Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 4/24/25 Zak Goldstein 4/24/25

PA Supreme Court: Police May Lie To You During Interrogation

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

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Foster, re-affirming the rule that the police generally may lie to you during an interrogation and still use any statement they have obtained in court against you.

In Foster, the Court considered whether a detective’s misrepresentation that the defendant was “not a suspect,” despite having already obtained a search warrant for his DNA, rendered the defendant’s subsequent statements involuntary and inadmissible. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, holding that such a lie does not automatically invalidate a suspect’s otherwise voluntary statement under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Facts of Foster

The case arose from a 2019 incident in Pittsburgh, where the complainant (K.C.) visited a bar, consumed alcohol, and later woke up with injuries and memory gaps. This prompted her to seek a sexual assault exam. The lab analysis revealed the presence of male DNA, and a Pittsburgh Police Detective began an investigation.

The defendant, who worked at the bar, was identified as someone who had contact with K.C. that night. After learning of this, the detective applied for and obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s DNA. Before executing the warrant, the police asked the defendant to come to the police station for an interview. The defendant voluntarily did so.

During the interview, the detective told the defendant twice that he was "not a suspect" and that he was just one of many people being interviewed. The detective did not advise the defendant of his Miranda rights because the defendant was not in custody. The interview remained cordial and non-confrontational. The defendant denied any sexual contact and voluntarily provided a DNA sample even after being told (late in the interview) that the detective had obtained a search warrant before he had arrived. Obviously, none of this was a great idea - the defendant did not have to give a false statement to the police or voluntarily surrender his DNA until the police obtained and executed a search warrant.

When the defendant’s DNA matched the DNA found in the rape kit, he was arrested and charged with rape of an unconscious person and sexual assault. He moved to suppress his statements, arguing they were involuntary because the detective lied about the nature of the encounter. He alleged that because the detective lied when telling him he was not a suspect, he was tricked into giving the statement and his DNA.

Suppression Court Grants Motion

The trial court granted the suppression motion, finding that the detective’s false statement deprived the defendant of the ability to make a “free and unconstrained choice” to speak. The court emphasized that the detective had already considered the defendant a suspect. This fact was reflected in the affidavit of probable cause used to obtain the DNA warrant. Although the court did not find that the detective acted in bad faith, it concluded that the false statement undermined the voluntariness of the statement.

Superior Court Reverses

The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. Applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test, the panel noted that the defendant came to the police station voluntarily, was not restrained, used his cell phone freely, and was not subjected to coercive tactics. The interview was short and amicable. The court concluded that while the detective’s statement was misleading, it did not render Foster’s statement involuntary.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Affirms: Misleading a Suspect About Their Status Does Not Render a Statement Involuntary Per Se

In a majority opinion by Justice McCaffery, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court. The Court reiterated that under both federal and state precedent, police deception does not automatically invalidate a suspect’s statement. The key inquiry remains whether the defendant’s will was overborne under the totality of the circumstances.

The Court rejected the idea that telling someone they are not a suspect, even when they are, automatically makes their statements inadmissible. The defendant was not in custody, the interview was non-coercive, and he voluntarily submitted to questioning and DNA testing. The Court also declined to adopt a per se rule automatically barring such misrepresentations. The police are allowed to lie to a suspect during an interrogation.

Importantly, while the Court acknowledged arguments from the defendant and amicus PACDL about the dangers of deceptive interrogation practices—including the risk of false confessions—it found that the defendant waived any broader claim under Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution by failing to preserve the argument below.

What This Means for Criminal Defendants

This case underscores the fact that Pennsylvania courts continue to tolerate certain forms of police deception during voluntary interviews. Unless a suspect is formally in custody or subjected to inherently coercive tactics, courts are unlikely to suppress statements based solely on misleading remarks about their status.

However, the decision also offers a roadmap for defense attorneys challenging similar statements: had the defendant preserved his state constitutional claim under Article I, Section 9, the Court may have considered drawing a stricter line. Future cases may test whether Pennsylvania’s Constitution should provide broader protections than the Fifth Amendment.

Key Takeaway

If you are contacted by police and told you're “not a suspect,” that statement may not shield you from criminal charges. Anything you say can still be used against you. Always consult with an attorney before agreeing to any interview or providing evidence if there is any chance that you could be a suspect in the crime.

Facing gun charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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 4/18/25 Zak Goldstein 4/18/25

Will a Gun Charge Ruin My Record? Not If You Fight It.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Being charged with a gun crime in Pennsylvania doesn’t automatically mean your life is over. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to prison. And it certainly doesn’t mean you’ll never be able to move forward.

