Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 4/13/25 Zak Goldstein 4/13/25

What Happens at a Motion to Suppress Hearing in a Gun Case?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein Arguing in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you're facing a gun charge in Philadelphia, one of the most important tools your defense attorney may use in fighting your case is a motion to suppress. But what is a suppression hearing, and how can it help you beat the case?

In many gun prosecutions, the Commonwealth’s entire case rests on the existence of the firearm itself. Without evidence that the police recovered a firearm, the prosecution would be completely unable to proceed with the case. If your defense lawyer can show that the police violated your constitutional rights under the state or federal constitutions when they found and/or recovered the gun, the judge may rule the evidence inadmissible. In many cases, that leaves the Commonwealth with no choice but to drop the charges because they cannot proceed without the ability to introduce evidence that the police found a gun.

Here’s what you can expect at a suppression hearing and why it’s such a critical step in fighting a gun case.

1. What Is a Motion to Suppress?
A motion to suppress is a formal request asking the trial judge to exclude evidence. Most motions to suppress allege that law enforcement obtained the evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Both provisions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Pennsylvania Constitution provides even stronger protections than the United States Constitution.

In gun cases, a motion to suppress typically targets:
- The stop or detention by police
- The search of your person, vehicle, or home
- Statements or physical evidence (like a firearm) obtained illegally

If the stop or search was unconstitutional, the gun may be suppressed. This will typically defeat the government’s case.

2. What Happens During the Suppression Hearing?
A suppression hearing is a pretrial proceeding held in front of the judge. The judge will make findings of fact and issue conclusions of law. It takes place before trial, and there will not be a jury even in a case for which the defendant has decided to have a jury trial. Here's what to expect:

a. The Commonwealth Presents Evidence
- The police officers who conducted the stop or search will usually testify about what happened.
- The DA may introduce body cam footage, radio calls, or police paperwork to try to justify the search or further explain what happened.

b. Your Lawyer Cross-Examines the Officers
- A skilled defense attorney will probe inconsistencies, challenge the officer’s observations, and expose any unlawful police conduct through cross-examination. Your lawyer may also call defense witnesses to testify or present evidence for the defense.

c. Legal Argument
- After the Court hears the testimony, both sides will usually argue whether the search or stop complied with the law. Some judges may ask for written briefs and hold the matter under advisement so that the Court has time to think about it and conduct its own research if necessary.

3. Common Suppression Issues in Gun Cases
Gun charges in Philadelphia often involve questionable stops, detentions, frisks, and searches of motor vehicles. Some of the most common suppression issues include:
- Unlawful car stops without a real traffic violation (for example, false allegations of window tint or reckless driving)
- Pre-textual stops based only on location (e.g., “high crime area”)
- Frisks without reasonable suspicion of a weapon - this is particularly common in cases involving warrantless searches of cars
- Searches based on nervousness, avoiding contact with the police, or presence in a group (again usually in a “high crime area”)

4. What Happens If the Judge Suppresses the Gun?
If the judge grants the motion to suppress:
- The gun is excluded from evidence
- The DA usually cannot proceed without it
- Charges are often withdrawn or dismissed

5. Do I Need to Testify at the Hearing?
Usually, you would not have to testify at a suppression hearing. In most cases, the hearing is focused on police conduct, and your lawyer can make the necessary arguments based on the officers’ testimony and any available evidence. There are some cases where it may be necessary for the defendant to testify. In some cases, the defendant may need to establish that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Or, the officer may not have been wearing a body cam, so the facts may be in dispute.

6. The Right Lawyer Can Win Your Gun Case Before Trial
Suppression hearings are one of the best opportunities to win a gun case before it ever goes to trial. At Goldstein Mehta LLC, we’ve litigated hundreds of suppression motions in state and federal court. We have won many cases by proving that police crossed the line.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers in Court — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 4/13/25 Zak Goldstein 4/13/25

Can I Get a Gun Charge Expunged in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you were arrested for a gun charge in Philadelphia or anywhere in Pennsylvania, one of your first concerns may be: “Can I get this off my record?” Whether you’re worried about a background check for a job, a professional license, or future firearm rights, understanding expungement laws is critical. The ability to get the case expunged once it’s over may be an important factor for you in deciding how you want to try to resolve the case.

Here’s what you need to know about expunging a gun arrest or conviction in Pennsylvania:

1. Expungement After a Dismissal or Acquittal
If your gun charge was dismissed, withdrawn, or you were found not guilty at trial by a judge or a jury, you are likely eligible for expungement under 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122. In general, a criminal defendant has an absolute right to the expungement of a case that ended in an acquittal in Pennsylvania. In most cases, it is also possible to have a case expunged if the case was withdrawn or dismissed. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office typically does not contest the expungement of a dismissed gun charge. If they do contest it, then the court would hold a hearing on whether the expungement should be granted, but most dismissed and withdrawn cases can be expunged.

