5 Reasons Why You Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Pittsburgh

Getting into trouble with the law can result in serious consequences, including hefty fines, jail time, and even prison sentences. If you’re tangled up in legal trouble from committing a criminal act, you’ll need to find a reliable criminal defense lawyer in Pittsburgh. Not only is your criminal record riding on the line, but also you’ll need a professional to stand beside you and ensure that you’re treated fairly under the law. Think twice if you’re attempting to represent yourself in court—these are the 5 reasons why you need a criminal defense lawyer in Pittsburgh.

1. Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Reduce Penalties With Plea Bargains Getting a reduced sentence for your crime can be a tough road, but it’s much more attainable with a criminal defense lawyer in Pittsburgh. This means that you can potentially spend less money on fines or less time in jail. The better news is that, beyond reducing your sentence, a Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer may be able to eliminate sentencing altogether by negotiating a withdrawal or reduction of your charges.

2. Knowledge of Complicated and Lesser-Known Laws And Rules Representing yourself in a case means that the courts will hold you to the same standard as that of an attorney. All of the research and case preparation is on you. This puts you in the situation of looking over laws and regulations that you would likely never find on your own. This also means having to study, understand and apply complicated rules regarding procedure and evidence that a seasoned lawyer knows well.

Not to mention, there’s a big difference between reading the law and practicing the law—and you’ll find this out the hard way if you seek to represent yourself in court.

3. Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Easily Gather Evidence And Statements Asking for witness statements after being involved in a crime puts you in an awkward situation. Understandably, a lot of witnesses will not be interested in giving statements directly to a suspected criminal. However, a criminal defense lawyer in Pittsburgh can collect statements and evidence quickly and easily. Specifically, a former prosecutor who has experience working with witnesses on both sides of the law may have an advantage in this process.

If warranted, a criminal defense lawyer in Pittsburgh can hire a private investigator to help you build a defense to your charges.

4. Lay The Ground Work for Your Trial Defense An experienced Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer knows when to negotiate and when to fight. Giving up your rights and getting nothing in return is a recipe for disaster.

With cases that are destined for trial, it is important to start building your defense as early as possible. A Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer can challenge violations of your rights, attack witness testimony through cross-examination, and make argument from a position of strength.

5. Offer Emotional Support (And a Reality Check) Going through the process of criminal prosecution isn’t easy—defendants can become depressed and feel as if there’s no hope for their future. A criminal defense lawyer can offer support while keeping you grounded, and prepare you for what lies on the road ahead.

Are You Looking For a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Pittsburgh? It’s evident that you need a Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer to help you with your case—but you don’t want to choose just any criminal defense lawyer. In order to achieve the best outcome possible for your situation, you’ll need a criminal defense lawyer who knows the ropes and will fight for the best possible outcome.

Contact the Zuckerman Law Firm to speak with one of the best criminal defense lawyers in Allegheny County. Our client-approved firm can assist you with navigating your way through the court system and help you get your life back on track. Call today at 412-447-5580.

PA's Drug Overdose Immunity Law

PA'S DRUG OVERDOSE RESPONSE IMMUNITY LAW

Prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 1164, a person who suffered from a drug overdose and those who reported the overdose could be charged with numerous possessory crimes. For example, if a person called 911 to report that a friend suffered from a heroin overdose in their home, and stamp bags of heroin were recovered, both persons would typically be charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

If you have suffered from a drug overdose, or called for help on behalf of someone suffering from a drug overdose, you will be immune from criminal prosecution in many instances. Senate Bill 1164 amended Pennsylvania's Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act by granting immunity to an overdosing person and those who render aid under limited circumstances. The purpose of the bill was to encourage others to report drug related overdoses without fear of prosecution.

WHAT COUNTS AS A QUALIFYING DRUG OVERDOSE EVENT?

Under Section 13.7, a Drug Overdose Event is defined as, "an acute medical condition, including, but not limited to, severe physical illness, coma, mania, hysteria or death, which is the result of consumption or use of one or more controlled substances causing an adverse reaction."

In determining whether an event qualifies as a drug overdose, the courts will utilize a "prudent layperson" standard. Under this standard, an event is a drug overdose if a, "prudent layperson, possessing an average knowledge of medicine and health, would reasonably believe that the condition is in fact a drug overdose and requires immediate medical attention."

