Unsworn Falsification Charge Dismissed for Allegheny Co. Man

A retiree was recently charged with Unsworn Falsification to Authorities and the Unlawful Sale and Transfer of a Firearm, based upon his incorrect answer on a firearm purchase application. As a teenager in the 1970's, the client was convicted of a drug offense for possessing marijuana, and answered a question about prior drug crimes convictions incorrectly. 

The court dismissed the charges at the preliminary hearing, concluding that the Defendant made an error on the form, and did not act knowingly with the intent to mislead a public servant. Specifically, since the guilty plea to this charge happened over 40 years ago, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the client had any recollection of the charge at the time the application was completed. 

ZLF is now working on a full expungement petition for the client, which is expected to be ordered within the next 90 days. 

If you have ever had any involvement whatsoever with the criminal justice system, you should not attempt to buy a gun or apply for an open carry permit without reviewing your own criminal history with a lawyer. 

4th Offense DUI Charges, Ignition Interlock Violations Dismissed for Allegheny County Man

A ZLF client was charged with a 4th Offense DUI in connection with a two-vehicle accident in Allegheny County. We are please to announce that after the preliminary hearing, the charges were dismissed due to a lack of sufficient evidence. This resolution spared the client from a mandatory 1-2 year state prison sentence without eligibility for house arrest. 

In the summer of 2016, the client was operating a vehicle around a bend when his vehicle hydroplaned on the wet roadway, veered into an oncoming lane of traffic, striking the victim's vehicle. An independent eyewitness followed the client's vehicle for approximately 1/2 mile, observing no erratic driving behaviors prior to the crash. 

The client was treated at the hospital for injuries in connection with the crash. In the course of his treatment, a urine screen yielded a positive result for the presence of narcotics. However, neither the client's blood nor breath were tested. The client was not subjected to field sobriety testing, was not evaluated by a drug recognition expert, and did not display regular signs of impairment during his interaction with police. 

Recent amendments to Section 1547 of the PA Motor Vehicle Code only permit the introduction of blood or breath tests into evidence during DUI prosecutions. As there was no blood test conducted, and there was no independent evidence to suggest that the client was under the influence of narcotics at the time of operation, the charges were properly dismissed by the Court. 

Unlawful Gun Purchase Charges Dismissed for Allegheny Co. Man with Juvenile Record

Local law enforcement charged a ZLF client with the Unlawful Sale/Transfer of a Firearm and Unsworn Falsification to Authorities in connection with an attempt to lawfully purchase a gun. The client had a prior juvenile adjudication for a 1st Degree Misdemeanor offense punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Not knowing that this was considered a conviction under PA law, he improperly answered the question wrong about whether or not he was convicted of a charge punishable by up to 1 year in jail. 

The court dismissed the charges at the preliminary hearing, concluding that the Defendant made an error on the form, and did not act knowingly with the intent to mislead a public servant. The client is now eligible to expunge his juvenile record and the records of his arrest on this case. 

If you have ever had any involvement whatsoever with the criminal justice system, you should not attempt to buy a gun or apply for an open carry permit without reviewing your own criminal history with a lawyer. 

Warrant Required to Draw Blood After PA DUI Arrest

BIRCHFIELD DECISION CHANGES PA DUI LAW

On June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution permits warrantless breath tests incident to lawful arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. In the Birchfield v. North Dakota decision, the Supreme Court considered three different cases from North Dakota and Minnesota: 

1. Refusal of Blood Test - Birchfield: After his DUI arrest, Birchfield refused blood testing and was charged with a misdemeanor offense under North Dakota law for refusing a blood test. He entered a conditional guilty plea, later arguing that the 4th Amendment prohibited North Dakota from making a test refusal a crime. 

2. Refusal of Breath Test - Bernard: After his DUI arrest, Bernard was notified by police that refusing a breath test was a crime. After refusing to submit to a breath test, Bernard was charged with a 1st degree misdemeanor under Minnesota law for refusing the test. Bernard argued that warrantless breath tests are impermissible under the 4th Amendment. 

3. Consent to Breath Test Coerced by Threat of Criminal Penalties - Beylund: After his DUI arrest, Beylund consented to a blood draw after being informed that he was required to submit to testing and after being threatened with enhanced criminal penalties by the arresting officer. Beylund argued that his consent to submit to a blood draw was coerced by the officer's threat of enhanced criminal penalties. 

IMPACT ON BREATHALYZER TESTING

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that warrantless breath tests constitute a permissible search incident to the arrest of a DUI suspect. For the search to be permissible, the police must have had probable cause to arrest the particular offender, or in other words, must establish that it is more likely than not that the person arrested committed a DUI. 

