Case Results

Charges Dismissed 2 separate DUI’s
Client was charged with two separate DUI’s. For the first case, our client was pulled over for what the state trooper observed to be erratic driving. My client admitted to consuming alcohol and was subsequently asked out of his vehicle to submit to field sobriety tests, which he complied with. Following the tests, the trooper believed he had enough to arrest my client for DUI so he placed him in handcuffs and took him to the booking center for a blood draw. At booking my client agreed to submit to a blood draw; however, after the phlebotomist stuck our client three times in the arm with a needle without hitting a vein, the trooper directed her to stop attempting to draw blood. Although the police were not able to obtain blood from our client, they still filed DUI charges. Yes, you can face a DUI in Pennsylvania without a blood result. Of further significance for this case was that my client had his two children in the vehicle. This enhanced our client's DUI charges from an ungraded misdemeanor to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Shortly after receiving the charges for his first offense, our client was stopped again for the same circumstances and his wife and children were in the car with him. On this occasion he admitted to the police that he had consumed alcohol and was coming from a family member's home. As with the previous offense, he was asked out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests, but before being placed under arrest for DUI, the trooper who had him perform the field sobriety tests stated on the dash camera video that he did not believe he was impaired. Our client was still arrested for DUI and taken in for a blood draw. As in the prior case, he willingly submitted to a blood draw, but the phlebotomist could not obtain any blood from him.
Throughout this client's cases we attempted to reach a resolution, but all conversations lead us to trial on the first case. Due to the enhancements with the children in the car, this proceeded to a jury trial. Typically for a first offense DUI, you would not be eligible for a jury trial and the case would be decided by a judge. After the jury heard all of the testimony and watched the dash camera footage for the first case, they returned a verdict of not guilty on the DUI. The second case was scheduled for the very next trial term, but at jury selection the District Attorney’s Office agreed to dismiss the DUI charge and offered a plea to the summary traffic citations. This was in large part due to my client’s willingness to submit to a blood draw as well as the trooper in the dash camera video explaining that he felt he did not have enough.
Charges Dismissed Terroristic Threats, Simple Assault, Harassment
For most of us it is hard to imagine what our health will be like when we are older. For one such client he had worked in the entertainment industry in Las Vegas for the majority of his life, was married and after retirement moved to Pennsylvania to be closer to family. After moving to Pennsylvania he began dealing with the onset of dementia and Alzheimer’s. This client had never been in trouble in his entire life and one evening sitting down at the dinner table with his wife and good friend he had an outburst that concerned and scared the people that were around him. His wife and good friend did not know what to do and contacted the police for help. Inevitably my client was charged with Terroristic Threats, a misdemeanor of the first degree; Simple Assault, a misdemeanor of the second degree; and a summary harassment charge. From the beginning it was our position that this outburst was the result of his dementia and Alzheimer’s, but the District Attorney’s Office needed more proof. The Commonwealth did initially offer acceptance into the ARD Program, which is a diversionary program that would have allowed my client's charges to be dismissed; however, this would have required my client to be on probation and to pay fees for the program. Although this was an amicable resolution, we did not want our client to have to pay additional fees and to be on probation for what we truly believed was a result of his medical condition. Thankfully, after providing detailed medical records concerning his diagnosis at the time of the incident as well as his ongoing treatment and medical appointments, the District Attorney’s Office was willing to dismiss my client's charges without the need to complete a formal program.
Charges Dismissed 2nd Offense Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI.
Client was charged with a felony Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI, three other DUI related offenses, possession of drug paraphernalia and three summary violations for an accident that he was involved in with another motorist. All DUI offenses were based on our client having alcohol in his system at the time of the accident. Members of the state police were dispatched to the accident and upon arrival observed heavy front end damage to both vehicles. Our client was still trapped in his car. The state trooper’s provided aid to our client and eventually he was transported to the hospital for life saving treatment. The other motorist was also transported to a local hospital as she sustained significant injuries. One of the troopers testified at a hearing that this was the worst accident he ever witnessed where someone did not die.