IMMUNITY FOR THE REPORTING PERSON

Under the newly enacted Section 13.7 of the PA Controlled Substances Act, a person cannot be charged and prosecuted for certain drug crimes, as well as probation and parole violations, if:

1. Police only became aware of the drug offense because the reporting person transported the overdosing person to a healthcare facility, campus police or law enforcement agency; OR

2. The reporting person has a reasonable, good faith belief that another is suffering from an overdose, and

• Reports the overdose to 911, a member of law enforcement, a member of campus police, or emergency services personnel;
• Reports his or her name and location;
• Cooperates with members of law enforcement and medical personnel; and
• Remains with the overdosing person until members of law enforcement or medical personnel arrive.

IMMUNITY FOR THE PERSON WHO OVERDOSED

Under Section 13.7(c), "persons experiencing drug overdose events may not be charged and shall be immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (b) if a person who transported or reported and remained with them may not be charged and is entitled to immunity under this section."

CRIMES WITH IMMUNITY

If a person complies with the requirements listed above, police do not obtain information about the crime prior to the emergency, or police do not obtain information about the crime independently and unrelated to the emergency, he or she will be immune from prosecution for the following offenses:

• Simple Possession: knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled or counterfeit substance
• Purchasing From Unauthorized Person: Intentionally purchasing or knowingly receiving in commerce a controlled substance, drug or device from a person not authorized to dispense or sell such a drug or device
• Small Amount of Marijuana: Possessing a small amount of marijuana for personal use, or possessing or distributing a small amount of marijuana without intent to sell it
• Drug Paraphernalia: Using drug paraphernalia, or possessing paraphernalia with intent to use it
• Delivering, Manufacturing or Possessing Drug Paraphernalia With Intent to Deliver
• Possession of Anabolic Steroids: if unregistered person possesses more than 30 doses of a dispensed prescription or more than 3 trade packages of anabolic steroids.

CRIMES WITHOUT IMMUNITY

An overdosing person or reporting person may still face prosecution for the following crimes:

• Prior or Independent Evidence of "Immunity Crimes": If police obtain information about one of the immunity crimes before the overdose, or in a manner independent of the reported overdose
• All "Non-Immunity" Crimes: May include tampering with physical evidence for those who attempt to discard evidence
• Delivery or Distribution of a Controlled Substance: (i.e. drug dealing)
• Drug-Induced Homicide or Drug Delivery Resulting in Death

PROSECUTING THIRD PARTIES

Evidence recovered during a reported overdose may be used to prosecute a third party. For example, if heroin is found as a result of a reported overdose, the reporting and overdosing person may not be prosecuted, but the evidence can be used to prosecute their drug dealer.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE BEING INVESTIGATED OR CHARGED AFTER SUFFERING FROM OR REPORTING AN OVERDOSE?

If a friend or loved one is suffering from an overdose, you should immediately call 911 and report the overdose to medical personnel. Remain on scene, provide your name, address and location, and notify police and medical personnel what quantity and type of drugs the overdosing person took.

The questions asked of you should be those necessary to understand and avert the medical emergency. However, members of law enforcement may try to convert this inquiry into a criminal investigation.

If police begin asking you questions about the source of the drugs or whether or not you gave the drugs to the overdosing person, you should remain silent and ask to speak to a lawyer. Statements made regarding drug sharing or delivery can be used to prosecute you for serious drug offenses. These questions aren't designed to avert a medical emergency, but to hold someone criminally responsible.

Likewise, if members of law enforcement contact you after you have been released from the scene of the overdose, you should remain silent and ask to speak to a lawyer.

If you are the subject of a criminal investigation, or have been charged with a crime in connection with an overdose event, call the Zuckerman Law Firm today at 412-447-5580.

Client Found Not Guilty of Simple Assault and Victim Intimidation Charges

A ZLF client was falsely accused of simple assault and the intimidation of a victim in Allegheny County, facing a maximum sentence of up to 4 years in prison, along with a permanent criminal record. We are pleased to report that he and his co-defendant were found not-guilty after a 1 day non-jury trial. The underlying dispute in this case stemmed from a custody dispute between two parents, to which members of the extended family became involved. At both the preliminary hearing and at trial, the alleged victim testified that she was punched, kicked and beaten for 5-minutes by the co-defendants and a juvenile, causing her to sustain a broken wrist, back injuries, neck injuries, and tearing of the shoulders.

ZLF was able to obtain copies of the alleged victim's medical records from the incident date, which did not support the majority of her injury claims. During cross examination, the lead officer on the case confirmed that the victim did not report any wrist, back, neck or shoulder injuries and declined medical treatment on scene.