In deciding that a warrant was not required, the Supreme Court found that process of obtaining a breath test is a minimal intrusion, as breathing is a natural process, nobody "owns" the air in their lungs, the air sample is not capable of being retained by police, and testing is typically conducted in a private setting. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless breath test of Bernard was lawful, and that Bernard had no right to refuse it. 

IMPACT ON BLOOD TESTING

In focusing on the enhanced intrusion on the person, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required when requesting a blood test after a DUI arrest. Unlike minimally intrusive breath tests, blood is a part of the human body, people don't shed blood like they expel air from their lungs, and a sample can only be extracted only through piercing the skin with a needle. Unlike air samples which cannot be retained, blood samples can be preserved by law enforcement, and information aside from one's BAC can be obtained from the sample. 

As such, the Court held that Birchfield simply refused an unlawful search, and couldn't be punished for this. 

CONSENTING TO A BLOOD TEST? 

When a person provides valid consent to a search, a warrant is not needed. However, a driver may not be deemed to have consented to a blood draw when the officer threatens enhanced criminal penalties, and tells the driver he or she is required to submit to a warrantless blood draw under a state's implied consent law. 

In Beylund's case, the Supreme Court held that North Dakota had to re-evaluate whether or not his consent was valid, as it was based upon the erroneous warning by the police officer that he was required to submit to a warrantless blood draw. The case was remanded to state court to determine whether or not consent was valid in light of the officer's inaccurate explanation. 

LICENSE SUSPENSIONS FOR REFUSING A BLOOD TEST

The suspension of your license is civil penalty imposed by PennDOT, and not a criminal penalty. While some attorneys have challenged license suspensions based upon this decision, it does not appear that this case prevents PennDOT from enforcing license suspensions for a driver's refusal to submit to a blood or breath test. 

CURRENT IMPACT OF BIRCHFIELD ON PA DUI CASES

Unlike North Dakota who made it a separate crime to refuse testing, Pennsylvania does not make a test refusal a separate criminal offense. However, PA does impose enhanced criminal penalties for refusing a blood or breath test. 

In Pennsylvania, the implied consent laws will no longer allow police to draw a person's blood simply because of a DUI related arrest. Police will either need to obtain a warrant, or obtain your valid consent to submit to testing. 

If you are facing a DUI charge and have submitted to or refused a blood draw, you should contact a local DUI defense attorney who practices in your county for further guidance. However, the following changes have occurred recently in many Western Pennsylvania jurisdictions: 

1. Impact on Non-ARD DUI Cases: For non-ARD cases, many prosecutors are withdrawing highest tier (.16% and above BAC), high tier (.10-.159% BAC), and lowest tier (.08-.099% BAC) charges, along with enhanced DUI refusal penalties, when the driver was threatened with enhanced criminal penalties for refusing a blood draw. However, other DA's offices are not withdrawing charges, requiring your lawyer to file an Omnibus Pretrial Motion to seek a dismissal of enhanced DUI charges based upon a refusal or improperly coerced blood draw. 

2. Impact on ARD DUI Cases: In warrantless blood draw and refusal cases, most prosecutors are allowing drivers to enter into the ARD program on general impairment charges, which carries no license suspension. However in some counties, prosecutors are not reducing high and highest tier offenses in connection with ARD offers. Keep in mind that if you have refused testing, you are still facing a 12-month license suspension for refusal, as this is considered a civil penalty. 

3. Continued Prosecution of General Impairment & DUI Accident Cases: Prosecutors will continue to prosecute DUI - General Impairment (lowest tier) and DUI - General Impairment with Accident (high tier) offenses. These charges can be prosecuted without the use of improperly collected BAC evidence, because they simply require proof that you drank alcohol to a degree that rendered you incapable of safe driving. 

4. Police Will Try To Obtain Consent by Changing Test Warnings: District Attorneys' Offices have now advised police officers to revise the implied consent warnings by removing all reference to increased criminal penalties on the DL-26 form. Prosecutors are hoping that by removing the criminal penalty references, that drivers will be unable to argue that their consent to a blood draw was improperly coerced. This legal issue remains undecided.

5. Drug DUI Cases: As there is no breath test for Drug DUI cases, blood will need to be drawn to determine if there is a controlled substance and/or metabolite in your system. Without blood results, police will need to establish that you drove under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs which rendered you incapable of safe driving. In proving this, police may rely upon Drug Recognition Expert testimony, but drivers are infrequently examined by DREs after arrest. Alternatively, prosecutors will have to rely upon the testimony of police officers who lack the expert training of DREs, which may make it easier to earn an acquittal. 