2. Expungement After ARD (Pre-Trial Diversion)
In some rare gun cases—usually where the defendant has no prior record and the case does not involve violence—the DA may offer ARD in order to resolve the case. Successful completion of the ARD program will lead to the expungement of the charges as ARD does not result in a conviction. ARD requires the defendant to serve a period of probation and may involve some other conditions, but at the end of the case, the charges will be be dismissed and expunged.

Learn more about the ARD program in Philadelphia.

3. Convictions for Gun Charges Cannot Be Expunged
Pennsylvania does not allow for the expungement of criminal convictions for gun charges (or any other criminal charge) unless you were convicted of a summary offense or you obtain a Governor’s pardon. Convictions generally cannot be expunged. However, it may be possible to obtain a partial expungement if you were only convicted of some of the charges. For example, if you were charged with VUFA § 6106 (carrying a concealed firearm without a license, which is usually a felony) and VUFA § 6108 (carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, which is a misdemeanor), but you were only convicted of the misdemeanor, you may qualify to have the felony “redacted” or expunged. This could make your record better as the court would order the destruction of any reference to the fact that you were originally charged with a felony.

4. A Pardon May Be the Only Option After a Conviction
For convicted individuals, a pardon may be the only route to eventual expungement of the charges. Pardons are difficult to obtain and rarely granted, but if you were convinced of the charges in your case and the charges were were not summary offenses, then a pardon would be the only way to remove the charges from your record.

5. You May Still Be Eligible to Seal Some Non-Gun Offenses
Other non-violent misdemeanors might be sealable under the Clean Slate Law. Gun charges typically cannot be sealed, but other misdemeanor offenses (and even some low level felonies) may qualify for a limited access order. A limited access order is not quite as good as an expungement, but it does decrease the odds that your record will show up on a background check.

Don’t Guess—Get Legal Advice Before You File
Expungement is a powerful tool, but it’s not available in every case. If you’re unsure whether your gun charge qualifies—or if you want help getting it off your record—call us today. We’ll review your case for free and help you take the right steps.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire Criminal Defense Lawyer in the Supreme Court — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

Zak Goldstein 4/7/25 Zak Goldstein 4/7/25

PA Superior Court: Aggravated Assault (F1) and Aggravated Assault (F2) Do Not Merge

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Vializ-Rios, again holding that aggravated assault as a felony of the first degree does not merge for sentencing purposes with aggravated assault as a felony of the second degree. The Court held that F2 aggravated assault is not a lesser included offense of aggravated assault as a first degree felony. Therefore, a court may sentence a defendant to consecutive sentences following a conviction for both offenses even where the convictions arise out of the same conduct.

The Facts of Vializ-Rios

In a recent appellate decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence imposed on the defendant following his convictions stemming from an alleged violent assault against the mother of his one-year-old child. The incident was prosecuted in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

During the altercation, which began inside a vehicle parked at a convenience store, the defendant repeatedly struck the complainant in the face with a closed fist and subsequently hit her with a glass bottle. The attack resulted in significant injuries, including substantial facial trauma, loose teeth, and a fracture of her alveolar ridge—a bone critical for supporting teeth. The complainant required stitches, dental realignment, and a splint, forcing her onto an all-liquid diet for six weeks. She continues to require ongoing medical treatment.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault (causing serious bodily injury) as a felony of the first degree, aggravated assault (causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon) as a felony of the second degree, recklessly endangering another person, endangering the welfare of a child, simple assault, and stalking. He received a sentence of 7½ to 15 years for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for the remaining charges. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Issue on Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued primarily that the two aggravated assault charges should have merged for sentencing purposes because they arose from the same criminal act—striking the complainant with a bottle. Under Pennsylvania law, charges merge for sentencing purposes when two offenses arise from a single criminal act and when all statutory elements of one offense are fully contained within the other offense. However, the Superior Court rejected the argument in this case, citing the sentencing statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 9765), which requires examining the elements of each offense independently. The court held that aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon contain distinct statutory elements. Specifically, aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury involves causing severe harm intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, without regard to the method used, while aggravated assault with a deadly weapon explicitly requires the use of such a deadly weapon and requires bodily injury rather than serious bodily injury. Due to these critical differences, the two charges do not merge under Pennsylvania law.

Additionally, the defendant challenged the trial court's authority to issue a no-contact order regarding the complainant and their child. Although the trial court initially issued a no contact order, the trial court later vacated the order, recognizing it lacked jurisdiction to impose such conditions on an individual serving a state prison sentence. That authority rests solely with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Parole Board.

Ultimately, the Superior Court affirmed, finding that the trial court could sentence the defendant to consecutive sentences because aggravated assault (F1) and aggravated assault (F2) are separate offenses which do not merge.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 4/3/25 Zak Goldstein 4/3/25

PA Superior Court Reverses Rule 600 Dismissal in Commonwealth v. Farlow, Holds Rule 1013 Exclusively Governs Speedy Trial in Philadelphia Municipal Court

In Commonwealth v. Farlow, 2025 PA Super 76, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed an order dismissing charges on Rule 600 speedy trial grounds, holding instead that Rule 1013—not Rule 600—governs speedy trial calculations in cases tried in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The Court held that pre-arrest delay is essentially not an issue in a misdemeanor case in Philadelphia because Rule 1013’s speedy trial requirement runs from preliminary arraignment (which typically occurs when the defendant is arrested) rather than when the police file a criminal complaint (which may happen long before the arrest).

