by Marc Neff

Common Criminal Cases in Philadelphia (State Court)

1. Drug Cases – The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act Drug cases are among the most common types of criminal cases in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Act) defines drug possession offenses. See 35 Pennsylvania Statutes § 780-113. Common offenses under the Act include Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession...

by Marc Neff

Appeals Court Tosses Conviction Based On Illegal Child Pornography Investigation

A federal appeals court has recently overturned a man’s conviction and 18 year prison sentence because of an illegal government investigation. The illegal search and investigation stems from a Naval Criminal Investigative agent using a software program to search private computers throughout the State of Washington for child pornography. The Department of Justice justified the search by arguing...

by Marc Neff

United States Supreme Court Rules No Warrant Needed To Enter Home

The Supreme Court recently ruled that police do not always need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence. This contradicts previous case law from 2006. Prior to this new decision, when there was a disagreement between two occupants about allowing...

by Marc Neff

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Search of Automobile

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently reviewed a case involving “live-stop” procedures. A police Corporal in Harrisburg, PA initiated a vehicle stop after the defendant was observed entering the flow of traffic without using a turn signal. The vehicle, driven by the defendant, pulled over and came to rest with the passenger side tires close to the curb so that the vehicle was not...

by Marc Neff

United States Supreme Court Says GPS Tracking Requires a Warrant

Antoine Jones was being investigated by the FBI and a local police department for narcotics violations. During the course of the investigation, the FBI placed a global positioning device on Jones’s vehicle without a warrant. This device tracked his movements 24 hours a day for about four weeks. The government used the tracking information in the criminal trial against Jones to show his...

by Marc Neff

Court Restricts Police Searches of Phone Data

Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that law enforcement agencies will now have to obtain a search warrant before obtaining tracking information from cell phone providers. The ruling involved a case that began with a string of burglaries in homes in New Jersey. A court ordered the tracing of a cell phone that had been stolen from one of the homes and located a suspect. Further...

by Marc Neff

Another Strong Affirmation of the Fourth Amendment’s Protections

In United States v. Black, No. 11-5084 (3:10-cr-00206-MOC-1) (Feb. 25, 2013), two officers in Charlotte began to follow a car as it left a gas station. The driver, Dior Troupe, parked and joined a group of five other men, including Black, standing and talking in the parking lot. After calling for backup, in order to make “voluntary contact,” the officers approached the men, one...

by Marc Neff

Police Need Probable Cause to Seize Someone Who Has Left The Immediate Vicinity of a Place Where a Search Warrant is Being Executed

In Bailey v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the rule of Michigan v. Summers (1982), which permits the detention of persons found on the premises during the lawful execution of a search warrant, does not extend beyond the premises’ immediate vicinity. In Bailey, police officers saw Bailey leaving an apartment shortly before they planned to execute a search...