6. Greater Reliance on Breath Tests: Police will either need to work in conjunction with magistrates to expedite the processing of search warrants, or will simply shift to breath testing instead. Breath testing is much more vulnerable to attack at trial than is blood testing. 

To read the Birchfield decision, click on this link. 

Evidence Suppressed in Felony Drug Possession Case, Charges Withdrawn

A client was charged with felony Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility. The lawyers at ZLF filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence based upon the police lacking probable cause to believe that he had committed, or was in the process of committing, a criminal act. The court agreed, and all evidence recovered was not permitted to be used against him, leading to the full withdrawal of criminal charges. 

In early 2015, police arrested another individual for a felony drug charge. Thereafter, they attempted to utilize this person as a "confidential informant," who would receive leniency on their charges in return for purchasing narcotics off of another suspected drug dealer. Customarily, an investigating officer would obtain extensive details about both the CI and the target suspect to ensure that the information being received is reliable. Thereafter, the CI would be used to arrange for the purchase of a known quantity of drugs at a particular location, completing the purchase in the presence of police officers. 

Despite being led by an officer with decades of experience, this particular investigation was mishandled from the start. Aside from race, police officers obtained no information from the CI about the target suspect, nor did they properly verify that the CI was a reliable source of information. Furthermore, rather than listen to the phone calls allegedly exchanged between the target and CI, the police did not personally overhear any discussion between the CI and caller, leading them to rely upon the CI's statements alone.

On the incident date, the client - an African-American male - pulled his vehicle into the parking lot of a convenience store. The CI did not visually identify the client as the individual with whom she previously spoke. Police did not observe the client engage in any unlawful activity, nor did they have the CI attempt to buy drugs from the client. As part of a pre-determined decision to make an arrest, numerous police officers drew their weapons and arrested the client. However, the police argued that he was merely being "detained" for further investigation, and that the encounter converted to an arrest when they noticed an odor of marijuana.

A suppression hearing was held on the matter, where the details of the mishandled investigation were brought to light. During cross examination, the officers were less than forthcoming about the leniency promised to and received by the CI. After writing legal briefs, the Court ruled that the police did in fact arrest the client without probable cause, ordering that all recovered evidence be suppressed. This led to the charges being withdrawn by the Commonwealth. 

Client Charged With Illegal Gun Purchase Receives ARD With No Penalty

As an 18 year old, a ZLF client received probation for a 1st-degree misdemeanor offense punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Unbeknownst to him, this offense made him ineligible to buy a firearm. In 2015, as a 37 year old father and working professional, he went to purchase a firearm and checked "no" when answering a question about whether or not he was convicted of a charge punishable by 1 year or more in jail. Rather than consider this as the honest mistake it was, the Pennsylvania State Police charged him with the Unlawful Sale & Transfer of a Firearm, a 3rd-Degree Felony, and Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor. These offenses allege that he had the intent to mislead a public servant for the purpose of acquiring a gun. 

A conviction for either offense would be considered a "crime of dishonesty," and may have caused him to lose his job. Given the circumstances, he chose to fight the case as far as it needed to go, as he had no intent to mislead a public servant. 

After the preliminary hearing, the lawyers at ZLF filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion, challenging whether or not there was probable cause to support the charges. Upon recognizing the strength of the defense's case, the Commonwealth agreed to admit the Defendant into the ARD program. 

Prior to arguing the pre-trial motions, the presiding Judge agreed to let the client into ARD, without imposing probation or nearly $1,500-$2,000 in fines and court costs. This resolution effectively dismissed the case against the client with no negative consequences, allowing him to move on with his life. 

Client Found Not-Guilty of Carrying Firearm Without a License

A ZLF client was charged with Carrying a Firearm Without a License, a 3rd-Degree Felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison. After a half-day non-jury trial, the client was found not guilty of the firearms offense. At the conclusion of trial, the client accepted a guilty plea to lesser drug charges for Probation Without Verdict, a diversionary resolution for first-time drug offenders which will lead to a record expungement upon the successful completion of probation. 

On the incident date, the client borrowed a vehicle from a family member who was a former member of law enforcement. Unbeknownst to the client, the family member failed to provide any notice that there was a firearm located under the driver's seat of the vehicle. Upon being stopped for a speeding infraction, police did not observe the client reach in the direction of the gun, but noticed "unusually nervous" behavior. Upon searching for an insurance card in a purse, police observed items of drug paraphernalia. When the client exited the vehicle, police observed the firearm in plain view under the seat. 

As the gun was not physically possessed by the client, the case turned on whether or not the Commonwealth could prove constructive possession - that the client had both the power to control and intent to control the weapon. At trial, the Commonwealth argued that when factoring in the proximity of the weapon to the client, coupled with the nervous behavior, that this demonstrated an intent to control the weapon. 

