Category: Criminal

 In re Private Complaint Filed by Luay Ajaj, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 56 (S. Ct. January 19, 2023) (Brobson, J.)   Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506 (Rule 506) authorizes private citizens to file criminal complaints against other persons before the appropriate issuing authority. Before doing so, however, the private criminal complaint must first be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth for approval or disapproval. If the attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves the filing of the private criminal complaint with the issuing authority, Rule 506 thereafter permits the private complainant to petition the court of common pleas to review the disapproval decision. In this discretionary appeal, we consider whether the Superior Court erred when it affirmed a decision by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division (trial court), which overturned the decision of the Montgomery County District Attorney (DA). The DA had disapproved the private criminal complaint. We hold that, when reviewing a prosecutor's decision disapproving a private criminal complaint under Rule 506, a court of common pleas may only overturn that decision if the private complainant demonstrates that the disapproval decision amounted to bad faith, occurred due to fraud, or was unconstitutional. In so holding, we denounce…

Xiulu Ruan v. United States, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3089 (S. Ct. June 27, 2022) (Breyer, J.)  Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. A provision of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U. S. C. §841, makes it a federal crime, “[e]xcept as authorized[,] . . . for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense . . . a controlled substance,” such as opioids. 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U. S. C. §841(a) (emphasis added). Registered doctors may prescribe these substances to their patients. But, as provided by regulation, a prescription is only authorized when a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR §1306.04(a) (2021).  In each of these two consolidated cases, a doctor was convicted under §841 for dispensing controlled substances not “as authorized.” The question before us concerns the state of mind that the Government must prove to convict these doctors of violating the statute.  We hold that the statute’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to authorization. After a defendant produces evidence that he or she was authorized to dispense controlled substances, the Government must prove beyond…

CRIMINAL LAW-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-SEARCH WARRANT-REAL TIME SITE LOCATION INFORMATION Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 2021 Pa. LEXIS 3999 (November 17, 2021) Baer, C.J.  We granted allowance of appeal to determine whether trial court orders that authorized the disclosure of Appellant David Pacheco’s real-time cell site location information (“CSLI”) were the functional equivalent of search warrants and satisfied the requisites of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Carpenter, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L. Ed. 2d 507 (2018).  The court held that the challenged orders were the functional equivalent of search warrants and complied with the Fourth Amendment.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, which affirmed Appellant’s judgment of sentence. CRIMINAL LAW-INTERNET CONNECTION RECORDS-CONSENT Commonwealth v. Dunkins, 2021 Pa. LEXIS 3994 (November 17, 2021) Dougherty, J. We granted review to determine whether the trial court erred by denying suppression of wireless internet network (WiFi) connection records obtained by police without a warrant from the Information Technology Department of Moravian College. For the following reasons, we conclude this search was constitutionally permissible, and accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court. By…

Alleyne v. Pirrone, 2018 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 90 (March 9, 2018) Brobson, J. Detective George Pirrone (Detective Pirrone), Detective James Pitts (Detective Pitts), and Lieutenant Philip Riehl (Lieutenant Riehl) (collectively, Appellants) of the Philadelphia Police Department appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court). Following a trial, a jury found all three defendants liable to Kareem Alleyne (Alleyne) for malicious prosecution and found Detective Pirrone and Lieutenant Riehl liable to Alleyne for false arrest. Appellants appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. On April 20, 2016, the jury returned a verdict favorable to Alleyne and awarded him damages in the amount of $1,030,250. The jury found all three Appellants—Detective Pitts, Detective Pirrone, and Lieutenant 25 Riehl—liable for malicious prosecution. The jury determined that only Detective Pirrone and Lieutenant Riehl were liable for false arrest. Alleyne very effectively defended against the criminal charges he faced by highlighting serious holes and inconsistencies in the Police Department’s investigation. While the improprieties by Appellants significantly hindered the criminal case against Alleyne,…