James Law

10/10/2026

🚗 Can you challenge a traffic stop in a different county’s case?

What happens when the same traffic stop produces evidence in two different criminal cases—and the first court never actually rules on the suppression motion?

That was the unusual situation in Commonwealth v. Sanchez-Rodriguez, a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision.

The defendant had challenged the traffic stop in one county, but pleaded guilty before the judge ruled on his suppression motion. Later, evidence from that same stop was used in a much more serious case in another county.

The question became:

👉 Was he still allowed to challenge the legality of the traffic stop in the second case?

The Superior Court said yes.

⚖️ The important distinction was that the first court had never actually decided the suppression issue. Because there was no ruling, there was nothing for the second court to defer to—and no previously decided issue preventing the defendant from raising the challenge.

The Court sent the case back for further consideration of whether the traffic stop was actually unlawful and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue suppression in the second case.

💡 The takeaway: A suppression motion that is filed but never decided is very different from one that has already been ruled upon. That procedural distinction can make a major difference when evidence from one case finds its way into another.

📖 Read our full analysis of Commonwealth v. Sanchez-Rodriguez:

https://rhjameslaw.com/can-you-challenge-a-traffic-stop-from-a-different-countys-case-commonwealth-v-sanchez-rodriguez/

Could evidence from one criminal case really be challenged again in another county? In this case, the answer may surprise you.

In Commonwealth v. Sanchez-Rodriguez, the PA Superior Court held an undecided suppression motion in one county doesn't bar a challenge in another county's case

10/08/2026

⚖️ Can a prosecutor tell the jury that you hired a lawyer?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently answered that question: No.

In Commonwealth v. Jenkins, the Court held that a prosecutor may not tell the jury that a defendant sought or retained an attorney before police questioning or before arrest and suggest that decision says something about guilt.

But there’s an important twist:

👉 The conviction still stands.

The Court unanimously agreed that the prosecutor’s comment was improper. The Justices, however, disagreed about what the remedy should be. The majority concluded that the error was harmless under the circumstances, pointing in part to the strength of the evidence and the trial court’s prompt curative instruction.

The decision raises important questions about:

🔹 The right to seek legal advice before charges are filed
🔹 What prosecutors can—and cannot—tell a jury about a defendant’s decision to hire counsel
🔹 The difference between a constitutional error and one requiring a new trial
🔹 And how much a curative instruction can matter after improper comments are made

💡 The takeaway: Hiring a lawyer before speaking with police is not evidence of guilt. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has now made that clear.

📖 Read our full analysis of Commonwealth v. Jenkins:

https://rhjameslaw.com/can-a-prosecutor-tell-the-jury-you-hired-a-lawyer-the-pennsylvania-supreme-court-says-no-but-the-conviction-stands/

The PA Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Jenkins that prosecutors can't tell a jury you hired a lawyer before arrest. But the error can be harmless.

10/06/2026

🎉 Congratulations to Attorney Ryan James on his induction into the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County! ⚖️

We are incredibly proud to celebrate this well-deserved honor.

Founded in 1959, the Academy is dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, civility, and competence in the legal profession and is comprised of exceptional trial lawyers in Allegheny County.

Ryan was formally inducted last week at the Academy’s event at Nemacolin, and we’re thrilled to share a few photos from the occasion.

Please join us in congratulating Ryan on this significant professional achievement! 👏⚖️

10/01/2026

09/27/2026

🔎 What happens when Google reports you to the police?

We usually think of a search as something police conduct—but what happens when a private company searches information first and then turns what it finds over to law enforcement?

That question is at the heart of Commonwealth v. Thomas and an important Fourth Amendment concept known as the private search doctrine.

⚖️ The case raises some fascinating questions:

🔹 When does a search by a private company become relevant to the Fourth Amendment?

🔹 What can police do with information a private party has already uncovered?

🔹 Can police simply rely on what a private search revealed?

🔹 And when does the government go beyond the scope of the original private search, creating a new constitutional search of its own?

💡 The bigger takeaway: The Fourth Amendment generally restricts government searches—not searches conducted by private parties acting on their own. But that doesn’t necessarily give police unlimited freedom to repeat, expand, or investigate a private search.

The line between a private search and a government search can be critically important in a criminal case.

📖 Read our full analysis of Commonwealth v. Thomas and the private search rule:

https://rhjameslaw.com/when-google-reports-you-to-the-police-commonwealth-v-thomas-and-the-private-search-rule/

Where should the constitutional line be drawn when a private company discovers something first—and police get involved afterward?

In Commonwealth v. Thomas, the PA Superior Court held Google and Facebook act as private parties when they report child abuse images. What it means for suppression.

09/25/2026

👀 Can a police officer testify that he “saw a drug deal”?