The defense presented testimony from the family member, who testified that the gun was his, that he forgot he left it under the seat of his vehicle, and never told the client about it's presence. Furthermore, as there was no reaching motion towards the firearm, the nervous behavior was properly attributed to the possession of drug paraphernalia. Viewing the defense testimony as credible, the Court properly found the client not guilty of the firearms offense. 

Upon the conclusion of trial on the gun charge, the prosecuting attorney graciously offered a plea to the lesser drug charges for Probation Without Verdict, a diversionary program for first-time drug offenders which may lead to a criminal record expungement. This resolution allowed the client to maintain employment, avoid a 6-month license suspension, and convicted felon status. 

New PA Ignition Interlock License Law

NEW PA IGNITION INTERLOCK LICENSE LAW

According to MADD, ignition interlocks helped prevent 1.77 million DUI’s nationwide and 78,210 potential DUIs in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is now the 26th state to require that ignition interlocks be installed on the vehicles of convicted, 1st-time DUI offenders.

Senate Bill 290, signed into law on May 23, 2016, effectively does two things. First, it requires most convicted, first-time DUI offenders to have an ignition interlock system installed in their vehicles. Second, it allows DUI offenders to regain their driving privileges without serving their full license suspension through the issuance of Ignition Interlock Limited Licenses.

Ignition Interlock System Required for 1st Offense, High and Highest Tier DUI Convictions

The bill imposes a requirement upon those convicted of a 1st DUI offense with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of above .10% to have an ignition interlock installed and used in their vehicles for a one-year period. Those who have a BAC of .099% or below, or have been convicted of a DUI General Impairment offense, will not be subject to the interlock requirement.

This ignition interlock requirement does not apply to 1st DUI offenders who are admitted into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program. On top of approximately $1,000-$2,000 in fines and court costs, convicted offenders can now expect to pay a $70-$150 ignition interlock system installation fee and a $60-$80 monthly maintenance fee.

Ignition Interlock Limited License for Convicted 1st-Time DUI Offenders

An Ignition Interlock Limited License (IILL) allows a person to operate a vehicle properly equipped with an Ignition Interlock System. As a major benefit for 1st-time convicted DUI offenders who are not eligible for ARD, Senate Bill 290 now permits qualified 1st DUI offenders to obtain an ignition interlock license during the period of suspension. 

Eligibility for an Ignition Interlock Limited License

Section 1556 of the Motor Vehicle Code allows a DUI convicted driver to drive vehicles equipped with the proper ignition interlock equipment. To be eligible, the applicant must:

• Be suspended or revoked for a DUI offense occurring in Pennsylvania, or a similar offense in another state; or
• Be suspended or revoked for refusing a blood/breath test; and
• Must provide proof to PennDOT that any vehicle to be operated by the individual is equipped with an approved ignition interlock system.

A person is ineligible to obtain an IILL if he/she:

• Was not previously licensed in any state;
• Is required to take an examination;
• Has his or her driving privileges cancelled or recalled;
• Has an unsatisfied judgment as a result of a motor vehicle accident;
• Is applying for an IILL for the purpose of operating a commercial vehicle;
• Is disqualified under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act or the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act;
• Was convicted for Homicide by Vehicle or Homicide by Vehicle While DUI, and the suspension occurs as a result of that conviction.

How Long Must I Wait to Qualify for an Ignition Interlock Limited License?

Section 1556(f) sets forth the time with which a DUI suspended driver must wait to obtain an Ignition Interlock Limited License. This waiting period is determined by the type DUI offense you have faced as well as the number of prior offenses you have.

Chemical test refusals are found at Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code, and DUI-BAC suspensions are found at Section 3804 of the Vehicle Code.

Lowest Tier DUI Offenses – General Impairment DUI and BAC of .08-.099%

·      1st Offense: No license suspension or ignition interlock requirement

·      2nd Offense: 12 month suspension imposed, must serve 6 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

·      3rd or Subsequent Offense: 12 month suspension imposed, must serve 9 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

Middle Tier Offenses – DUI for Minors with BAC of .02%, BAC of .10-.159% and General Impairment DUI with Accident Causing Injury or Property Damage

·      1st Offense: 12 month suspension with immediate eligibility for IILL

·      2nd Offense: 12 month suspension imposed, must serve 6 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

·      3rd or Subsequent Offense: 18 month suspension imposed, must serve 9 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

Highest Tier Offenses – DUI with .16% BAC or Higher, DUI with Drugs, and DUI Refusal of Blood or Breath Test