This investigation was flawed from the start when a member of the state police attempted to do an accident reconstruction. Typically in an accident of this nature, the state police would send an expert to the scene to do a complete accident reconstruction; however, that was not done in this case. The trooper who filed the charges said that it was not done, because there was not a death. The trooper who filed the charges was not an expert in accident reconstruction. At the conclusion of the trooper’s investigation he determined that our client was driving at an excessive speed, that the other motorist was traveling the speed limit, and our client crossed the lane lines into the oncoming lane of travel striking the other motorist.
When my client’s father arrived at the scene and heard that his son was the cause of the accident he could not accept it as true based on what he saw. Shortly after the accident it was determined that the state police never requested the airbag control module (ACM) from the other motorists vehicle. The ACM of a vehicle can record data in the event of a collision, similar to a “black box” in an aircraft. This information can provide insight into the crash dynamics and can be used in investigations such as this one. Without the ACM for the other motorist we would have nothing to rebut the trooper's findings. Eventually my client's father was able to track down where the other person’s car was taken to. It went from Central Pennsylvania to a junk yard in New Jersey. He was able to get confirmation that this was the same vehicle involved in the crash. With the ACM for this car we were able to hire our own expert to rebut what the Commonwealth was alleging. Our expert was able to confirm that the other motorist was the vehicle traveling in excess of the speed limit, that she crossed the lane line and she was the cause of the accident. After we submitted our report to the District Attorney's Office they had someone else from the State Police review it and they ultimately conceded that our client was not at fault for the accident.
This still left the DUI charges and paraphernalia charge. When we dug further into the blood results we were able to determine that the hospital where our client received medical treatment sent the wrong person’s blood to the laboratory for testing. The alcohol they claimed was in his system was not his blood so the DUI charges were withdrawn as well. The Commonwealth was still not willing to withdraw the paraphernalia charge so we filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the state police illegally searched our client's vehicle after he was extricated and taken to the hospital. Following a hearing, the court agreed and his paraphernalia charge was dismissed as well.
But for my client’s father obtaining the ACM from the other vehicle, subpoenaing detailed information concerning our client’s medical records and requesting documentation from the laboratory that did the blood analysis, it is inconceivable to think of what may have happened in this case. Our client went from facing felony charges, jail time, loss of license and having a civil lawsuit filed against him by the other motoristotorist to being completely exonerated. We are grateful to have been a part of this success.
Success on Appeal Homicide by Vehicle While DUI
Homicide by Vehicle While DUI – PA Supreme Court affirms Superior Court order ruling that police needed warrant for blood that was drawn.
On July 5, 2014, our client was charged with Homicide by Vehicle While DUI and Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI as well as numerous other offenses for an accident involving a train. Our client lost his fiancé in the crash and his daughter was severely injured. Following the accident numerous police officers and medical personnel arrived on scene. Due to our client’s injuries he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. While at the hospital his blood was drawn by medical staff. Through the police officers investigation they obtained information that an odor of marijuana was observed coming from our client and a police officer went to the hospital to obtain a blood draw. After arriving at the hospital the officer was told that blood was already drawn so he requested that blood be sent for further testing. He did not obtain a warrant to do so. Due to the officer’s failure to obtain a warrant for the blood, we filed a motion to suppress this evidence at trial. The trial court initially denied this request, but after our client was convicted at trial and this case went on to appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the trial court wrote an opinion that it should have suppressed this evidence. When this case went before the Superior Court, they confirmed that the blood results should have been suppressed as the officer did not obtain a warrant and exigent circumstances did not exist in order to excuse the warrant. The Commonwealth appealed this ruling and the case was accepted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 20, 2022, the PA Supreme Court reaffirmed the Superior Court’s ruling and ordered that the convictions for our client were to be vacated, the blood results are to be suppressed and the case was to be remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Charges Dismissed 2nd Offense DUI
Client faced a 2nd offense DUI. When having difficulty sleeping, client went out spotlighting for deer when he was stopped by the police. He was stopped for crossing lane lines. Thankfully, we were able to get involved with the case and obtained a copy of the police officer’s dash camera video. The video did not show that our client’s driving was anything more than minimal deviations from his lane of travel. We filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing that the officer did not have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop our clients truck and the trial court granted it. Without any evidence concerning our client’s performance on field sobriety tests or a blood alcohol content the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss the charges.
