A strong advocate
for your rights and future
Posted in Expungement on April 9, 2026
The PA Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Romeo, 2017 PA Super 1, underscores a critical—and often misunderstood—distinction in Pennsylvania expungement law: the sharp divide between arrest records and conviction records. The decision also affirms the long-standing precedent that expungements are only permitted when the law allows and not simply because a person really wants… view more
Posted in Constitutional Rights,DUI,Fourth Amendment on April 9, 2026
The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Smith reinforces two critical principles in DUI litigation: (1) the relatively low threshold required for police to initiate a DUI stop, and (2) the continued viability of warrantless blood draws based on voluntary consent. Factual Background Smith was driving during the early morning hours in Mercer County… view more
Posted in DUI on March 22, 2026
In Commonwealth v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447 (Pa. Super. 2006), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled on a challenge to the PA DUI law and whether it prohibited driving under the influence of gasoline. Factual Background Roser was stopped by police after he was observed driving over the center and fog lines and almost striking another… view more
Posted in DUI on March 18, 2026
The Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified that a driver may be prosecuted under Pennsylvania’s DUI statute even when the substance involved is not a controlled substance. In Commonwealth v. Walsh, 2026 PA Super 47, the Court reversed the dismissal of DUI charges stemming from alleged impairment caused by kratom and caffeine. Factual Background The case arose… view more
Posted in DUI on March 1, 2026
In Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 1571 MDA 2021, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Perry County DUI conviction where district attorney did not present direct evidence that Smith was driving. Smith was convicted by a judge at a trial. Smith appealed and argued that there was insufficient evidence presented that he drove or operated the… view more
Posted in Penn State Marijuana Possession on February 15, 2026
Is Chemical Testing of Marijuana Vape Needed at Preliminary Hearing Phase? In Commonwealth v. Chadwick, a Centre County judge addressed an increasingly common issue in Pennsylvania criminal law: whether the Commonwealth can establish a prima facie Possession of Marijuana case involving a THC vape without laboratory testing. Background of the Case A Pennsylvania State Trooper… view more
Posted in Fourth Amendment on February 10, 2026
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Emergency Aid Exception to the Fourth Amendment In Case v. Montana, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is seriously injured or facing imminent harm. The Court rejected the argument that probable cause is… view more
Posted in DUI on December 1, 2025
Overview In Commonwealth v. Whitcomb, the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered a novel argument raised by a DUI defendant: that she should be excused from criminal liability because her impairment resulted from involuntary intoxication. The court ultimately rejected the defense, holding that “involuntary intoxication” is not recognized as a valid defense to DUI under Pennsylvania law—especially… view more
Posted in DUI on November 30, 2025
The Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an important decision in drug-DUI cases under 75 Pa,C.S. 3802(d)(1) and (d)(2). On July 1, 2024, in Commonwealth v. Macik, the Court held that drug-DUI charges do not require the Commonwealth to prove any mens rea (mental state). The ruling reaffirms that these DUI–drug subsections are strict liability offenses, meaning… view more
Posted in ARD on November 1, 2025
In a major decision for Pennsylvania DUI and criminal defense law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Jenkins that a defendant cannot be removed from the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program based solely on the “spirit or purpose” of the program. The Court held that ARD revocation is only lawful when a participant… view more