·      Highest Tier – 1st Offense (BAC of .16% or higher): 12 month suspension with immediate eligibility for IILL

·      Highest Tier – 2nd Offense (BAC of .16% or higher): 18 month suspension imposed, must serve 9 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

·      Highest Tier – 3rd Offense (BAC of .16% or higher): 18 month suspension imposed, must serve 9 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

·      Chemical Test Refusal – 1st Offense: 12 month suspension imposed, must serve 6 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

·      DUI Chemical Test Refusal – 2nd Offense: 18 month suspension imposed, must serve 9 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

·      DUI Chemical Test Refusal – 3rd or Subsequent Offense: 18 month suspension imposed, must serve 9 months of suspension before qualifying for IILL

Can I Obtain an Ignition Interlock Limited License if I’m on ARD?

ARD participants will not qualify for an Ignition Interlock Limited License, and will have to serve any license suspension in full. As a condition of participation in the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program, lowest-tier participants (general impairment or .08-.099% BAC) face no license suspension, high tier participants (.10-.159% BAC) face a 30 day suspension, highest tier participants (.16% or higher BAC, no BAC due to refusal or accident) face a 60 day suspension, and minor participants face a 90 day suspension.

However, successful ARD participants will earn the dismissal of their charges, and will not have to have an ignition interlock system installed on their vehicles at the conclusion of their suspension.

Application for an Ignition Interlock Limited License

In order to apply for an IILL, a petition must be filed via certified mail with PennDOT with proof of the interlock system installation for all vehicles that the applicant will drive. The applicant must also surrender his or her license, provide proof of insurance, and pay an application fee of $65. PennDOT then has 20 days thereafter to issue the license or deny the application.

Revocation of Ignition Interlock Limited License

If an IILL driver is convicted of any offense that carries a driver’s license suspension, or fails to comply with the requirements of a treatment program, PennDOT may either recall the IILL, or extend the IILL requirements for an additional period of time, up to the original length of suspension. For example, a first DUI offender who fails to complete court-ordered treatment faces an original 12-month suspension, and an additional IILL extension for a total of 24 months.

Positive BAC Readings Recorded on Ignition Interlock Equipment

            At the end of your suspension period, to no longer be subject to the ignition interlock license requirements, the vendor who installed your device will have to certify to PennDOT that you have not attempted to start the vehicle with a positive BAC reading of above .08%, that you have not taken or passed a re-test, or that you have not missed a required repair or inspection appointment within the last 2 months. The failure to comply with those terms can lead to your interlock requirements being extended.

Conclusion

The new ignition interlock law will have little impact upon the vast majority of 1st-DUI offenders who enter the ARD program. However, the act does provide some relief to convicted DUI offenders by allowing them to gain an IILL immediately, or after serving roughly half of their original suspension length. Most of the provisions will not go into effect until August of 2017.

If you’re facing a 1st Offense DUI in Pittsburgh, call the Zuckerman Law Firm today at 412-447-5580 for a free consultation. 

Tips for Handling a First Offense DUI in Pittsburgh

Is This Your First Offense DUI in Pittsburgh?

When you’re arrested for your first offense DUI, you’ll likely feel overwhelmed and frightened. Thoughts are probably racing through your head about how you’ll handle the situation—and above all else, where you can find the right DUI attorney in the Pittsburgh area.

Although your first offense DUI in Pittsburgh is certainly a predicament, there are steps you can take to lessen the blow as much as possible. If you’ve found yourself with your first offense DUI in Pittsburgh, here’s what you need to do first.

Step 1: Contact a Pittsburgh DUI Attorney Immediately

Now is not the time for self-help. Although you can find some credible information online in terms of your first offense DUI, it’s best to speak to an experienced attorney who can directly help you and your unique situation.

Step 2: Attend Your Fingerprint Appointment

Anytime you are charged with a crime, you are required to be fingerprinted. If you receive your charges in the mail, be on the lookout for a fingerprint order, which tells you the date, time and location of your fingerprint appointment. Show up 30 minutes early and bring all your paperwork to the appointment. Being fingerprinted is a condition of your bail, and if you appear even a minute late, you will not be printed.

Step 3: Show Up at All Court Appearances

The next step that you’ll be required to do is reporting to court. Avoiding your court date can worsen the problem and cause more legal trouble for you in the long run. You will likely have to show up in court for a preliminary hearing or a preliminary arraignment within 30 days of your first offense DUI in Pittsburgh.

Once you receive the paperwork in the mail, you typically have 1-2 weeks before your first court appearance. The magistrate will expect you to be prepared with legal representation, so don’t wait until the last minute to retain a qualified DUI attorney.