On the preliminary hearing date, the alleged victim was seeking reimbursement for thousands of dollars worth of medical bills. Medical billing statements offered into evidence established that the bills were paid in full by her health insurance before the preliminary hearing.

A relative of the victim claimed to have witnessed the assault. We were able to obtain a copy of a certified PFA signed by this witness, where he noted that the victim's injuries were caused by the mother of his child, and not the co-defendants. Testimony also established his racial bias against our client, as he directed a racial slur towards the client during a previous court appearance.

Defense witnesses testified that the victim approached a co-defendant and threatened to kill her, which prompted her to act alone in self-defense. Further testimony established that our client and the juvenile co-defendant did not attack the alleged victim.

At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the Court granted the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the intimidation of a victim offense, and entered a not guilty verdict on the simple assault count at the conclusion of the defense's case.

Debunking Myths About Fighting Traffic Tickets

DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT FIGHTING TRAFFIC TICKETS IN PITTSBURGH AND WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

Over the last few weeks, our firm has received numerous phone calls from those who mailed in guilty pleas on their citations, only to discover that points and license suspensions were imposed. We were able to help some of the callers file summary appeals and administrative license appeals. Others were out of luck, and are stuck with the consequences of their decisions.

This blog post is designed to tell you one thing: If you are facing points, a license suspension or jail time on a traffic ticket, you should never mail in the citation with a guilty plea.

We also want to debunk some of the myths and fears our clients have about fighting traffic tickets.

"I know I was speeding, so I thought pleading guilty was the right thing to do."

If you're buying a car, would you mail in a check to a car dealership for the highest possible sticker price? Of course not. You'd go to the dealership, speak to a salesman, and negotiate for a better price.

When you plead guilty by mailing in your citation and payment to the magistrate, you are automatically paying the highest possible "sticker price" for your traffic violation: maximum fines, points and mandatory license suspensions for applicable offenses.

There is nothing honorable about jeopardizing your ability to earn a living and overall freedom of travel by putting your driving privileges at risk. You may be able to accept responsibility for a driving infraction without pleading guilty to an offense that will tack points and suspensions onto your driving record.

"If I fight the ticket, I'm going to make the officer or the judge mad, and things might get worse." 

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Most police officers receive overtime pay for "court time," giving them a financial incentive to appear in court. Likewise, the role of the magistrate is to preside over traffic ticket cases.

Assuming your traffic offense carries no jail time, the worst thing that will happen to you is that you will be convicted of the offense and notified of your right to file an appeal.

If you are treated with disrespect by the police officer or the magistrate, don't take it personally.

"I'm not entirely sure what the penalties are for my ticket."

For information on traffic ticket penalties and PennDOT's points system, click on these links. We also provide free consultations on traffic ticket cases.

"I thought that the court had to tell me if I was going to face points or a license suspension."

The Magisterial District Court is under no obligation to provide you with legal advice, and will not tell you if you're facing points or a license suspension on your citation.

"I don't want to take off work to fight a ticket."

Unlike other states, Pennsylvania does not allow an attorney to appear in place of a defendant. However, it is possible for your case to be scheduled  either early in the morning or in the afternoon, ensuring that you won't miss more than a 1/2 day of work.

Most traffic ticket hearings are short, and court sessions typically range from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Many times, the magistrate is willing to accommodate attorneys by calling their cases first. This is another advantage to hiring a lawyer.

You're better off burning a 1/2 vacation or sick day than putting your driving privileges at risk.

"I'll just plead guilty now and if something bad happens, a lawyer will be able to help me out, or PennDOT will cut me a break."

Any experienced traffic ticket lawyer will tell you that negotiating with PennDOT is not a pleasant or productive experience. PennDOT will not cut you a break because you're a good person, and need your driver's license to get to and from work.

Your best bet is always to get a lawyer involved as early on in the process. If you don't have a lawyer, enter a not guilty plea and work on finding representation later.

If you've plead guilty to a traffic offense, you have 30 days to file a summary appeal, or your guilty plea will stick. The lone exception is if you file a Petition to File a Summary Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc with the Court of Common Pleas, and it is granted. This petition will only be granted in the rare instances where fraud, a breakdown in the judicial system, or the ineffective assistance of counsel caused a delay in your ability to file on time.

"I don't need a lawyer at the magistrate's office, as I can just file a summary appeal if things go bad."

As discussed above, traffic ticket convictions can be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for a new trial. However, there are a few things you should keep in mind.

First, lawyers will often quote higher rates to handle summary appeals than they will for traffic cases at the magistrate's office. Summary appeals court sessions are typically of longer duration, and require an appearance at the county courthouse.

