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:

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:

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:

A man convicted of attempted murder of a police officer, and aggravated assault in relation to others, recently had his convictions upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Edmond Jackson was convicted on charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault, stemming from a shooting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 2004. Police officers were investigating a shooting which had occurred earlier in the day of the incident, when Jackson and others approached the officers and the people they were questioning. Jackson and the other men were armed and began shooting at the officers and civilians. In total, between 50 and 80 shots were fired by the defendant and his associates; police returned fire.

One detective took notice of the defendant Jackson, particularly the shirt he was wearing. When the shooting ceased, the gunmen dispersed and immediately, the officer began chasing Jackson. Jackson, at one point, turned towards the detective and raised his arm as if he was carrying a firearm. The detective fired a single shot, missing Jackson, from which Jackson subsequently surrendered. Jackson did not possess a firearm when searched.

Jackson appealed his conviction on two issues; the first relating to the attempted murder charge and the second to the counts of aggravated assault. Jackson argued that since he did not possess a firearm when he raised his arm to the officer, he could not be found guilty of attempted murder because the offense is defined in part as “[taking] a substantial step toward the commission of a killing, with the specific intent in mind to commit such an act”. Jackson disputed the attempted murder charges since he did not have a weapon. The Superior Court examined the issue and determined that the test for what constitutes a substantial step focuses on the acts the defendant completed, not the steps remaining to complete the act. The Court therefore ruled that as the fact-finder, the trial court reasonably found that Jackson took a substantial step towards intentionally killing the detective; based on his having a firearm earlier, firing the weapon at his intended victim, and then raising his arm towards the detective while fleeing the scene.

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:

A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision upheld a ruling by the Court of Common Please, York County, allowing a defendant with a prior felony conviction to enter an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program; following his arrest for Driving Under the Influence. Brian Fleming was arrested and charged with two counts of Driving Under the Influence and a summary traffic offense in March of 2007. He applied for acceptance into the ARD program, which is a program for first-time offenders who would like to avoid the lengthy process of a trial and accept some alternate consequences. On the application for ARD, one of the questions asks whether the defendant has a record of any crime committed, juvenile or adult, which would result in the application being rejected. Fleming answered the question honestly, stating that he had a prior felony drug conviction in the state of Maryland in 1998, which was immediately expunged from his criminal record.

Upon conducting a criminal background search of Fleming, the Commonwealth discovered the felony conviction on his record. Fleming was therefore rejected as a candidate for ARD. Fleming, who truthfully believed the conviction had been expunged, immediately contacted Maryland authorities who issued an immediate order to expunge his record. He then appealed the rejection of his ARD application, and the Court of Common Pleas, York County, ordered his acceptance into the program; to which the Commonwealth promptly appealed to the Superior Court.

The Superior Court determined that Fleming answered the question on his ARD application truthfully, and based on the resulting facts, ruled that the felony conviction should have been expunged at the time he applied for ARD; the order was issued as soon as Fleming discovered it had not already been expunged, as he believed. The Court took into consideration Maryland State law regarding expunction and determined that the expunged conviction was a “prohibited consideration” for the district attorney in rejecting Fleming’s application. The Court ruled that the district attorney’s office may keep a list of people who have participated in an ARD program, for the purpose of ensuring that a defendant can not enter the program more than once; however a prosecutor may not consider a defendant as a recidivist offender when the previous conviction has been expunged.

Expunction

Expunction is the process of obtaining a court order which directs law enforcement agencies to destroy criminal records. There are certain criteria which must be met in order to do so. An experienced criminal defense attorney understands the process of expunction and will take the steps necessary to help clear your record.

If you have been arrested and you would like the arrest information expunged from your criminal record, or if you are currently charged with an offense, it is imperative that you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For a confidential consultation, and to determine the best course of action for your situation, contact our office via phone at (215) 563-9800, or via e-mail at Marc@nefflawoffices.com.

Posted by Marc Neff | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently upheld a Trial Court’s decision that a taped phone conversation between a child and her alleged abuser was inadmissible at trial. David Deck, a resident of Cumberland County, was charged with statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and sexual abuse of children, when the child accusing Deck of the abuse gave police a tape-recorded phone conversation between the two parties.

Deck was living with his girlfriend and her minor daughter, who claimed that Deck was sexually abusing her. The child, attempting to obtain proof of the alleged abuse, phoned Deck while he was at his office and told him that he was on speakerphone. She did not mention, however, that she was recording the conversation on an answering machine tape. She then gave the taped conversation to police who later arrested and charged Deck with the crimes.

