Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Does Not Need A Warrant For Automobile Searches

April 21, 2015/in Criminal Defense, Hire a Lawyer /by DRK Attorneys

Since April 2013 in Pennsylvania, law enforcement has only needed probable cause to search an automobile. A divided state supreme court ruled in 2013 that Pennsylvania will follow federal law which requires law enforcement only have probable cause before searching a vehicle.

Prior to the state’s High Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Gary Shiem, Pennsylvania had over 200 years of decisional law that held that probable cause as well as a search warrant or exigent circumstances were required for a vehicle search, unless the vehicle’s owner gave consent. Since the ruling in 2013, law enforcement’s ability to search vehicles based solely on probable cause has aligned the state more closely with federal law and other state laws throughout the country.

U.S. Supreme Court Rulings On Vehicle Searches

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that, based on the fact that vehicles are inherently mobile, there can not be the same expectation of privacy as one would have as the occupant of a house. Therefore, the court has ruled the expectation of privacy in a vehicle is significantly lower than those outlined by Federal Constitutional standards and as such, only probable cause is necessary for a legal search.

What Are Exigent Circumstances?

Exigent circumstances are an exception to the 4th Amendment requirement of a warrant as a necessity for law enforcement to conduct searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances apply when law enforcement has probable cause and insufficient time to obtain a warrant.

What Does Probable Cause Mean?

Probable cause are the legal standards that apply when a police officer exercises the right to make an arrest, obtain a warrant for an arrest, and/or conduct a personal or property search. Essentially, probable cause applies when a person is confronted with facts or circumstances that would lead any reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or will be committed.

Commonwealth v. Gary Shiem

In the case of Commonwealth v. Gary Shiem, the defendant was pulled over by Philadelphia police officers because of the excessively dark tint on his vehicle’s windows. Once the vehicle stop was in progress, the officers noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. When Mr. Shinn was asked by the officers if he was in possession of anything that they needed to be concerned about, he reportedly replied, “weed.” A drug detection dog was brought to the scene and indicated that marijuana was present. When the vehicle was searched, two pounds of marijuana was discovered underneath the hood.

Search Challenged At Trial

Once the case reached trial, the defense challenged the search by alleging that there was no probable cause, nor warrant or exigent circumstances. Ultimately, the case went all the way to the PA Supreme Court which ultimately upheld the ruling of the trial court. The trial court held that an exigent circumstance existed and therefore the suppression of the search which recovered the marijuana was denied.

All of the criminal defense attorneys at DRK Lawyers are former assistant district attorneys. We understand criminal cases and defense from both sides of the courtroom. We use our trial experience and knowledge of the government’s tactics to help defend our clients every day in the state of Pennsylvania. If you are facing criminal charges, please contact our team today. There is never a charge for your initial consultation.

What Is A Preliminary Hearing in PA? Will I Need A Criminal Defense Attorney?

April 17, 2015/in Criminal Defense /by DRK Attorneys

In Pennsylvania, criminal charges at the misdemeanor or felony level are usually introduced into the court system with a preliminary hearing. By law, a defendant must receive a summons that contains information regarding what may transpire at their preliminary hearing. The information provided to the defendant in the summons should contain:

A copy of the criminal complaint including an affidavit of probable cause which outlines the district attorney’s or police investigation’s basis for filing the charges
Notice of the defendant’s right to obtain legal representation
Notice that bail will be set
Notice that a failure to appear will result in a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest
A request for fingerprinting of the defendant is often included as well

Preliminary Hearings Are Not Trials

Many defendants become confused and mistake the preliminary hearing as the trial. This is incorrect. At the preliminary hearing it can be critical to have your legal representation present with you. This is because, without proper counsel, many defendants simply waive their right to the preliminary hearing and allow the matter to be scheduled for trial. This is almost always against the defendant’s best interest.

Burden Of Establishing The Right To Proceed: A Prima Facie Case

At preliminary trials, the Commonwealth or the police have a burden to establish a prima facie case. This means that, barring a rebuttal of the evidence, the action brought has enough legal merit to justify a verdict in favor of the party bringing the action. The Commonwealth must establish that each charge brought against the defendant is supported by competent evidence. From a defense perspective, the preliminary hearing is where a criminal defense attorney can begin to challenge the charges and evidence against a defendant, in effect putting them to a “stress test” that may result in the defendant facing lesser charges at trial.

Consult With A Criminal Defense Lawyer

DRK Attorneys Name Winner of New Scholarship for Student Living with Mental Illness

March 31, 2015/in Criminal Defense /by DRK Attorneys

To shine a brighter light on the challenges of living with a mental illness, the attorneys at DRK Attorneys created a new $1,000 scholarship to support one recipient’s academic dreams. In its first year, the firm awarded the scholarship to Lacey B., who attends college in Phoenix, where she is studying Elementary Education and Special Education. In addition, DRK Attorneys also recognized two honorable mentions: Samantha L. of Washington and Hannah M. of Memphis.

Designed for a student entering or enrolled at a college in the United States, the scholarship application included a personal essay and application form; in addition, recipients must have a diagnosed and documented mental illness and must be currently under the care of a licensed mental health professional. DRK Attorneys is recognized nationally for its support and services for individuals and families struggling with mental illness.

“Living with mental illness and succeeding in an academic environment can be incredible challenges that most people never stop to think about,” said Anthony DeLuca, DRK Attorneys. “We wanted to recognize this very important issue and to acknowledge some super stars who are making their dreams come true thanks to determination, resilience and intelligence.”

Lacey, who is challenged with ADHD and nonverbal learning disability, wrote that, “My disability does not hold me back. It has inspired me to work harder than anyone else, dream bigger, and become bold. Through my challenges, I have developed character and resilience. I see my disability as my gift to change the world and make a difference by becoming a special education teacher who inspires students to dream and find passion for learning.”

The honorable mention scholarship applicants discussed their ability to overcome challenges such as PTSD, anxiety, agoraphobia, depression, bullying and other issues.

Application materials for the 2016 scholarship will be available on our scholarship page later this year.