Second, you may be afforded more flexibility to negotiate a plea at the magistrate's office than you will at summary appeals court.

At the magistrate's office, the police officer who cited you typically handles the negotiations. When a summary appeal is filed, an Assistant District Attorney typically handles the prosecution of your case. If the ADA is unreasonable, or the DA's office has a certain policy in place regarding your violation, you may not get the offer you could have at the magistrate's office.

"I can't afford to hire a lawyer to fight my ticket."

Depending on who you talk to, you're right. Many criminal defense attorneys don't like taking traffic cases. They don't pay enough, they're not interesting enough, and it's simply a waste of their time to provide you with a consultation. Rather than decline the case, they'll provide you with a costly quote to handle your traffic case, leading you to believe that all lawyers are too expensive.

The Zuckerman Law Firm is a dedicated traffic ticket defense firm. We take pride in helping good, hardworking people out of bad situations. We offer rates for summary trials as low as $399, and work with many of our clients on payment plans.

For a free consultation, call us today at 412-447-5580. We will tell you if you're facing points, jail time or a license suspension, and will strive to offer a reasonable rate for representation.

Told You're Free to Go? Reasonable Suspicion Needed to Question You a 2nd Time

If police pull you over and tell you you're free to leave, they need reasonable suspicion to conduct a second round of questioning. In Commonwealth v. Nguyen, a trooper initiated a traffic stop on the defendant for speeding. The defendant refused to answer any questions but eventually provided his license and registration. When his license was run, the trooper learned that the defendant had prior drug arrests. He then issued a warning to the defendant for speeding, returned all information and told him he was free to go. However, as they walked to their respective vehicles, the trooper turned and re-engaged the driver by asking if he could question him further. The trooper then asked if he could search the car and its contents and the driver consented.

The defendant was asked to step out of the car and agreed to be frisked for safety purposes. During the frisk, the trooper felt a soft package in his front pocket that he believed contained bagged pills. When he asked what it was, appellant said it was OxyContin. During the search incident to arrest, troopers recovered 3 bundles of cash, 4 bags of cocaine and 4 jars of cocaine. The defendant argued that this frisk was not supported by reasonable suspicion.

The Superior Court held that once a police officer concludes the business of a traffic stop, but then re-engages the driver for questioning, that this constitutes a second, separate detention and must be supported by reasonable suspicion.

The information the trooper had about the defendant's prior drug arrests could not support a finding of reasonable suspicion, as the officer was aware of these facts before telling the driver he was free to leave. The court further held that the defendant's actions of being overly-apologetic, nervous and talkative were insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to support the second round of questioning.

Avoiding Errors on Firearms Purchase and Carry Permit Applications That Can Lead to Your Arrest

HOW INACCURATE ANSWERS ON A FIREARMS PURCHASE OR CARRY PERMIT APPLICATION CAN LEAD TO YOUR ARREST

It's common for us to sign applications and contracts without reviewing the fine print. Whether it's applying to college, purchasing a home, or applying for a credit card, we answer questions and sign documents without fully reviewing each and every detail.

If you apply for a concealed carry permit or complete an application to purchase a firearm, you cannot afford to answer questions without being 100% sure of the answer. Any inaccurate responses made on these forms can lead to you being charged with serious felony and misdemeanor charges, even if you have no prior criminal record and had no intent to lie on the application.

HOW THE APPLICATIONS PROCESS WORKS

When attempting to purchase a firearm, you will be required to complete ATF Form 4473 and PA form SP4-113. When applying for a license to carry firearms, PA Form SP4-127 is utilized.

The forms include a series of yes and no questions regarding your criminal history (including domestic violence history), mental health history, drug and alcohol use, and military discharge status. The applicant must sign a certification, subjecting himself or herself to the penalties for Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, and other penalties under the Uniform Firearms Act.

Upon completion, a Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) inquiry is initiated with the Pennsylvania State Police, where mental health and criminal records will be reviewed. Typically, 60% of purchasers are approved in minutes. If there's an issue regarding your eligibility, the file may be held for research purposes for up to 15 days.

If you are denied eligibility, you have thirty (30) days to complete a PICS Challenge form. Your failure to complete the PICS challenge form, or failure to have a valid reason to impose a PICS challenge, could lead to the filing of criminal charges against you.