Yes, gun charges are serious. But they’re also often defensible. And with the right legal strategy, you may be able to avoid a conviction, protect your record, and keep your future on track.

Here’s what you need to know—and why the smartest thing you can do right now is get a lawyer who knows how to fight.

1. You Are Not Convicted Just Because You Were Charged

A gun arrest is not the same as a conviction. The police may have overreached. The stop may have been illegal. The gun may not have been yours.

Until and unless the Commonwealth proves its case in court beyond a reasonable doubt, you still have every opportunity to win—through suppression motions, trial, or negotiation.

2. There Are Real Paths to Avoid a Record

Depending on your background and the facts of your case, your lawyer may be able to:

Get the charges dropped
Win a motion to suppress the firearm due to an illegal search
Negotiate for a dismissal or diversion (like ARD or AFD in some cases)
Fight the case at trial and get an acquittal

And if you beat the case, you may be eligible to expunge the record entirely.

3. Even a Conviction Isn’t Always the End

Let’s say things don’t go perfectly, and a conviction happens. That still doesn’t mean it’s over. You may still be able to:

Appeal the case if your rights were violated
File for a pardon in the future, especially if this is a first offense
Clear your record later through post-conviction litigation

We’ve helped clients get their rights back years after a conviction—but the best time to fight is now.

4. Don’t Plead Guilty Without Exploring Your Options

Prosecutors may try to scare you into a guilty plea. Don’t take the bait. There is often far more room to fight than people realize:

Was the stop or search unconstitutional?
Was the gun really yours?
Did the officers follow the rules?
Do the elements of the charge even apply to your situation?

You won’t know unless an experienced attorney thoroughly reviews the case.

5. You Only Get One Record—Protect It

Your criminal record can affect:

Job opportunities
Professional licenses
Housing and immigration status
Future police encounters

But a smart, strategic defense can often prevent it from getting on your record in the first place.

Facing gun charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

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

What’s the Difference Between VUFA 6106, 6108, and 6105 in Pennsylvania?

If you’ve been charged with a gun offense in Philadelphia, you may have seen multiple statutes listed on your charging documents. They could include VUFA § 6106, § 6108, and § 6105. These numbers refer to different sections of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, and they carry very different consequences.

Understanding the difference between them is critical to defending your case and protecting your record.

1. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 – Carrying a Firearm Without a License
This is the most commonly charged gun offense in Pennsylvania. It makes it a felony to carry a concealed firearm without a valid license outside your home or fixed place of business. It applies to carrying a firearm in a car without a license.

Key facts:
- Charged when someone allegedly possesses a concealed weapon in public or in a car without a license to carry.
- Applies even if the person has no prior record.
- Felony of the third degree unless the person is otherwise eligible to carry a firearm (meaning they do not have any prior record and are not charge with any other crimes). In Philadelphia, it is almost always a felony of the third degree because the defendant will typically be charged with VUFA § 6108 at the same time.

Example: Police find a gun in your waistband during a stop-and-frisk, and you do not have a valid concealed carry license.

2. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 – Carrying a Firearm on the Streets of Philadelphia
This statute applies only within the City of Philadelphia. It prohibits carrying a firearm in public without a license. It does not matter if the gun is concealed. It makes open carry without a license illegal in Philadelphia even though open carry is legal in the rest of the state.

Key facts:
- Often charged in addition to VUFA 6106, thereby making § 6106 a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
- Covers walking with a gun on your person in Philly.
- Misdemeanor of the first degree.

Example: Police stop you while walking in North Philadelphia and recover a gun from your jacket. You don’t have a license to carry.

3. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 – Persons Not to Possess Firearms
This is the most serious of the three. § 6105 makes it a felony of the first or second degree (depending on whether the gun is physically on you) for certain individuals to possess firearms at all. It is based on prior convictions or legal disqualifications. Most prior felony convictions will cause § 6105 to be graded as a felony, but juvenile adjudications and active PFA orders will typically make it a misdemeanor.

Who’s covered by 6105?
- People with certain felony or misdemeanor convictions
- People subject to active protection from abuse (PFA) orders
- Individuals with certain mental health commitments or juvenile adjudications

Example: You have a felony record and are found in possession of a firearm. You may may be charged with VUFA § 6105 as a felony.

4. Why Are These Charges Often Filed Together?
In Philadelphia, prosecutors frequently charge multiple gun statutes at once even for a single firearm. You might see:
- § 6106 (carrying without a license)
- § 6108 (carrying in public in Philadelphia)
- § 6105 (if you’re legally prohibited)

This approach gives the Commonwealth backup charges if the primary one falls apart at trial or at a suppression hearing.