Step 4: Work With Your Pittsburgh DUI Attorney to Get the Best Possible Resolution of Your Case

If found guilty of a first-offense DUI, you are facing a mandatory minimum sentence ranging from 6 months of probation up to 72 hours in jail, a maximum sentence of up to 6 months in jail, a 12 month license suspension, minimum fines ranging from $300 up to $1,000, and will have a permanent criminal record.

If you have no prior criminal record, you may be eligible for the ARD program. With the successful completion of the ARD program, you serve no jail time, a reduced license suspension ranging from 0-60 days, and the charges will be expunged from your record.

A skilled Pittsburgh DUI attorney will help you increase your chances of getting the best possible resolution of your 1st DUI case.

Step 5: Fulfill Your Punishment And Pay Fines

If you are admitted into the ARD program, plead guilty, or are found guilty after trial, you’ll be required to carry out the punishment. Make sure to comply with all conditions of your probationary supervision and pay all fines and court costs as soon as possible.

Step 6: Do Not Drive If Your License is Suspended!

During your period of license suspension, do not drive! If you are caught driving a vehicle, you can be charged with Driving on a Suspended License, DUI-Related, which carries a mandatory 60-day jail sentence and an additional one year license suspension.

Step 7: Get Your Drivers License Back

As you come close to completing your license suspension, PennDOT will generate a DL Restoration Requirements Letter which sets forth all the requirements you must comply with to get your license back. You will need your driver’s license number and social security number to obtain the letter.

Some of the requirements you must fulfill may include: paying all fines, costs and restitution, paying all restoration fees, installing an ignition interlock device on your vehicle, completing drug and alcohol treatment, completing alcohol highway safety school, and producing proof of insurance.

How to Find The Best Pittsburgh DUI Attorney For Your Case

Now that you understand the proper steps you’ll need to take for your first offense DUI, it’s time to find a Pittsburgh DUI attorney. It’s highly advised that you hire an attorney before your preliminary hearing, which is your very first court date. You’ll want to be sure that you have an experienced Pittsburgh DUI attorney reviewing your file and the evidence against you.

When you’re searching for a Pittsburgh DUI attorney, be sure that the attorney in question is experienced in representing clients in your situation. You can meet in person with your Pittsburgh DUI lawyer to discuss options and possible strategies. And above all else, you’ll need to determine whether this is the attorney that you want to represent you in court.

If you have questions about finding the best Pittsburgh DUI Attorney to handle your case, don’t hesitate to contact the Zuckerman Law Firm. As former DUI prosecutors and members of the National College of DUI Defense, we’ll help ensure that everything runs as smoothly as possible from start to finish.

Call today at 412-447-5580 for your free consultation.

Overview of Drug Possession Charges in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Overview of Drug Possession Charges in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Drug possession in Pittsburgh opens the door to numerous charges, fines, and penalties. There are several drug-related charges that you can face in Pennsylvania, and the handling of your case can vary between counties in Western Pennsylvania. Whether you are in possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, you will need an experienced drug possession attorney in Pittsburgh to help with your case.

What are the types of Drug Possession and Prohibited Acts Charges in Pittsburgh?

There are four major types of drug possession charges in Pittsburgh: Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession With Intent to Deliver and Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana.

The type and seriousness of the charges you will face are dependent upon numerous factors, including whether or not there is evidence associated with drug dealing, the type and quantity of the drug recovered, and the presence of materials used to package or ingest drugs.

This is a simple overview on the difference between the various charges. 

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Possession of drug paraphernalia is an ungraded misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. The biggest difference between possession of drug paraphernalia and drug possession is that you will not face a driver’s license suspension. For this reason, a plea or reduction to a drug paraphernalia offense can be preferred over a drug possession offense.

Generally speaking, drug paraphernalia is any item that can be used to store, measure, package or use drugs, which include:

• Needles
• Zip lock bags
• Bongs
• Blunts
• Pipes
• Marijuana Grinders
• Straws
• Digital Scales

Drug paraphernalia also includes devices that are intended for the purpose of planting, harvesting, growing, processing, testing, packing, storing, or injecting drugs. For more information, please visit our Possession of Drug Paraphernalia page.

Possession of a Controlled Substance

Drug possession, otherwise referred to as simple possession, is an ungraded misdemeanor offense when there is no allegation that you were selling or manufacturing drugs. You can be charged with simple drug possession if you are found to be in possession of heroin, cocaine, more than 30 grams of marijuana or 8 grams of hashish, and unprescribed medications.