APPLICABLE CRIMINAL CHARGES

The Pennsylvania State Police are filing charges on firearm applications cases at a record pace. The two most common charges associated with firearms application cases are:

Sale or Transfer of Firearm - 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(g)(4) - Punishable by up to 7 years in prison: any person, purchaser or transferee commits a felony of the third degree if, in connection with the purchase, delivery or transfer of a firearm under this chapter, he knowingly and intentionally: (i)  makes any materially false oral statement; (ii)  makes any materially false written statement, including a statement on any form promulgated by Federal or State agencies; or (iii)  willfully furnishes or exhibits any false identification intended or likely to deceive the seller, licensed dealer or licensed manufacturer.

Unsworn Falsification to Authorities - 18 Pa.C.S. 4904(b) - Punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a minimum $1,000 fine: A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he makes a written false statement which he does not believe to be true, on or pursuant to a form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable.

COMMON REASONS FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES

There are many reasons why a person can be denied the right to purchase a firearm or obtain a carry permit, which include:

• Being a fugitive from justice;
• Convictions under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic act which is punishable by imprisonment exceeding 2-years (even if your actual sentence was less than 2-years);
• Three or more convictions for DUI  within a 5-year period;
• A person who has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under the Mental Health Procedures Act;
• Those present in the US unlawfully (i.e. illegal immigrants);
• Anyone subject to an active Protection From Abuse (PFA) order;
• Anyone who is adjudicated delinquent of certain offenses as a juvenile, including, but not limited to homicide related offenses, felony assault offenses, sexual assault offenses, arson, robbery, and extortion.
• An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety;
• An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug;
• An individual who is a habitual drunkard;

If you answer questions regarding these issues incorrectly on your application, you may very well be charged with the offenses discussed above.

COMMON ERRORS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS ON FIREARMS APPLICATIONS

Even if your mistake was innocent, you don't want to have to explain yourself before a judge or jury. Some of the most common mistakes, include:

• "I didn't know my juvenile record counted."
• "That case happened years ago, I thought it was automatically expunged from my record."
• "I didn't know my commitment was classified as involuntary."
• "I forgot that a conviction was on my record."
• "I didn't know I had an active warrant for my arrest."
• "I didn't think my conviction carried a maximum sentence of a year or more."
• "Nobody went over the form with me."

In other cases, the offender simply had such an extensive criminal record, that there was no way they could have been mistaken about their checkered past when they completed the application.

We have also seen cases where a person who purchased firearms in the past was charged because he/she made an admission to having smoked marijuana for decades (answered "no" to question regarding drug use).

The bottom line is this: if you answer an eligibility question inaccurately for any reason, the police and the local District Attorney's office will likely assume that you intended to deceive the agency reviewing your application. 

HOW ZLF CAN HELP

If you are uncertain about the answers to any of the questions listed in a firearms purchase or carry permit application, it is highly recommended that you hold off until you run an FBI criminal background check. You should also retain counsel to review the application with you step by step, to insure that your answers are truthful and accurate.

If you have already been denied the right to purchase a firearm, or obtain a carry permit, you should immediately consult with an attorney about filing a PICS challenge.

If it is too late, and you are charged with the Sale or Transfer of a Firearm or Unsworn Falsification, call ZLF today at 412-447-5580 for a free, confidential consultation. 

Supreme Court: Absent Reasonable Suspicion, Use of Drug Sniffing Dog to Prolong Routine Traffic Stop Violates 4th Amendment

On April 21, 2015, by way of a 6-3 vote, the SCOTUS imposed a significant limitation on the use of drug sniffing dogs during traffic stops. In Rodriguez v. United States, the defendant (driver) was pulled over by a K9-Officer for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer confirmed the identity of the defendant by checking his driver's license, and was issued a warning for the traffic violation.

After issuing the warning, the officer requested permission to use a drug-sniffing dog to check the vehicle for the presence of narcotics. The driver refused. The officer then proceeded to detain the driver until a backup unit arrived, and then conducted a K9 sweep of the vehicle. Approximately 7-8 minutes after the initial stop, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. A search revealed the presence of methamphetamine.

The driver then argued that his detention for the purpose of conducting a dog sniff after the traffic stop was completed (i.e. issued a warning for original traffic violation) violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a 6-3 vote, the SCOTUS ultimately held that without reasonable suspicion to suspect that narcotics are present inside of a vehicle, the police cannot use a drug sniffing dog to extend a traffic stop.

• "We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitu­tion’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, there­ fore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation."

If you are subjected to a traffic stop, and are asked to consent to a dog sniff or other search of your vehicle, you should immediately - but politely - decline. Assert your constitutional rights. Do not give consent to search your vehicle, and ask to speak to an attorney.

