Shuttleworth Law P.C.

Shuttleworth Law P.C.

Call 888-529-3486
For a Free Case Evaluation

  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Defense
      • Assault & Domestic Violence
      • Burglary, Robbery & Theft
      • Computer Crimes
      • Criminal Appeals
      • Criminal Investigations
      • Drug Crimes
      • DUI Defense
      • Expungements
      • Gun Crimes Defense
      • Homicide, Manslaughter, & Murder
      • Sex Crimes
      • Violent Crimes Defense
      • White-collar Crimes
    • Personal Injury
      • Bicycle Accidents
      • Car Accidents
      • Construction Accident
      • Medical Malpractice
      • Motorcycle Accidents
      • Pedestrian Accidents
      • Premises Liability
      • Wrongful Death
    • Protection From Abuse (PFA)
      • PFA Defense
      • PFAs for Victims
    • Strike 3 Holdings Defense
  • About Us
    • Brad V. Shuttleworth
    • Recent Case Results
    • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Shuttleworth Law P.C. Client Portal
    • FAQs
  • Contact Us Now

Criminal Lawyer Update: Verbose Rant Gilds Recent Drug Suppression Opinion by Superior Court

Published on Jun 6, 2008

In an apparent call to the Pennsylvania General Assembly to create legislation that would allow police to arrest individuals in a high-crime neighborhoods when they spot a single, isolated transaction of money for unidentifiable objects, in Commonwealth v. Wormley, 2008 Pa. Super. 107 (Pa. Super. 2008) Justice Stevens of the Pennsylvania Superior Court cites lengths of non-binding language from two dissenting opinions in Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 941 A.2d 671 (2007). The opinion states that the court feels “constrained” to hold the evidence should be suppressed, as the court is bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Dunlap, which has facts virtually identical to this case.

In Dunlap, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that when a police officer observes a single, isolated transaction of money for unidentified objects in a high-crime area, and even when the police officer possessed experience in drug enforcement and drug transactions, that information alone does not rise to the level of probable cause to arrest. The Supreme Court opinion in Dunlap reversed an earlier Superior Court opinion that affirmed a Philadelphia Trial Court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence where the defendant was observed purchasing narcotics on a street corner. The police in that case observed one transaction, and arrested Dunlap.

The problem with allowing police officers to arrest people after viewing a single transaction like that mentioned above is that it would be permitted in neighborhoods that the police officers themselves call high-crime neighborhoods. That desigation of “high-crime” is very self-serving in these cases, and most all the neighborhoods that the police call “high-crime” are occupied by minorities, which creates a disparate application of the finding of probable cause. In addition, allowing police to arrest for a single transaction lets the police arrest for a transaction that, on its face, appears to be innocuous. What if someone is exchanging change, cigarettes, or CDs? You wouldn’t see officers running up to people in Center City Philadelphia for making change for parking meters would you? Don’t people get cigarettes from others and offer a quarter?

Were You Charged with a Crime in Pennsylvania or New Jersey?

If so, I can help, and I’m not afraid of taking on tough cases, either. Put an innovative and experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side by contacting me at Shuttleworth Law P.C. for a Free Case Evaluation. Call 888-529-3486 or message me here directly to request yours today.

Criminal Defense, Search & Seizure

Categories

  • Civil Rights (3)
  • Criminal Defense (180)
    • Appeals (1)
    • Arrests (4)
    • Assault (2)
    • Burglary (2)
    • Child Abuse (1)
    • Computer Crimes (7)
    • Conspiracy (2)
    • Contempt (3)
    • Corruption (2)
    • Criminal Law Courts (21)
    • Domestic Violence (4)
    • Drug Charges (4)
    • DUI (5)
    • Evidence (4)
    • Expungements & Pardons (3)
    • Felonies (7)
    • Forgery (3)
    • Gun Charges (18)
    • Homicide (7)
    • Insurance Fraud (3)
    • Manslaughter (4)
    • Misdemeanors (2)
    • Murder (1)
    • Pleas (1)
    • Police Conduct (9)
    • Prisons & Jails (11)
    • Probation and Parole (4)
    • Property Crime (1)
    • Rape (1)
    • Robbery (4)
    • Search & Seizure (31)
    • Sentencing (18)
    • Sex Crimes (6)
    • Traffic Stops (5)
    • Violent Crime (4)
    • Warrants (4)
    • Weapons (5)
    • White-Collar Crimes (2)
    • Wire Fraud (1)
  • Federal Indictments (1)
  • General Legal News (17)
  • Law Firm News (8)
  • Legislation (6)
  • Personal Injury (5)
    • Car Accidents (1)
    • Fault (1)
    • Pedestrian Accidents (1)
    • Statute of Limitations (1)
    • Wrongful Death (1)
  • Protection From Abuse (PFA) (7)
    • PFA Defense (5)
  • Restraining Order (1)
  • Statutes of LImitation (1)
  • Strike 3 Holdings (8)
  • Uncategorized (2)

Placeholder. Do not Delete.

Shuttleworth Law, P.C.
New Jersey Office:
1040 Mantua Pike
Wenonah NJ 08090
856-681-0185

Pennsylvania Office:
By appointment only

Call 888-529-3486
Available 24/7 for emergencies

Business Hours
Monday – Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
TikTok
X (Formerly Twitter)

This website is for informational purposes only. Information presented isn’t legal advice and doesn’t form attorney-client relationships. Past results aren’t indicative of future results as all cases are unique. Laws affect each situation differently.

Copyright © 2005-2025 Brad V. Shuttleworth, Esq., Shuttleworth Law P.C. | Privacy Policy