The penalties for simple drug possession include:

• 1st offense: Maximum fine of up to $5,000 and maximum penalty of 1-year in jail, with a mandatory 6-month driver’s license suspension
• 2nd offense: Maximum fine of up to $25,000 and maximum penalty of 3-years in jail, with a mandatory 1-year license suspension
• 3rd and subsequent offenses: Maximum fine of up to $25,000 and maximum penalty of 3-years in jail, with a mandatory 2-year license suspension

For more information, please visit our Possession of a Controlled Substance overview page.

Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana

You may find yourself charged with the Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana if you are found to have possessed 30 grams or less of marijuana. A conviction for the Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana carries the following penalties:

• 1st Offense: Up to 30 days in jail, mandatory 6-month license suspension and fine of $500, with a permanent criminal record
• 2nd Offense: Up to 30 days in jail, mandatory 1-year license suspension, fine of $500, with a permanent criminal record
• 3rd and Subsequent Offenses: Up to 30 days in jail, mandatory 2-year license suspension, fine of $500, with a permanent criminal record

For more information, please visit our Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana overview page.

Drug Dealing, Trafficking & Possession with Intent to Deliver

Drug dealing, trafficking, and drug possession with intent to deliver are serious felonies and one of the most frequently charged drug crimes. Fighting a case of this nature without a drug possession attorney in Pittsburgh can result in paying hefty fines and jail time. If you are facing any of these charges, your penalties will vary due to the type of drug(s) in your possession along with a variety of other factors.

Maximum penalties for possession with intent to deliver charges can range from 3-15 years in prison and fines ranging from $10,000 to $250,000.

For more information relating to drug dealing, trafficking, and possession with intent to deliver charges, visit our Possession With Intent to Deliver overview page.

Drug Possession Attorneys in Pittsburgh: Contact the Zuckerman Law Firm Today

The truth is that you simply can’t afford to represent yourself when facing serious drug charges. As a former drug crimes prosecutor and experienced drug possession defense lawyer in Pittsburgh, the Zuckerman Law Firm can help defend your case. Contact us today for your free consultation at 412-447-5580. 

PA's New Expungement & Record Sealing Law

PA'S NEW EXPUNGEMENT LAW PERMITS RECORD SEALING OF 2ND DEGREE, 3RD DEGREE AND UNGRADED MISDEMEANORS

Last year, a 67-year old gentleman called our office seeking to expunge a decades-old misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction. We informed him that he could pursue a pardon, or wait until he reached the age of 70 before he could pursue an expungement.

Fortunately, in January of 2016, the legislature passed Senate Bill 166, which will ease the burden on certain types of former offenders who have lived a law-abiding lifestyle since their prosecution for certain types of misdemeanor offenses.

ORDER OF LIMITED ACCESS

By passing Senate Bill 166, the Pennsylvania legislature created Section 9122.1 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, which allows for an Order of Limited Access to be issued by the Court of Common Pleas under limited circumstances.

Unlike a standard expungement, an Order of Limited Access does not lead to the destruction of your criminal record. This order simply directs the record repositories to not disclose criminal record information to others except for criminal justice agencies and certain government agencies. However, certain employers and educational institutions will be prevented from obtaining your criminal record information.

ELIGIBILITY FOR ORDER OF LIMITED ACCESS

A person is eligible for an Order for Limited Access if:

• The offense is a 2nd-Degree Misdemeanor, 3rd-Degree Misdemeanor or an ungraded Misdemeanor;
• The offense carries a maximum possible sentence of 2 years or less;
• The offense is non-violent;
• The person remained free from arrest for 10 years after their conviction or release from jail or probationary supervision. For example, if a person was convicted in 2000 for M2 Theft, and successfully completed a 2-year probationary period, the person must remain free from arrest from 2002-2012 before becoming eligible.

NON-ELIGIBILITY FOR ORDER OF LIMITED ACCESS

You are not eligible to obtain an order of limited access if:

• The offense carries a maximum possible sentence of over 2 years in jail (i.e. second drug possession conviction);
• The offense is a 1st-Degree Misdemeanor or Felony;
• The person has been convicted of 4 or more offenses punishable by imprisonment of 1 or more years in jail;
• The offense is an M2 Simple Assault;
• The offense is Sexual Intercourse with an Animal;
• The offense is Impersonating a Public Servant;
• The offense is Victim or Witness Intimidation, or Retaliation Against a Victim or Witness;
• The offense is Intimidation, Retaliation or Obstruction in a child abuse case; or
• The offense requires the person to register as a sex offender.

HOW TO OBTAIN AN ORDER FOR LIMITED ACCESS

When the legislature passed Senate Bill 166 on February 16, 2016, a 270-day waiting period was incorporated into the bill. This act will not become effective until November 12, 2016.

