A strong advocate
for your rights and future
Posted in Fourth Amendment on June 9, 2026
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, sitting en banc, recently issued a significant Fourth Amendment decision in Commonwealth v. Herlth that held that police violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches when a state trooper shined a flashlight through a small manufacturer’s hole in a closed shoebox inside a man’s home during an overdose response. The ruling reinforces… view more
Posted in Constitutional Rights on June 4, 2026
Improper & Unethical Ex Parte Communications The Pennsylvania Superior Court has granted a new trial to a Centre County defendant after finding that undisclosed text message communications between the trial judge and prosecutor during trial violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. In Commonwealth v. Brooks 1550 MDA 2024, the court reviewed allegations that… view more
Posted in DUI on May 24, 2026
In Commonwealth v. Gause, the Pennsylvania Superior Court delivered a significant decision limiting the use of police opinion testimony in DUI–controlled substance prosecutions. The Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and discharged him entirely, finding both evidentiary error and insufficient evidence to sustain the charges. Factual Background The case arose from a late-night traffic stop for… view more
Posted in Fourth Amendment,General on May 24, 2026
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport provides important clarification on the scope of police authority during routine traffic stops—particularly when officers observe a firearm in plain view. Factual Background The case arose from a routine traffic stop in Philadelphia based on a vehicle equipment violation. During the stop, officers observed a… view more
Posted in Constitutional Rights on May 21, 2026
A recent Centre County Court decision highlights how Pennsylvania courts analyze Rule 600 speedy trial claims when a defendant cannot be located for an extended period of time. In this case, the court denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss felony drug deliver charges, finding that law enforcement exercised due diligence in attempting to locate and… view more
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
