Case Results That Make a Difference
Decker & Bradburn has a proven track record of achieving successful results for its clients. Read below for just a few of the results we’ve achieved for some of our grateful clients.
Commonwealth v. V.C., Clinton County, Pennsylvania — June 2019
The client was pulled over on Interstate 80 for following a tractor-trailer too closely. The client did not speak English and ultimately permitted the State Trooper to search his vehicle, which yielded approximately 39 pounds of marijuana.
The client, who was not a U.S. citizen, was arrested and charged with felony drug trafficking charges, and would be subject to removal proceedings if convicted of any or all of the charges. Attorney Marc A. Decker successfully argued that our client’s consent to the search at issue was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, given due to the State Trooper’s unlawful procedures, and in violation of the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions.
Results: Motion to Suppress Evidence GRANTED.
Commonwealth v. P.R., Centre County, Pennsylvania — May 2018
The client was pulled over on Interstate 80 for allegedly having an obscured license plate. They did not speak English, and the State Trooper who pulled them over detained them for approximately 20 minutes, asking them numerous questions unrelated to the traffic violation through the Google Translate app on his phone. The State Trooper asked the client for permission to search his vehicle, which the client denied. The client was then detained for an extended period of time while a drug-sniffing dog was dispatched to the scene. The dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and a search was conducted of the client’s vehicle, which yielded 43 pounds of marijuana.
Sound Legal Advice: Sometimes there are deadlines that need to be strictly adhered to, so do not delay in consulting with or obtaining an experienced attorney such as Wayne E. Bradburn, Jr., and Marc A. Decker.
The client, who was not a U.S. citizen, was arrested and charged with felony drug trafficking charges, and would be subject to removal proceedings if convicted of any or all of the charges. Attorney Marc A. Decker successfully argued that the traffic stop for obscured license plates was unlawful and lacked probable cause to believe the client had committed a motor vehicle code violation. The Court agreed that the State Trooper illegally pulled the client over in violation of the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions.
Results: Client’s Motion to Suppress Evidence GRANTED.
Commonwealth v. R.V., Centre County, Pennsylvania — November 2018
The client was pulled over on Interstate 80 for changing lanes without utilizing a turn signal. The State Trooper who pulled Client over detained him for over 40 minutes and asked him numerous questions unrelated to the traffic violation. The State Trooper asked the client for permission to search his vehicle, and the Client agreed to the search. However, rather than conducting a hand search of the car immediately, the State Trooper requested that a drug-sniffing dog be dispatched to the scene, which took nearly an hour to arrive. When the dog arrived, the State Troopers removed three packages wrapped in Christmas wrapping paper that were located in the back seat of the client’s vehicle so that the dog could conduct a sniff test on the packages. The dog alerted on two of the packages, which were then opened by the State Troopers and were discovered to contain approximately 20 pounds of marijuana.
The client was arrested and charged with felony drug trafficking. Attorney Marc A. Decker filed several motions to suppress the marijuana and argued, among other things, that the client’s consent to the search did not extend to the use of a drug-sniffing dog. The Trial Court denied Client’s motion to suppress the marijuana, and Attorney Marc A. Decker appealed this decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In a published opinion, the Superior Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision and refused to suppress the marijuana at issue. Attorney Marc A. Decker then petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the state’s highest court, and requested that it hear this appeal due to the significance of the legal issue presented. The Supreme Court granted Client’s appeal, and attorney Marc A. Decker argued that the canine sniff at issue was outside of the scope of Client’s consent, and therefore violated the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions.
Results: The Supreme Court ultimately REVERSED the lower court decisions, and the evidence was ultimately SUPPRESSED.
This case changed the law throughout Pennsylvania dealing with the scope of consent searches and the use of drug-sniffing dogs. See Commonwealth v. Valdivia, 195 A.3d 855, 857 (Pa. 2018).