5. Do These Charges Merge at Sentencing?
Usually, VUFA 6105, 6106, and 6108 do not merge at sentencing because they involve distinct elements. That means a person could theoretically receive consecutive sentences even though all three charges stem from the same conduct and from possession of only one gun.

6. How Do We Defend These Charges?
Defense strategies depend on the facts and the statute:

For 6106 and 6108, we often challenge:
- The legality of the stop or search
- Constructive possession
- Intent or knowledge
- Whether any of the exceptions apply (working as a security guard, hunting, travel to a shooting range, license to carry recently revoked or notice not properly given, etc.)

For 6105, we may:
- Challenge the underlying disqualifying conviction
- Litigate whether the statute applies based on out-of-state priors
- Seek constitutional defenses where appropriate (such as whether the application of the statute is constitutional)
- Many of the same defenses that apply to § 6106 and § 6108 may apply to a § 6105 charge

Facing 6106, 6108, or 6105 Charges? You Need a Targeted Defense.
Every gun statute in Pennsylvania carries different penalties, defenses, and evidentiary issues. At Goldstein Mehta LLC, we understand the nuances of each one—and we’ve beaten them in court through motions to suppress, pretrial litigation, and trial advocacy.

If you’ve been charged with any firearm offense in Philadelphia, call us today for a free consultation. We’ll break down the charges, explore your options, and fight to protect your freedom and your record. Call 267-225-245 for a free criminal defense strategy session and to find out how we can help.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers in the Courtroom — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

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

Can I Beat a VUFA § 6106 Charge If I Didn’t Know About the Gun?

Zak Goldstein - Gun Charges Lawyer in Philadelphia — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Many people are arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106) even when the gun wasn’t actually on them. It may have been found in a car, a bag, or a house that actually belonged to someone else. In these cases, the prosecution proceeds based on the idea of constructive possession. But constructive possession can be confusing. Naturally, many clients ask:

“If the gun wasn’t mine, and I didn’t even know it was there, how can they charge me?”

The answer lies in a concept called constructive possession, and beating a VUFA 6106 charge in this situation often depends on whether the Commonwealth can prove that you knew about the gun and intended to control it.

1. What Is 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106?
Section 6106 makes it a crime to carry a concealed firearm without a valid license outside your home or place of business. If you actually have the gun on your person, and you don’t have a license, that’s a clear-cut 6106 violation. But many cases involve constructive possession, meaning the gun was not on the defendant directly. The statute also makes it a crime to have a gun in a car without a license. But again, if someone else left a gun in the car and you didn’t know about it, how were you supposed to avoid getting charged?

2. What Is Constructive Possession?
Constructive possession means that you didn’t physically have the gun on you, but you had:
- Knowledge that it was there, and
- The intent and ability to control it

It is not enough to just know about it or be near it. You have to known about it AND have the intent and power to control the gun. Constructive possession really means that the gun is basically yours - even if you don’t permanently or legally own it.

3. So How Do You Beat a Constructive Possession Case?
The key defense is lack of knowledge and control. Your lawyer’s goal is often to show reasonable doubt that you even knew the gun was there, let alone that you intended to possess it.

Potential defense strategies we may use could include:
- Shared access: The gun was in a car or home shared by multiple people, so it did not belong to the defendant.
- No fingerprints or DNA: There is no objective, forensic evidence tying you to the weapon.
- No incriminating statements: You didn’t admit to ownership or control. In fact, you may have expressed surprise that it was there and been very cooperative with the officer. For example, why would someone consent to a search if they knew the police were going to find an illegal gun?
- Bad stop or search: Your rights were violated during the stop, and we attorney can file a motion to suppress and ask the judge to exclude the evidence.

4. The Commonwealth Has the Burden of Proof
The DA must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they must prove that you knowingly possessed the gun. If you never touched the weapon, never claimed it, and there’s no forensic or circumstantial evidence linking you to it, a judge or jury may find the case too weak to convict if the gun could have been possessed by someone else.

5. Real-Life Examples Where Constructive Possession Fails
Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly held that mere proximity to a gun is not enough. Examples of defense wins include:
- A gun under the seat in a car with multiple occupants
- A firearm found in a house where the defendant was merely present
- A bag with a gun placed near the defendant but with no evidence of ownership

Each of these scenarios presents an opportunity to argue that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden.

6. Don’t Assume You Have to Plead Guilty
Just because you’re charged with a VUFA § 6106 violation doesn’t mean the case is open-and-shut. The law gives you the benefit of the doubt, and your lawyer’s job is to hold the Commonwealth to its burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein Arguing in the PA Supreme Court — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers