FREE CONSULTATIONS

Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Arrested for Drug Possession in Philadelphia – Statements (Part B)

    Will Your Statements be Suppressed? (Part 2)

    Use of Incriminating Statements in Criminal Drug Cases in Philadelphia

    In criminal drug cases in Philadelphia, an arrested individual’s statements will often be used to prove possession in a Possession of a Controlled Substance case or Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver case. Therefore, most individuals arrested for drug charges want to know whether their statements can be thrown out or suppressed. The answer depends on the facts and circumstances of each case because no two criminal cases are alike.

    Click here to read part 1 of this discussion about suppressing incriminating statements in drug cases in PA.

    Post-Arrest Statements Made Before Miranda

    In some situations, an individual may be arrested or not arrested, but otherwise placed into custody. For instance, an individual may be held in a police car or other holding cell before being placed under arrest. If an individual is arrested or placed into custody and interrogated without having been given Miranda warnings, the statements will likely be suppressed. In other words, they are thrown out of the case. In drug possession prosecutions, suppression of such statements can harm the prosecutor’s case, thus making it more likely that a “not guilty” verdict will be reached in a subsequent court or jury trial. However, statements made voluntarily, without being asked questions (interrogation) by an officer, are unlikely to be suppressed later.

    Using the example discussed in part A, a Philadelphia police officer allegedly witnesses what he believes is behavior indicating a hand-to-hand drug transaction is about to occur. The officer confronts the individuals and asks what they are doing. The individual holding the money takes off running after the other one blurts out, “It’s just weed.” The police officer handcuffs the suspected drug dealer and places him in the back of his patrol car. He radios to the precinct.

    At this point, the individual in the back of the patrol car has been placed in police custody. The officer says, “Just weed. Is that all?” without giving any Miranda warnings. The individual then admits that he did not have weed, but instead had 10 small bags of crack in his backpack. He is later arrested for Possession with Intent to Deliver for the crack cocaine in his backpack.

    Because the statement admitting to possessing crack cocaine was made while in custody and before Miranda warnings, the statement would likely be suppressed. In addition, evidence obtained as a result of the suppressed statements may also be suppressed. However, depending on the facts of the case, a criminal case can still proceed.

    Related: Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – What is “Possession”

    Post-Arrest Statements Made After Miranda

    In general, statements made after arrest and after Miranda warnings were given are usually difficult to suppress. In some cases, the police may continue interrogation tactics even after an individual requests to speak to an attorney. If this occurs, statements may be suppressed. Also, statements made voluntarily, after arrest and after Miranda, will not usually be suppressed. Again, it is important to note that in any criminal case, whether a statement can be used against the arrested individual depends on the facts of the case.

    Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Handling Drug Charges FREE CONSULTATIONS

    If you or a loved one was arrested for a drug related charge in the Philadelphia area, including Montgomery, Delaware and Bucks County or in federal court, please call our criminal lawyers for a free consultation. (215) 564-0644

    David Nenner is an experienced criminal lawyer who has handled many drug cases in both Pennsylvania state and federal court. He offers a free phone consultation for all drug and gun cases.

    Disclaimer: This website does not create any attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice. Our lawyers provide legal advice only after accepting a case. It is imperative that any action taken is done on advice of counsel. Since each case is unique, discussion of prior outcomes and settlements in past cases is no guarantee of a similar outcome in current or future cases. Contacting our lawyers via the email contact form on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through the contact form.

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"
    (2015-2022)

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...

    Att. MURDER CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (April 2022, PHILA)

    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...

    MURDER, Robbery CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...

    MURDER CHARGE – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    Sentencing for 1st Degree Murder in PA

    In this article below we discuss sentencing for 1st degree murder cases in Pennsylvania. In later articles, we will discuss sentencing for 2nd and 3rd degree murder cases. If you or a loved one is facing murder charges in Philadelphia or the surrounding counties,...

    Philadelphia Criminal Trials – Evidence Pointing to Another Perpetrator in Drug Possession or Drug Manufacture Cases

    In criminal trials in Philadelphia, one pretty common defense tactic is pointing the finger at another person at trial. This can raise enough doubt to result in a not guilty verdict by the judge or jury that the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime. Here’s...

    Philadelphia Murder & Gun Possession Cases Increasing in 2021 – A Look at Common Charges & Defenses

    A look at PA criminal law for Murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd Degree), Aggravated Assault, Robbery, Possession of a Firearm, Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Carrying a Firearm in Philadelphia (misdemeanor).

    Pennsylvania Murder Charges, Deceased Person’s Statements Used to Prove Guilt

    Defense Trial Strategies – Excluding Statements That Accuse the Defendant Prosecutors often look to a deceased individual’s statements made prior to a murder to show that the defendant is guilty. These statements may point to a history of violence between the deceased...

    Pennsylvania (State) Drug Charges, Dog Sniffs & Constitutional Law

    Federal and Pennsylvania state courts treat narcotics dog searches differently. So different that the same scenario could result in different outcomes in federal versus state court. For example, a Philadelphia resident is pulled over for speeding. During the traffic...