Philadelphia Housing Authority officers were in their marked patrol car when they allegedly observed T.M. run a stop sign near a housing authority property. After stopping the car, the officers claim that T.M got out of the driver’s seat and attempted to walk away from them. After drawing their guns on him, they ordered him.
L.F. was the subject of a weeks-long drug investigation. Police allegedly utilized a confidential informant to purchase crack cocaine from L.F. and a co-defendant on multiple occasions, which the police claimed they observed. Officers ultimately obtained a search warrant to search two residences that the police associated with L.F., which they believed were being used.
Possession With Intent to Deliver (F), Conspiracy (F), Possession of Firearm by Prohibited Person (VUFA 6105), Possession of Firearm Without a License (VUFA 6106).
The Verdict:
Case Dismissed for Speedy Trial Violation under Rule 600(a).
Philadelphia narcotics police set up a surveillance at a bar in Germantown in response to complaints about narcotics sales. According to police, a car pulled into the parking lot right in front of an officer. Minutes later, a car driven by G.R. pulled up next to it. The driver of the first car approached G.R.’s.
R.D. was arrested after police claim they saw him drop a baggie containing 54 grams of crack cocaine into the open window of a car in a high crime area in Philadelphia, and he was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver. At trial, the officers claimed that as they turned onto the block, they.
Police responding to a radio call observed J.V. matching the description of the person they were looking for and holding a screwdriver. Officers told him to drop the screwdriver and as they were handcuffing him saw narcotics in his hoodie pocket. They recover 14 packets of crack cocaine and arrest him for possession of narcotics..
Police conducting a narcotics surveillance observed M.J. and 6-7 other men involved in a dice game on the sidewalk. During a thirty minute period, police claim three different individuals approach M.J. and hand him money. Each time M.J. would then enter a nearby car and retrieve “objects” and hand those objects to the “buyers.” All.
Police stopped a van being driven by H.C. for not using headlights. During the car stop, one of the officers allegedly observed three packages of what he knew to be heroin for a total of 495 packets. The officer claimed they were within inches of H.C.’s leg, and that no one else was in the.
J.M. was arrested after a Philadelphia narcotics sergeant and another officer on patrol alleged that they saw him in a narcotics transaction with two other males. The Sgt. claimed that as she was driving she saw J.M. hand another male a large bag of marijuana, who then placed the bag in a mailbox. When the.
Police on routine patrol observed a car driven by T.D. fail to use a turn signal. Due to the fact that T.D. did not have a valid driver’s license and the car was a rental, police asked him to step out of the car. At the same time, another officer noticed that the front seat.
Police were stopped in their car at a traffic light when officers claimed that they smelled marijuana coming from F.C.’s car, which was parked legally. As the officers approached F.C., they claim he made a quick movement under his seat. F.C. was removed from the car and police alleged that they recovered 24 packets of.
Police observed B.A. driving his car in West Philly in an area the police described as a corridor to the Philadelphia drug trade from the main line. Officers stopped his car after they claim he performed a “park up”, where a driver pulls over to avoid being followed by police. The reason for the stop.
J.R., who was on state parole, went in to the parole officer to meet with an agent. During the meeting, the parole officer took J.R.’s phone and searched it. On the phone, the officer observed photographs of large amounts of cash, and one photograph of a gun. Based on these observations, parole agents decided to.