If your vehicle or home was the subject of a drug sniff, contact ZLF today at 412-447-5580 for a free, confidential consultation.

Driver's License Suspensions Lead to Unemployment and Debt

Many states have laws suspending a person's driving privileges for failing to pay court costs, fines, fees and child support. These laws apply even when the particular debtor did not commit a Motor Vehicle Code violation. PA Senate Bill 918 will authorize the suspension of a person's driver's license for failing to pay court-ordered fines or penalties, even if the penalties are unrelated to a Motor Vehicle Code violation.

The New York Times published an article focusing on how driver's license suspensions create a cycle of debt that can be nearly impossible to escape. Without a license, those individuals who are able and willing to work and pay down their "criminal" debts are unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment. To make matters worse, arrest warrants can be issued for failing to pay fines and costs as required. Many criminal cases disposed of at the Court of Common Pleas carry total fines and costs exceeding $2,000, not including restitution and mandatory fines.

If passed, Senate Bill 918 would create the same problems experienced by debtors in Tennessee - Can't make court ordered payments, can't get a license; can't get a license, can't get or maintain work; can't get work, can't make court ordered payments.

If you're facing a license suspension, or owe a large, outstanding balance on a criminal case - call us today at 412-447-5580. There may be a way to help.

How Police Catch You Speeding in Pennsylvania

HOW THE POLICE CATCH YOU SPEEDING

NOTE: This blog article is for advertising and general informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon by any individual seeking to represent himself or herself in any legal proceeding in any jurisdiction. Neither Attorney Zuckerman nor the Zuckerman Law Firm, LLC make any promises or representations regarding the accuracy of the information contained within this article. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. It is recommended that you obtain a qualified attorney to represent you on any pending legal matter

Police can clock your speed using either a speedometer, a radio-microwave device (radar) or by an electronic device (VASCAR). Title 75 Section 3368 of the PA Motor Vehicle Code lists basic information about speed timing devices, including approved devices, restrictions on who can use these devices, distance restrictions on the use of timed speed devices, and calibration requirements.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has adopted a list of approved speed timing devices as well as approved maintenance and calibration stations. 

Speedometer

Speeding tickets can be issued as a result of "pacing," which occurs when an officer follows a suspect, using his/her own speedometer to clock the suspect's speed. Under Section 3368 of the Motor Vehicle Code, an officer or trooper must pace your vehicle for a minimum distance of 3/10ths of a mile.

Speedometers must be tested for accuracy at least one year prior to the alleged violation date, and immediately upon a change of tire size.

Roadway configurations (i.e. hills vs. straight roadways), roadway conditions (day vs. night, clear vs. rainy, etc), and distances between your vehicle and the officer's vehicle can impact the accuracy of an officer's pacing. For example, if an officer is speeding up to catch your vehicle, a speedometer reading will be artificially high.

Radar Devices (referred to as radio-microwave devices or electronic speed meters)

Pennsylvania State Troopers are the only members of law enforcement who are permitted to clock your speed using a radar device. PA is the only state in the nation that prohibits local police officers from using radar devices.

Radar devices function by sending a radio signal in a narrow beam towards your vehicle and recapturing the signal after it bounces off the exterior of your vehicle. The device uses the "Doppler Effect," calculating your speed based upon changes in the frequency of the original signal after it makes contact with your vehicle.

If your speeding ticket is the result of a radar reading, it is important to have the trooper establish whether or not there was traffic in your lane or in any surrounding lanes. If you are traveling near other vehicles - particularly large vehicles - it is possible that the signal used to clock your speed was from another vehicle.

Radar devices must be tested for accuracy within a period of one-year prior to the citation date. These devices are usually calibrated using a tuning fork, which creates a known speed measurement using a specific radio signal. When using the tuning fork, the device should be pointed towards the sky to eliminate interference from passing vehicles. While not required, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and US Department of Transportation recommend that calibration should occur at the beginning and end of shifts.

To establish proper calibration, the Commonwealth must offer the following into evidence: (1) Certificate showing that agency who tested the device was certified by Secretary of Transportation and (2) a Certification of Electronic Device (radar) Accuracy, signed by the person who tested the accuracy of the device, as well as the engineer in charge of the testing station.

If a trooper fails to use a tuning fork to calibrate the radar device, fails to calibrate the device as often as required, fails to present proper calibration documentation, or claims that calibration is unnecessary, these may be grounds to dismiss your citation.