At Deck’s suppression hearing, the trial court ruled that the tape could not be admitted as evidence since Deck had not consented to the recording. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court who upheld the trial court’s ruling. The Court strictly interpreted the Wiretap Act, noting that state law could provide for greater, but not lesser, protection than the Federal Wiretap Act. The relevant sections of the Act define the crime of wiretapping, oral communication, wire communication, and aural transfer. The Commonwealth argued that the conversation between the parties was an oral transfer, which by statute, requires the party injured to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the conversation, in order to suppress; Deck’s office door was open during the phone conversation, thereby reducing his potential claim for reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Court determined that the phone conversation was defined as a wire transfer, not requiring a reasonable expectation of privacy but rather consent. Since Deck never consented to the recording, the Court upheld the decision to suppress the recording at his trial.

Suppression of Evidence

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

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:

Bruce Ivins, the biological weapons scientist who committed suicide last week amidst investigation relating to the 2001 anthrax terrorism, was apparently tracked by the FBI through DNA evidence. According to the Associated Press, the FBI used advanced DNA fingerprinting techniques on samples of the anthrax which was mailed to the victims in 2001, as well as DNA of the victims themselves; five people were killed after opening mail containing anthrax powder. Former Democratic leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, was one of the intended targets of the deadly letters; fortunately, the letter was intercepted prior to its opening. Investigators tracked the strand of anthrax used to the biological weapons laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, where Ivins was in charge of overseeing the anthrax research.

Information on exactly how the FBI focused its investigation on Ivins remains a secret, as court documents are still sealed. Since Ivins’ death last week, it is likely the FBI will close its case, allowing sealed court documents to be disclosed. As of now, it is unclear how prosecutors used the DNA analysis, which narrowed the investigation to a small number of scientists, to prepare murder charges against Ivins, begin discussion of the death penalty, and potential plea deals. According to the NY Times, evidence against Ivins was likely circumstantial at best.

If court documents are unsealed, we will learn more of the advanced techniques being used by the FBI to track and prosecute suspected criminals. Questions are already being raised about the screening measures used by the United States Military to hire its scientists; most scientists are not subject to screening for lingering psychological problems.

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. 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: Misdemeanor / Felony Crimes

Bookmark:

A brawl which occurred during a minor league baseball game in Ohio last week resulted in criminal charges filed against Peoria Chiefs pitcher, Julio Castillo. In the midst of the 10-minute long, bench-clearing melee, video shows Castillo maliciously throwing a baseball, but does not record where the baseball landed. As it turns out, the baseball struck a spectator, who later required treatment at a local hospital, and resulted in criminal charges of felonious assault filed against Castillo.

Castillo was arrested following the fight and was arraigned, via video conference, from the county jail the following morning. The judge ordered Castillo to be held on $50,000 bond. Castillo was also ordered to surrender his passport; a preventative measure to keep Castillo, who is from the Dominican Republic, from fleeing. The charge is a result of “outlandish and inexcusable conduct by a professional baseball player" according to the local district attorney.

Felony Crimes

Felony offenses are the most serious crimes and carry potential prison sentences of over one year if convicted.

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:

A Montgomery County, Pennsylvania resident convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol a few years ago, traded in his motor vehicle for a bicycle; to prevent himself from receiving any future DUI related charges. He never anticipated being charged with a second-offense for Driving Under the Influence, while riding his bicycle.

On July 4, 2007, he was riding his bicycle from a holiday party in Narberth, PA to his home in Havertown, PA, when he was struck by an automobile. He was treated at the scene, and taken to the hospital, where his blood alcohol content was tested. Testing resulted in a BAC reading of 0.155, nearly double the legal limit of 0.08. He subsequently was arrested for drunken bicycling; an offense punishable by the same penalties as Driving under the Influence.

The prosecutor, a Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney, explained that Pennsylvania law considers a bicycle as a vehicle, and that riders are subject to almost all of the same rules as drivers of motor vehicles. “Here, the statute is clear...Someone on a bicycle is subject to the DUI statute and he was pedaling his bicycle while under the influence on a roadway.” The bicyclist was sentenced to 15 consecutive weekends in jail, or 30 days, and 22 months of probation for a second DUI offense within 10-years. He also was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine and court costs, ordered to complete an alcohol-related highway safety program, and must follow any other recommendations after being evaluated for alcohol abuse. His driver’s license has been suspended for up to 18-months.

Driving Under the Influence

Pennsylvania law states that “Every person riding a pedalcycle upon a roadway...shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.” Pennsylvania statute defines a “vehicle” as “every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway.” Pennsylvania law mandates minimum sentences for DUI and DUI related crimes. Penalties are determined according to elements of the crime, as well as other factors such as prior convictions within the past ten years.

If you have been charged with DUI or a related offense, you should retain an experienced criminal defense attorney. For a confidential consultation, contact the Law Offices of Marc Neff.