated.

Sexual Crimes

Sexual Crimes are serious matters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as throughout the United States. These crimes carry harsh penalties. In addition to prison sentence, a convicted offender may be subject to “Megan’s Law”, which is intended by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to “protect the safety and general welfare of the people of this Commonwealth by providing for registration and community notification regarding sexually violent predators who are about to be released from custody and will live in or near their neighborhood”. Further, offenders may also be subject to a national sex offender registration database under the Federal SORNA Act.

Sexual offenses in Pennsylvania are serious crimes which carry many substantial penalties if you are convicted. An experienced Pennsylvania Criminal Defense Attorney can defend you against these charges.

Vazquez appealed the sentence for plain error, arguing he was not given any benefit of the downward departure the Prosecution had agreed upon. The Third Circuit cited to U.S. v. Floyd, quoting “the sentence reached after granting a departure motion must be less than the bottom of the otherwise applicable Guidelines range.” The Court further explained the only way Vazquez could have been sentenced to a greater term than allowed by the downward departure is if the new sentence failed to reflect the seriousness of the crime committed. The Court found the error to be plain and prejudicial, therefore vacating the sentence and remanding the case with instruction for re-sentencing.

Sentencing

A sentencing hearing is held following a plea of guilt or a finding of guilty at trial. The purpose of the hearing is to highlight both mitigating and aggravating factors, which may affect the length of a defendant’s sentence. Some crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences, while others use guidelines which are advisory. Often times, a defendant can lower the level of his offense through mitigation; for example, cooperating with and assisting Police in an on-going investigation. There are other mitigating factors which are used to reduce a defendant’s sentence as well. An experienced criminal defense attorney is well versed in these mitigating factors, and can assist the defendant in reducing a potential sentence. If you have been charged with, or believe you are under investigation for a crime, please do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff for a confidential consultation.

After later interviewing two witnesses who claimed the Defendant actually had manufactured counterfeit money, the agents returned to the Defendant’s residence without a search warrant. The Defendant was not home at the time. The man’s stepfather, who was home when the agents arrived, claims the agents did not request his permission, but rather announced their presence and that they were seizing the printer.

In support of denying the Defense’s motion to suppress, the Prosecution argued the “Inevitable Discovery” doctrine applied, making the warrantless search and seizure legal. The Inevitable Discovery doctrine states “if the Prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means..., then the deterrence rational has so little basis that the evidence should be received.” In U.S. v. Alexander, the doctrine was applied where police, with a proper search warrant, arrested the defendant in his home and obtained an admission from the defendant of where contraband had been hidden, prior to reading the defendant his Miranda rights. The defense moved to suppress the evidence on the basis of an illegally obtained confession leading to the discovery of evidence, as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court in Alexander held that because the police had a proper search warrant, they would have inevitably discovered the contraband when exercising the warrant, regardless of whether the confession had been given.

In Quinney, the agents failed to obtain a proper search warrant despite having probable cause to do so. The Court therefore held the Inevitable Discovery doctrine did not apply, as the agents were instead trying to circumvent the warrant requirement for whatever reason. The Court cautioned that a finding in the contrary could lead to an elimination of search warrant protections. The evidence was therefore suppressed and the case remanded for trial accordingly.

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.

A lawsuit was filed by the victim’s mother, alleging negligence of the employer due to its failure to adequately monitor the employee’s computer. To be found liable for negligence, the Plaintiff must prove a duty exists on the part of the employer to monitor the employee’s computer, that duty was breached, and that breach of duty caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. In the motion for summary judgment filed by the employer and initially granted, the Court held the final element of negligence could not be met because the sexual abuse of the victim would have occurred regardless of whether the employer had monitored the computer. On appeal, however, the Superior Court reversed the motion and remanded the case for trial. The Court found the employer had both the ability and the right to monitor the employee’s work computer. The employer had knowledge of the employee’s past access of pornographic websites, giving rise to a duty to prevent the possible harm to others. Although the employee potentially could have used another computer had he not been able to post the pornography via his workspace, the Court held the issue of cause as one for a jury to decide and remanded the case accordingly. The Court’s ruling illustrates an employer’s potential liability for an employee’s criminal acts, within the scope of business.

Child Pornography

Federal Law defines child pornography as “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it a) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or b) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Possessing, Making, and Distributing child pornography is illegal in all 50 states, including Pennsylvania, and it is an offense which carries serious legal penalties.