Electronic Speed Timing Devices (Non-Radar)

Electronic speed-timing devices like VASCAR and VSPEC are non-radar devices which calculate speeds between two points. With VASCAR, a police officer measures the distance between two points by using measuring tape, or by connecting the device to the vehicle's odometer and driving the distance between the points. The officer then manually hits a trigger switch when you cross the first point and hits the switch a second time when you cross the second point. The device then calculates your speed by dividing the distance your vehicle traveled by the time it took to travel between the two points.

The VASCAR unit can be used when a police car is stationary, when following your vehicle, when driving ahead of your vehicle, or while driving in the opposite direction.

There are multiple ways to challenge a speeding ticket based upon a VASCAR reading:

First, with the exception of school zones and active work zones, under Section 3368(c) of the PA Motor Vehicle Code, electronic speed timing device readings cannot be used to convict you if:

• The speed recorded is less than 6 miles per hour over the speed limit;

• The legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour and the speed recorded is less than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit.

Second, if the two trigger points are located at a distance from the officer's vehicle, the officer may not be able to accurately observe when your vehicle passed the two points.

Third, since the officer is required to manually hit trigger switches as your vehicle crosses two points, errors in reaction time can create an incorrect result. If an officer is late to hit the trigger at the first point, and accurate as you cross the second point, you will be clocked at a faster speed than what you were traveling. An officer can be questioned about whether or not his or her reaction time had ever been tested for accuracy.

Fourth, if the officer connected the VASCAR device to the vehicle's odometer, and the odometer reading is off, then the VASCAR result will be off as well. The officer must be able to establish that both the VASCAR device and the odometer were calibrated.

Finally, PA Bulletin Doc. No. 11-2256 indicates that if a citation is contested, it is necessary for the police department to show the certificate of stopwatch accuracy, which was issued within 60 days of the citation, and an approved speed-timing device certificate issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE CITED FOR SPEEDING

"Any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing."

If you are cited for speeding and attempt to contest the ticket yourself, you may be fighting an uphill battle. The officer who cited you may not appear in court, and if he/she does appear, may attempt to establish that the devices were properly functioning through inadmissible evidence. You may also find that the Court restricts your ability to cross-examine witnesses as a self-represented Defendant.

Don't fight your speeding ticket alone. Call the Zuckerman Law Firm today at 412-447-5580 for a free consultation.

Why Police Can't Search Your Phone Without a Warrant

If you are arrested, the police may not search your cell phone unless (1) you give them permission to do so or (2) they obtain a search warrant. In Riley v. California,  the United States Supreme Court held that absent exigent circumstances (i.e. a public safety emergency or something similar), the police may not search the data on your cell phone without a warrant. In it's ruling, SCOTUS noted how most Americans who own cell phones keep on their record a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives. With modern technology, we carry our photo albums, medical information, an address book, trade secrets and other sensitive information in our pockets and purses. As such, our substantial expectation of privacy with regards to phone data outweighs law enforcement's desire for investigative convenience.

PA Superior Court Declares Firearm/Drug Mandatory Unconstitutional

Under 18 Pa.C.S. 9712.1, a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence applies if a person is convicted of "drug dealing" (i.e. Possession with Intent to Deliver) and a judge determines at sentencing that a firearm was in close proximity to the narcotics. In the Alleyne case, the US Supreme Court held that any element which increases a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The vast majority of PA mandatory sentences are written to only require that those facts be submitted to the judge and proven by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. greater than 50%).

Today, in Commonwealth vs. Newman, the PA Superior Court declared the drug/gun mandatory sentence at 9712.1 to be unconstitutional. The reasoning applied by the Superior Court should apply to nearly every other drug related mandatory sentence.

PA Mandatory Minimum Sentences Under Attack

In 1982, PA's General Assembly passed the first mandatory minimum sentencing statutes for certain violent offenders. Since then, Pennsylvania has adopted mandatory minimum sentences for DUI offenses (1983), narcotics offenses (1988), a "Three Strikes" law for repeat violent felony offenders (1995), and sexual offenses. Most mandatory sentencing provisions require the prosecutor to only give notice of its intent to seek a mandatory sentence before the sentencing date. These "notice mandatory provisions" were written to only require proof of the elements that trigger a mandatory sentence by a preponderance of the evidence to the judge. For example, if a person is convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver (i.e. drug dealing), the prosecutor would only have to establish to a judge at the sentencing hearing that it's more likely than (i.e. 50.1%) not that the transaction occurred within 1,000 feet of a school zone for a two-year mandatory minimum sentence to apply.