It sounds straightforward—but in a criminal trial, what an officer is actually allowed to tell the jury can be a critical question.

A recent Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. James, examined whether a police officer could testify about what he believed he witnessed during an alleged drug transaction.

And the issue gets even more interesting when compared with a Third Circuit decision, United States v. Evans, addressing similar questions about an officer’s observations and the line between describing what you saw and offering an interpretation of what it meant.

⚖️ Why does that distinction matter?

🔹 Can an officer describe the specific actions he observed?

🔹 Can he characterize those actions as a “drug deal”?

🔹 When does testimony cross the line from factual observation into an opinion or conclusion?

🔹 And what role does the Rules of Evidence play in determining what ultimately reaches the jury?

💡 The bigger takeaway: In a criminal trial, the question isn’t simply “Did the officer see something?” It can also be “What exactly is the officer allowed to tell the jury about what he saw?”

📖 Read our full analysis of Commonwealth v. James and the Third Circuit’s Evans decision:

https://rhjameslaw.com/can-a-police-officer-testify-that-he-saw-a-drug-deal-commonwealth-v-james-and-the-third-circuits-evans-decision/

Where should the line be drawn between describing what an officer observed and telling the jury what the officer thinks those observations meant?

Commonwealth v. James and the Third Circuit's Evans decision on when a narcotics officer can give lay opinion testimony about drug sales without being an expert.

09/21/2026

⁉️You dropped the gun. Does that mean you abandoned it?

Not necessarily.

Two Pennsylvania appellate decisions issued just two days apart took on an important Fourth Amendment question: When does throwing or dropping a fi***rm actually count as abandoning it—and when does a person still have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that gun?

That distinction can make a major difference in a criminal case.

⚖️ The recent decisions examine questions including:

🔹 What a person actually intended when they discarded a fi***rm
🔹 Whether simply dropping a gun is enough to establish abandonment
🔹 How the surrounding circumstances affect the analysis
🔹 And when police can seize and use a discarded fi***rm without a warrant

The key point is that “he dropped it” does not automatically end the constitutional analysis. Courts look at the circumstances surrounding the alleged abandonment and what those circumstances reveal about the person’s intent.

📖 Two decisions. Two days apart. One important Fourth Amendment question.

Read our full analysis here: https://rhjameslaw.com/when-does-dropping-a-gun-count-as-abandoning-it-two-pennsylvania-decisions-two-days-apart/

Where do you draw the line between abandoning an item and simply dropping it?

Two PA Superior Court rulings filed two days apart reached opposite results on suppressing guns discarded near parked cars. Here is what separated them.

09/12/2026

⚖️ Can you be tried—and convicted—without knowing your case was actually going to trial?

In Pennsylvania, receiving notice that your case has been placed on a trial term may not mean what you think it does.

A recent Pennsylvania appellate decision examines an important question:

👉 What kind of notice is actually required before a criminal defendant can be tried?

The case raises important issues involving:

🔹 Notice of a trial term
🔹 A defendant’s right to be present
🔹 Whether a case can proceed when the defendant claims he was not properly notified
🔹 And the difference between knowing that a case could be called for trial and knowing that it will actually be tried

The details matter—and so does the distinction between being told your case is on a trial list and receiving meaningful notice that your trial is going forward.

💡 The bigger takeaway: Criminal procedure is often about more than whether someone committed an offense. The process the Commonwealth follows—and the notice provided to the accused—can be just as important.

📖 Read the full analysis: https://rhjameslaw.com/tried-without-him-what-notice-of-a-trial-term-requires-in-pennsylvania/

How much notice should a defendant receive before the Commonwealth can put him on trial? That’s the question this case forces us to examine.

The PA Superior Court held in Commonwealth v. Buchanan that notice of a two-week trial term is enough to try a defendant in absentia. What the ruling means.

09/11/2026

📚 Proud to see our very own, Attorney Ryan James, published in the latest issue of PACDL’s For The Defense!

We’re excited to share that Ryan’s work has been featured in the newest issue of For The Defense, the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ quarterly publication for Pennsylvania’s criminal defense community.

His article begins on Page 12 and explores an important issue in criminal defense, drawing on the kind of practical courtroom experience and legal analysis that makes these issues so important to the defense bar.

For The Defense brings together timely legal developments, practical insights, and perspectives from attorneys working in criminal defense throughout Pennsylvania.

⚖️ We invite you to take a few minutes to read Ryan’s article and learn more about this important issue.

👉 Read the full issue here and turn to Page 12: https://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/PACDL/FORTHEDEFENSE_vol11_issue3_2026/index.php #/p/12

We’re proud to see Ryan contributing to the ongoing conversation within Pennsylvania’s criminal defense community. 👏

Experience our interactive, profoundly engaging digital publication!

09/07/2026