If you have been arrested and charged with owning, making, or distributing child pornography, the Law Offices of Marc Neff can help. There are defenses which are available to you, so do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff immediately.

Delaware wished to institute its sports betting plan in accordance with the PASPA’s exemption for Delaware’s sports lottery; the proceeds to help offset an $800 million state budget deficit. Attorneys for the four major professional sports (football, basketball, baseball, and hockey) argued that allowing betting on single game sporting events would compromise the integrity of the games by promoting game fixing. Attorney Kenneth Nachbar argued the Act’s exemption for the Delaware sports lottery does not allow the State to institute single-game betting, stating “the closer you get to single-game betting, the more you call into question the integrity of what happens on the field or on the court.” Rather, Delaware’s sports lottery, which has not been in existence since 1976, allowed for betting on multiple games via parlay bets. Attorneys for the State of Delaware argued the plan meets the definition of a lottery under the 1992 Act, but to no avail.

Last year, Tim Donaghy, a referee in the National Basketball Association, was charged with crimes relating to betting on single games and passing along inside information to bookies. It is still unknown for sure whether Donaghy, through his position as a referee, affected the outcome of any NBA games he worked. He pled guilty to Federal Fraud charges and was sentenced this summer to fifteen months in prison.

Fraud

Fraud is defined as an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. Fraud can be committed in many forms, including tampering with sporting events or other events which invite legal betting. The penalties for committing fraud vary, depending on the type of fraud and the damage caused by the fraudulent activities. The Law Offices of Marc Neff have over 20-years of experience successfully defending clients charged with fraud and related offenses. If you are under investigation of fraud, or have been charged with a criminal offense, contact our offices immediately. There are defenses available to you, and the Law Offices of Marc Neff can assist in developing a successful defense.

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.

Two individuals were stopped by Pennsylvania State Police while driving on a Pennsylvania highway when the officer noticed the vehicle was speeding. After citing the driver, the officer asked the individuals about their travel plans, as the vehicle was registered out-of-state. Two conflicting stories were given by the vehicle’s occupants, arising suspicion in the officer. The officer then asked if the individuals were transporting any firearms or narcotics to which the driver nervously responded that he had a weapon. The driver then consented to a search of the vehicle, upon which thirty-five pounds of marijuana, methamphetamine, paraphernalia, a handgun, and a cellular “tracfone” were found. The men were taken into custody; upon questioning, the passenger admitted he had been approached by a man named “Steve” who agreed to purchase thirty-five pounds of marijuana from him. The tracfone would be used to keep in contact and set-up the final meeting spot.

The officer, without first obtaining a warrant, began text-messaging Steve from the phone, to which Steve suspiciously responded with questions only his cohort would know. Obtaining the answers from the passenger, the officer responded and gained Steve’s trust. When a meeting place was established as a parking lot, Pennsylvania State Police began surveillance of the lot. Spotting a vehicle with New York license plates, and information that Steve was from New York, a uniformed officer in a marked car pulled-in behind the vehicle, asked if one of the occupants were named Steve, and after receiving an affirmative response, arrested the individual. At trial, the Court suppressed the evidence obtained, citing a violation of Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The Commonwealth appealed this order.

The Commonwealth raised the issue of whether the trial court erred in finding the intercepted text-messages were obtained in violation of the Wiretap Act. The Commonwealth argued that the text-messages were not intercepted illegally and that the Act was not intended to prevent misrepresentation of identity; the Commonwealth argued that when the officer began sending the text-messages, he became the intended recipient. The Commonwealth also suggested that “interception” requires the use of a separate device and no expectation of privacy existed as the text message could have been shared once received.

The Superior Court examined the Wiretap Act on its face and ruled the Commonwealth’s arguments either wrong or irrelevant. Nowhere in the Act does it state interception requires the use of a separate police device. The Court further ruled that the facts of this case differed from cases cited by the Commonwealth in their brief, in that the phone was not voluntarily given to police, nor were the interceptions explicitly consented to by any of the parties. In a concurring decision, Justice Stevens opined that the state of Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act gives narcotics dealers an enormous advantage over law enforcement; by the time the Act has been complied with by Police, the drug-dealers have long since completed their transactions. Nevertheless, he wrote that the majority opinion of the Court was correct based on the current state of the law.

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.

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.