However, in the landmark case of Alleyne vs. United States, the US Supreme Court held that facts increasing the mandatory minimum sentence are elements of a crime, and must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Using that previous example, a jury would now have to determine that the prosecution has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the drug transaction occurred within 1,000 feet of a school zone for the mandatory sentence to apply.

The problem in Pennsylvania lies in the fact that the "burden of proof" provisions of the mandatory sentencing statutes are unconstitutional as written. Prosecutors throughout the state have essentially asked the courts to disregard the burden of proof language and let them present the mandatory sentencing elements to juries.

However, courts in Allegheny, Blair, Bucks, Chester, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties have declared that Pennsylvania's notice mandatory provisions are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced as written. Specifically, in the Blair County opinion of Commonwealth v. Weyant/Morgan, the court held that it's the legislature's role to re-write the statutes, and that adopting an alternative scheme for enforcing mandatory sentences would, “offend the separation of powers that exist between the branches of government.”

Furthermore, in the Derr/Williams opinion, the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas has held that, "where a legislative scheme is determined to have run afoul of constitutional mandate, it is not the role of the Court to design an alternative scheme which will pass constitutional muster.” citing Heller v. Frankston, 475 A.2d 1291, 1296 (Pa. 1984).

The "notice mandatory minimum" sentences are enforced at the discretion of prosecutors, and are routinely used to force the criminally accused into unfavorable plea agreements. Mandatory sentences are not applied uniformly, do not deter crime, lead to overcrowding of our jails and prisons with non-violent offenders (at an approximate cost of $35,000/yr), and infringe upon the role of our judiciary to adequately punish offenders.

If you or a loved one are charged with a drug crime and are facing a mandatory sentence as a result, call the Zuckerman Law Firm today at 412-447-5580.

PA Adopts Federal Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that in order to search your vehicle, police must obtain a search warrant. There are various exceptions to the "warrant requirement" which permit the police to conduct a search of a vehicle without a warrant. Unlike a home, citizens have a decreased expectation of privacy in their vehicles for two main reasons. First, members of law enforcement have extensive contact with motor vehicles, frequently observing evidence of criminality in "plain view" through the vehicle's windows. Second, vehicles are subject to stringent state regulations.

Under the Federal Automobile Exception, members of law enforcement are permitted to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to search the vehicle, and the only exigent circumstance is the inherent mobility of the vehicle. Under federal law, the police only needed sufficient facts to believe the car contains evidence of a crime or contraband before conducting a search. There is no requirement under the federal automobile exception for the police to demonstrate any reason why they couldn't obtain a warrant before searching. 

Article I, Section 8 of Pennsylvania's Constitution used to be interpreted to afford citizens greater protection against unlawful searches of motor vehicles than the US Constitution. Previously, in order for law enforcement to conduct a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, there must have been (1) probable cause to search the vehicle and (2) exigent circumstances beyond the mobility of the vehicle which prevent the police from obtaining a warrant before searching the car. Put simply, the police needed to establish that sufficient facts exist to believe the car contains evidence of a crime or contraband and some urgent reason, other than the ability to drive the car from the scene, that prevents the police from applying for a warrant before searching the vehicle. 

On April 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Commonwealth vs. Gary, formally adopting the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement. While police still need probable cause to search your vehicle (i.e. sufficient facts to believe car contains evidence of crime or contraband), they no longer need to establish that it is impossible to get a warrant under the circumstances. The holding in this case is listed below:

"In sum, our review reveals no compelling reason to interpret Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as providing greater protection with regard to warrantless searches of motor vehicles than does the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we hold that, in this Commonwealth, the law governing warrantless searches of motor vehicles is coextensive with federal law under the Fourth Amendment. The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search; no exigency beyond the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle is required. The consistent and firm requirement for probable cause is a strong and sufficient safeguard against illegal searches of motor vehicles, whose inherent mobility and the endless factual circumstances that such mobility engenders constitute a per se exigency allowing police officers to make the determination of probable cause in the first instance in the field."

What does this mean for you? For starters, we will see a greater number of searches conducted by police on the basis that they observed "furtive movements."  All it will likely take is a police officer saying "I saw the driver reaching for the floor, the glove box, etc" at a court hearing to justify a warrantless vehicle search. Previously, the officer would have to document the exact nature of these movements to a detached and neutral magisterial district justice who would have to find that probable cause existed.

If your vehicle has been searched by police and you do not have an attorney to represent you in an upcoming case - call the Zuckerman Law Firm today for a free consultation - 412-447-5580.