Clinton County — January 2015
The client was charged with Possession With Intent to deliver heroin, crack cocaine, and marijuana, all felonies, after Lock Haven City Police searched his bedroom. The client was potentially facing state prison time and a two-year mandatory minimum jail sentence if convicted.
The client was a student at Lock Haven University at the time and was receiving financial aid from the federal government. If the client were convicted of ANY drug trafficking or drug possession-related crimes, he would have been prohibited from receiving any federal financial aid for at least one year.
After meeting with the client on several occasions, interviewing eyewitnesses, conducting a scene review, and reviewing police reports, criminal defense attorney Marc A. Decker filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence due to the client’s constitutional rights being violated.
Specifically, the police entered the residence without a search warrant or the client’s permission. Upon entering the client’s bedroom, the officer noticed some suspected marijuana on the floor. The Officer then detained the client and demanded that the client consent to a search of his entire room. A search was then conducted, and a substantial amount of heroin and cocaine was discovered.
Sound Legal Advice: Never consent to a search of your person, property, residence, or vehicle. Demand that the police first obtain a warrant!
At the hearing on the Suppression Motion, Attorney Decker meticulously cross-examined the arresting officer in a manner that exposed the fact that this officer withheld evidence and secretly redacted portions of his incident report.
Results: Felony Drug Trafficking Charges DISMISSED.
Clearfield County — December 2014
The landlord made a complaint to the Clearfield County Police, alleging that the Client/Tenant had damaged property within the leased premises. The client was subsequently charged with Criminal Mischief, a Misdemeanor of the Third Degree.
A Misdemeanor of the Third Degree is punishable by up to one year’s incarceration and a fine of up to $2,500.
The client was also on parole at the time of the alleged incident, and if convicted of the new Criminal Mischief charges, the client was facing an additional six months’ jail sentence.
At the Preliminary Hearing, criminal defense lawyer Marc A. Decker successfully argued to the Magisterial District Judge that this matter was a classic landlord-tenant dispute, which was better suited for civil court rather than criminal court.
Results: Criminal Mischief charge DISMISSED.
Centre County — December 2014
The client was a Penn State Student attending a party at his friend’s house. There were many people at the residence, and the music was loud. State College Police Officers were dispatched to the house party, where they encountered the Client at the front door. After questioning the Client, the officers charged him with Disorderly Conduct (Unreasonable Noise), a Summary offense, and Overcrowding, in violation of a local ordinance.
A summary trial was scheduled before a Magisterial District Judge. The client appeared in court without counsel and presented his argument to the Judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge found him Guilty of all charges and imposed a fine of more than $1,500.
Sound Legal Advice: Never show up to court unrepresented! If nothing else, at least consult with an attorney. Abraham Lincoln wisely stated: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
The client contacted Penn State criminal defense attorney Marc Decker to appeal the Magisterial District Judge’s ruling. At the Client’s Summary Appeal Hearing, Attorney Decker cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses and exposed critical flaws in the case, namely, that the officers were operating under the mistaken belief that the Client either lived at the residence or was responsible for hosting the party.
Results: At the conclusion of the hearing, the Centre County Court of Common Pleas Judge found the client NOT GUILTY of all charges.
Centre County — September 2014
Facts: The client was a foreign student whose family purchased a new car in Illinois to be used while the Client attended college at PSU.
Subsequently, the client was pulled over for a minor equipment violation, and the police determined that the car had never been registered in the state of Pennsylvania.
Strategy and Action: The lawyers at Decker Bradburn, Attorneys at Law, contacted the client’s father and learned that the car had been registered in the client’s country of national origin, rather than in Pennsylvania.
With extensive experience with the Motor Vehicle Code, Attorney Bradburn immediately discerned that there was a statutory exception for nonresidents, which had specific proof requirements that needed to be timely demonstrated.
Sound Legal Advice: Just because you “did it” doesn’t automatically mean you’re “guilty.” An experienced traffic law Attorney can quickly identify if any exceptions or statutory defenses might be applicable to your case.
In order to avail oneself of this defense, proof of the client’s nonresidency and that the vehicle had been properly registered in the foreign country on the date of the offense was required to be provided to the Magisterial District Judge within five days of when the charge was filed, which would result in the charge being dismissed.
Attorney Bradburn immediately obtained a copy of the client’s driver’s license from his country of national origin from the client and the client’s father faxed registration paperwork from that same country such that all required information was timely given to the Court.
Result: Case DISMISSED upon receipt of this information without a hearing.
Centre County — September 2014
The Pennsylvania State Police pulled over the client for crossing the double yellow line and exceeding the speed limit. During the traffic stop, one of the state troopers ordered the Client out of her vehicle to perform standard field sobriety tests in below-freezing temperatures and bare feet.
The client did not perform the standard field sobriety tests to the trooper’s satisfaction, and she was placed under arrest for suspicion of DUI. The client verbally protested and attempted to speak with the passenger of her vehicle so as to give that person instructions on what to do with her vehicle.
At this time, the client was physically restrained by two state troopers, and one of the troopers tased the client several times. The state trooper then accidentally shot himself with his taser, such that he required medical attention.
The client was then charged with Aggravated Assault, a felony, and several misdemeanors, including Simple Assault, Resisting Arrest, and DUI.
The client hired Centre County Criminal Defense Attorneys Wayne Bradburn and Marc Decker. At trial, Attorney Bradburn and Attorney Decker were able to show the jury that the state trooper injured himself due to his own negligence, and that the Client was well within her rights to protest her arrest verbally.
Results: The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on the charges of Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, and Resisting Arrest.
Centre County — September 2013
Facts: Upon the advice of his prior counsel, the client rejected a written plea offer from the prosecution which required him to plead guilty to 25 counts of Possession Of Child Pornography in exchange for a recommended sentence of 11 and one-half s to 23 and one-half months of incarceration, plus a consecutive sentence of seven years of Probation.
In the Commonwealth’s handwritten plea offer, it was specified “Def. free to argue for county time compared to state.” In the Commonwealth’s typewritten plea offer, it was similarly asserted that “[i]n this offer, the Def. would be free to argue for county placement and the Commonwealth would argue for state placement.”
Instead, Def.’s family attorney recommended that the client plead open to 365 counts of Possession Of Child Pornography as it was suggested that this was his best course for obtaining a county jail sentence, which was Def.’s primary objective.
After throwing himself at the mercy of the Court, the client received a sentence of five to 10 years in a state correctional institute, plus a consecutive sentence of 10 years’ Probation.
Attorney Bradburn was retained with the goal of obtaining a lesser jail sentence and possibly even having him serve that sentence in a county jail.
Action and Strategy: Timely Post-Sentence Motions were filed, including a Motion To Withdraw Guilty Plea on the basis that there had been prejudice on the order of “manifest injustice” since it was argued the guilty plea had not been tendered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, or understandably.
With over 20 years of experience in criminal defense, Attorney Bradburn immediately recognized that the client had been given a false choice by the prosecution regarding his place of confinement, and this might be under the original plea offer since a sentence of incarceration that is less than two years in length must be served in a county jail.
Sound Legal Advice: When involved in a criminal case, you should always consult with an attorney who regularly practices criminal law to avoid a consequential mistake from being made.
Attorney Bradburn successfully argued that the client’s decision to plead open was made under duress in that he wrongfully believed that his acceptance of the original plea offer might result in his being incarcerated in state prison when that could not have occurred under the law.
Result: After being allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas to all 361 counts, client pled guilty to only 25 counts of Possession of Child Pornography and received a sentence of 15 months to 30 months, plus a consecutive sentence of 10 years Probation, but was allowed to serve the sentence in the Centre County Correctional Facility. This resulted in a sentence that was three years and nine months to seven and one-half years LESS THAN the one that was originally imposed.
Contact Us Today for Help
Contact the experienced attorneys at Decker & Bradburn, Attorneys at Law, by email or by calling 814-308-8895 and schedule a free consultation.