Eligible persons must first file a Petition for Order of Limited Access with the Clerk of Courts in the county where the charge originated. The Clerk of Courts will charge a filing fee of $132.00.

Within 10 days from the date the petition is filed, the Courts must notify the local District Attorney's office about the petition. The DA's office then has 30 days from the date they received notice to file objections to the petition. If no objection is filed, the Court may grant the petition without scheduling a hearing if the petition is correct and the person is eligible. If objections are filed, the Court may schedule a hearing to determine whether or not the petition should be granted.

The Zuckerman Law Firm prepares and files Expungement Petitions for clients throughout Western Pennsylvania, and will begin assisting those interested in pursuing an Order for Limited Access. For a free consultation, call 412-447-5580 today.

Why Representing Yourself on a Traffic Ticket in Pittsburgh Can be a Mistake

WHY REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN PITTSBURGH TRAFFIC COURTS MAY YIELD POOR RESULTS

If you found this article during an internet search, you're probably thinking about representing yourself in traffic court. You've probably searched AVVO and found a few attorney websites with information on your traffic charges. Maybe you've called a few traffic ticket attorneys, trying to get as much free information you can.

Nobody wants to hire a lawyer. But going in blind can be your undoing.

5 MISTAKES MADE BY A SELF-REPRESENTED PERSON IN A WESTERN PA TRAFFIC COURT

We recently had occasion to watch a young man represent himself during his summary trial. This unrepresented individual had existing points on his license and was clocked traveling at 83mph in a 45mph zone. He was facing 5 points, a mandatory 15-day license suspension and possible penalties for exceeding 6 points or 11 points.

This unrepresented individual made nearly every possible mistake that you can make in traffic court, which included:

• Unfamiliar With Penalties: He had to ask the Judge what the penalties were for his citations.
• Arguing With the Officer: While you may disagree with the speed timing results, you will never win an argument with a police officer. However, when given the chance to discuss a resolution of the citation, this defendant proceeded to argue with the police officer that he clocked the wrong person. This made the police officer visibly angry and unwilling to negotiate a plea with a less severe result.
• Disrespectful: He stood before the judge with his hands in his pockets, and smirked during the entire hearing. The judge clearly did not appreciate his demeanor, and it showed in the verdict.
• Poor Cross-Examination: The defendant wanted to establish that the officer clocked the wrong vehicle, but didn't ask the proper questions. He also failed to object to the admission of the speed results, which were not properly authenticated.
• Incriminating Admissions: The defendant admitted under oath that he was speeding at a rate slightly lower than his clocked speed, but claimed his stop was unfair since everyone else around him was also speeding.

This case didn't end well, as he was convicted of the speeding offense. By failing to hire a qualified traffic ticket attorney, this person will now have to file a summary appeal and a statutory appeal to challenge the license suspension. This will come at an additional cost of $233.50 in excess of the court costs and fines associated with the ticket.

HOW A PITTSBURGH TRAFFIC TICKET ATTORNEY CAN HELP

A qualified Pittsburgh traffic ticket defense lawyer would not make the mistakes listed above. There are many possible advantages that apply when you hire a traffic ticket lawyer, which include:

• Familiarity With the Traffic Court System: A Pittsburgh traffic ticket attorney practices frequently in traffic courts throughout the area. Experience negotiating case resolutions with individual police officers and judges can play a significant role in obtaining a favorable outcome.
• Access to the Police Officer Before Your Hearing: In many traffic courts, a self-represented person will not be given the chance to discuss a resolution of the citation with the citing officer before their case is called. However, an attorney may be given permission to access the courtroom prior to the hearing, and discuss a resolution with the officer in advance.
• Knowledge of the Penalties and Alternative Offenses: A Pittsburgh traffic ticket attorney understands the penalties associated with your individual offense, and can work to negotiate a plea to an alternative offense that carries fewer penalties.
• Presenting a Compelling Argument for Leniency: A qualified Pittsburgh traffic ticket attorney knows how to present your background in the most positive manner possible.
• Authentication of Speed Timing Results: In the cases that cannot be resolved, a Pittsburgh traffic ticket attorney can challenge the admissibility of your speed timing results if not properly authenticated.
• Cross-Examination: A Pittsburgh traffic ticket attorney knows how to cross examine a well-trained police officer.
• Familiarity with Careless Driving and Reckless Driving Case Law in Auto Accident Cases: If you are involved in a reportable accident, many departments have policies requiring the officer to cite you with these offenses. There are previously decided Pennsylvania cases which may support a dismissal of your charges.

Before representing yourself in traffic court, we encourage you to call the Zuckerman Law Firm at 412-447-5580. We provide a  free consultation and work to offer fair rates for representation in the Pittsburgh area.

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.