Charges Dismissed Felony Drug
Client was charged with felony drug delivery offenses for an incident where narcotics were found in the trunk of his car. Client was with a friend at a hotel who was wanted on a felony warrant. Based on intel the police had received they set up surveillance at the hotel and ultimately gained entry into the hotel room where our client was staying. After searching the room and everyone in it, they did not find anything so they released our client. Our client walked away from the hotel. After he left the scene police accessed our clients vehicle and found drugs that were believed to belong to the person they had the felony warrant for and our clients. At court, we filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing that in order to gain entry into our clients car the police needed a search warrant. The Court and eventually the District Attorney’s Office agreed. All charges were dismissed.
Charges Dismissed Driving Under Suspension DUI Related
Client was charged with Driving Under Suspension – DUI related for what the officer claimed was his third violation pursuant to Section 1543(b)(1)(iii). This section of the motor vehicle code concerns an individual who has had two prior violations under the same subsection. At the preliminary hearing we were able to argue that our client’s prior driving under suspension offenses were under a separate subsection of the motor vehicle code and his charges were dismissed. He was facing a sentence of up to a $2,500 fine and imprisonment for not less than six months.
Charges Dismissed and Removal From Sex Offender Juvenile Subject to Lifetime Sex Offender Registration
In 1999, when our client was 18 years old, he entered a guilty plea to several sex offenses for events that occurred between 1996 and 1998. He would have been between the ages of 14 and 17 during those times. Originally he was charged as a juvenile, but later certified as an adult. At the time of his plea, he was directed by the Court to undergo imprisonment and was subject to sex offender registration for the rest of his life. In 2021, our client failed to register with the Pennsylvania State Police as part of his sex offender requirements and was subsequently charged with a felony offense. Due to the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. Haines, 222 A.3d 756 (Pa.Super. 2019) and Commonwealth v. Zeno, 232 A.3d 869 (Pa.Super. 2020), we were able to successfully argue that the sex offender requirements imposed at the time of our client’s sentencing in 1999 were unconstitutional and the Commonwealth agreed to withdraw this new charge. Subsequently, we were able to file a motion to have him removed from sex offender registration pursuant to the same constitutional arguments. The Commonwealth agreed with our argument and the Court granted our request to have him removed as a registered sex offender. Notably, our client is currently 41 years old and to this day was never charged with another sex related offense.
Removal From Sex Offender Registration Juvenile Subject to Lifetime Sex Offender Registration
In 2002, when our client was 17 years old he was charged as a juvenile with several sex offenses. His case was subsequently transferred from juvenile court to adult court. At the age of 18 he accepted a nolo contendere plea, which meant that he was conceding if the Commonwealth went to trial they would have enough for a conviction. Due to his charges, at the age of 18 he was ordered to registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in In re J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014), that the lifetime registration requirements on juveniles for specified offenses violated their due process rights by utilizing an irrebuttable presumption. In 2019, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held in Commonwealth v. Haines, 222 A.3d 756 (Pa.Super. 2019), that the “J.B. Court’s holding should apply with equal weight to juvenile adjudications as well as to defendant’s convicted as adults for crimes committed as juveniles.” Based on these appellate decisions, we were able to file a motion on our client’s behalf to have him removed from sex offender registration. The Commonwealth conceded this issue and the trial court entered an order in June 2022, directing that our client was no longer required to register as a sex offender. After 20 years of complying with sex offender registration and never committing another sex offense, our client no longer sees his name on the sex offender list.

1 / 2