Background

The defendant was charged on September 20, 2021, with simple assault and recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”) based on conduct which allegedly occurred on August 22, 2021. The police promptly obtained an arrest warrant, but they did not arrest the defendant until March 21, 2023, which was over eighteen months later. The defendant was also originally charged with a felony aggravated assault charge, so the defendant was entitled to a preliminary hearing in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The Municipal Court judge dismissed the aggravated assault charge at that hearing, and so the remaining misdemeanor charges were remanded for trial in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.

On the scheduled trial date of May 23, 2023, the defendant argued a motion to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, arguing that Commonwealth had not acted with due diligence during the pre-arrest period in locating the defendant and arresting her. The Commonwealth was ready for trial on that date, but if the time between the filing of the complaint and the arrest counted for speedy trial purposes, then the Commonwealth would have already violated Rule 600. Rule 1013 requires a defendant in a Municipal Court case to be brought to trial within 180 days of preliminary arraignment, but Rule 600, which applies to all Common Pleas cases, requires a defendant to be brought to trial within 365 days of the filing of the criminal complaint. Thus, if Rule 600 also applied, then the Commonwealth violated the defendant’s speedy trial rights.

The Municipal Court judge agreed with the defendant that both rules applied and dismissed the case. The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and the Common Pleas judge affirmed. That judge reasoned that Rule 600 governed the case with respect to the lengthy pre-arrest delay and Rule 1013’s silence on that issue. More than a year had passed from the filing of the criminal complaint, so the Common Pleas judge affirmed the dismissal of the charges.

The Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that Rule 1013 should apply to cases remanded for trial in Municipal Court and that, under Rule 1013’s timeline, no violation had occurred because Rule 1013 does not include pre-arrest delay in the calculation. Instead, time begins running under Rule 1013 essentially at arrest.

The Superior Court’s Analysis

The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth and clarified that Rule 1013—not Rule 600—governs speedy trial rights in cases ordered to be tried in the Philadelphia Municipal Court even if the case was initially filed as a felony. The Court held that Rule 1013(A)(3) explicitly provides for a 180-day deadline starting from the date of preliminary arraignment or the order transferring the case, whichever is greater.

Because the defendant was preliminarily arraigned on March 22, 2023, and the charges were dismissed before the 180-day period expired, the Superior Court found no Rule 1013 violation and reversed the dismissal.

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that Rule 600 should apply to pre-arrest delay in such cases under Rule 1000(B). While acknowledging the potential due process concerns created by prolonged pre-arrest delay, the Court emphasized that neither Rule 600 nor Rule 1013 includes language covering that specific issue in this context. Notably, the Court found that while Rule 1013 accounts for pre-arrest delay when a defendant appears by summons, it intentionally begins the trial clock at arraignment in arrest warrant cases, signaling a deliberate drafting choice.

Takeaway

Interpreting the rules in this matter leads to a bizarre result. If the defendant had waived the preliminary hearing and agreed to have the felony charges tried in the Court of Common Pleas, then Rule 600 would have applied, and the case should have been dismissed. But because the defendant was successful at the preliminary hearing in having the felony dismissed and the case remanded, the defendant gave up the speedy trial defense available under Rule 600. That makes no sense as the defendant should not have to waive the preliminary hearing in order to then have a more serious case dismissed. Further, this interpretation of the rules means that the Commonwealth has no obligation to find and arrest a defendant for a less serious misdemeanor case, but the Commonwealth must promptly arrest a defendant for a felony case or the felony could be dismissed. Essentially, it makes it more likely that a more serious case will be dismissed on speedy trial grounds rather than a less serious case. Further, the rules are simply silent on whether Rule 600 applies in the absence of a specific provision in Rule 1013 to the contrary. Hopefully, the defendant will seek reargument or petition the Supreme Court.

This decision serves as a crucial reminder that in Philadelphia, once a felony charge is dismissed and the case is remanded to the Municipal Court for trial on remaining misdemeanor charges, Rule 1013 governs the speedy trial timeline. While Rule 600 begins the clock at the filing of the complaint and covers pre-arrest delay, Rule 1013 begins at the preliminary arraignment—effectively excluding pre-arrest periods from its calculus.

Defense attorneys handling cases where the charges may get remanded must now decide whether it may make sense to actually waive the preliminary hearing in order to retain stronger speedy trial protections rather than contesting the charges at the preliminary hearing and giving up the protections of Rule 600 in a case involving a lengthy pre-arrest delay. This is a difficult decision to make as the defense may not have discovery which shows the reason for the pre-arrest delay at the time of the preliminary hearing. Alternatively, the Court left open the possibility of challenging pre-arrest delays under constitutional due process principles.

Citation: Commonwealth v. Farlow, 2025 PA Super 76 (Mar. 28, 2025).

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys