Criminal Defense

Understanding Pennsylvania DUI Law

Posted on March 1 2013 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

In Pennsylvania, there are two main ways that a person may be convicted for driving under the influence (DUI).

The first way is to consume “a sufficient amount of alcohol” to render the person incapable of safe driving. In such cases, the prosecutor must show a nexus, or link, between the bad driving and the consumption of alcohol.

The second and more common way is for the person’s blood alcohol content (BAC) to be at least .08 percent within two hours after driving. BAC is measured by dividing grams of alcohol by 100 milliliters of blood. Police use breath, blood, and urine tests to determine a driver’s BAC level.

Penalties for a DUI become more severe with increased BAC levels. A BAC of at least .08 percent but less than .10 percent is considered a “general impairment.” A BAC of at least .10 percent but less than .16 percent is considered a “high rate of alcohol.” A BAC of .16 percent or higher is considered the “highest rate of alcohol.”

To speak with a Pittsburgh DUI lawyer, call Spivak Law Firm at (412) 344-4900 or toll free at (800) 545-9390.

Seeking Justice for Juveniles

Posted on January 27 2013 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

The appellate review system for juveniles has been notoriously slow in Pennsylvania. Juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent, removed from their homes, and sent to detention centers often complete their detainment in less time than it takes to process their appeal. Such procedural delays are unfair for juveniles and their families.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has sought to correct this problem by expediting the appellate review of cases where child offenders are found delinquent and placed outside their homes.

The recent changes made to the state’s Appellate Court Procedural Rules “should also help appellate courts identify specific instances of sentencing abuse by individual judges,” Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille recently told Lawyers Journal, a publication of the Allegheny County Bar Association.

To speak with a Pittsburgh juvenile law attorney, call Spivak Law Firm at (412) 344-4900 or toll free at (800) 545-9390.

Pennsylvania DUI Law Also Restricts Drug Use

Posted on January 1 2013 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Pennsylvania DUI laws include severe restrictions not just on drunk driving but also on any use of drugs and controlled substances.

The law states that a person may not drive if his or her blood contains “any amount” of a Schedule I controlled substance, non-medically prescribed Schedule II or III controlled substances, or a metabolite of any controlled substance.

Schedule I controlled substances include: marijuana, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, mescaline, and DMT. Schedule II controlled substances include: Oxycontin, Percocet, Demerol, codeine, and morphine. Schedule III controlled substances include: vicodin, ephedrine, and anabolic steroids.

Additionally, Pennsylvania law restricts a person from driving while under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs, or while under the influence of a solvent or noxious substance.

To speak with a Pittsburgh DUI attorney, call Spivak Law Firm at (412) 344-4900 or toll free at (800) 545-9390.

10 Tips for PFA Defendants to Avoid Arrest

Posted on December 17 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Violating a PFA can result in criminal charges with a maximum punishment of six months in jail. Here are 10 tips for helping PFA defendants avoid criminal penalties:

Do not drive past the plaintiff’s residence.
Avoid all places where you know the plaintiff goes.
Leave a restaurant, grocery, or any other place if you realize the plaintiff is there.
Hang up the phone immediately if the plaintiff calls you.
Do not send emails, texts, letters, faxes, or gifts to the plaintiff.
Do not respond to emails, texts, letters, faxes, or gifts from the plaintiff.
Avoid contact with the plaintiff’s family, friends, and neighbors.
Do not get into arguments or confrontations with the plaintiff’s family or friends – walk away!
If the plaintiff comes to your house, do not let the plaintiff inside – don’t open the door!
Retain an experienced PFA defense attorney.

To speak with an experienced PFA defense attorney, call Spivak Law Firm at (412) 344-4900 or (800) 545-9390.

Domestic Violence Can Happen to Anyone

Posted on December 2 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Restraining orders and domestic violence can happen to anyone – even the very rich and famous.

Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry will appear in court this week in a domestic violence case that has received international attention.

This past Thanksgiving, Berry’s fiancé got into a brutal fight with Berry’s ex-boyfriend that left both men with serious injuries. Each man filed a restraining order against the other.

The incident occurred in Berry’s driveway while her 4-year-old daughter was inside the house.

In Pennsylvania, a restraining order is known as a PFA, or Protection From Abuse order, which restricts contact between the parties and can be used to gain leverage in child custody matters.

In Berry’s case, the restraining orders could affect her child custody case. Last month, a judge denied Berry’s request to move with her fiancé to France because her ex-boyfriend shares custody of the child.

In Pennsylvania, a person cannot relocate with a child unless every person with custody rights to the child consents or the court approves the relocation.

Berry, like many of our clients throughout Southwestern Pennsylvania, will spend much of this holiday season in court battling over child custody, restraining orders, and criminal charges arising out of the domestic violence incident from Thanksgiving.

Spivak Law Firm handles all domestic violence matters, including PFA restraining orders, criminal charges, and child custody matters. To schedule an appointment, call us at (412) 344-4900 or toll free at (800) 545-9390.

In The News: Spivak Law Firm

Posted on October 3 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Spivak Law Firm has been in the news a lot lately.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently published our column on how Pennsylvania law handles child custody matters in rape cases, just weeks after announcing the opening of our firm at West Liberty and Potomac avenues in Dormont, three miles from downtown Pittsburgh.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association publication At Issue is about to run our latest column on family law matters. Our previous article on Protection From Abuse (PFA) restraining orders in Allegheny County ran this past spring.

Patch.com, an online community news outlet, ran a profile of Spivak Law Firm that was featured in its Dormont-Brookline and Chartiers Valley editions. And just today, the Allegheny County Bar Association publication Lawyers Journal joined the others in announcing the opening of our firm.

Spivak Law Firm handles all matters involving Family Law, PFA Defense, Criminal Defense, DUI Defense, and Social Security Disability. To schedule an appointment, email us here or call us at (412) 344-4900 or toll free at (800) 545-9390.

Pennsylvania May Suspend Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders

Posted on September 13 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Pennsylvania is still grappling with how to interpret the United State Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the 8^th Amendment.

The main question is whether the ruling should be applied retroactively to include the 470 people across Pennsylvania now serving mandatory life sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles. That’s more than any other state.

Not surprisingly, criminal defense organizations support retroactivity while prosecutors oppose it.

Many prosecutors even go so far as saying that Miller v. Alabama does not abolish mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. Instead, they say, such sentences may be given but only after there is a special sentencing hearing similar to those given in death row cases.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears arguments on these issues this week.

Why You Need an Experienced PFA Lawyer

Posted on September 3 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

In Pennsylvania, any person who files a PFA restraining order gets a free attorney. But people who are served with a PFA do not. We strongly advise that you hire our experienced PFA attorney to strongly defend you and help level the playing field. In most cases, we get the PFA dropped.

Many people who are served with a PFA make the mistake of not taking it seriously. They may not show up for their hearing. Or they may choose to represent themselves at the PFA hearing. But a PFA has severe consequences that can haunt you for years like a criminal record. If you’ve been served with a PFA, you need to take it seriously.

If you fail to appear at your PFA hearing, a judge may hit you with a no-contact order lasting three years, the maximum penalty allowed under Pennsylvania law. You can be jailed for six months for violating any provision of a PFA order – even if your accuser is lying.

If you choose to represent yourself, you run the risk of being manipulated by your accuser’s attorney. Do not make the mistake of thinking that your accuser’s lawyer is looking out for your best interests. Only your own lawyer will do that.

Many cases of alleged harassment, stalking, and abuse simply do not rise to the level of a PFA. We know Pennsylvania PFA law and can defend you from false allegations and exaggerations. If you’ve been served with a PFA, call Spivak Law Firm at (412) 344-4900 or toll free at (800) 545-9390.

Pennsylvania Prison Conditions

Posted on July 8 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Kudos to Pittsburgh-based freelance journalist Matt Stroud, whose report on prisoner suicides in Pennsylvania has been featured in Pro Publica’s list of “The Best Investigative Reporting on U.S. Prisons.”

Stroud, a Point Park University alum, spotlights the lack of mental health services for prisoners at Pennsylvania’s State Correctional Institute (SCI) at Cresson, a medium-security facility 90 miles east of Pittsburgh. Stroud notes in his article, originally published in The Nation, that a pending Department of Justice investigation into SCI Cresson and SCI Pittsburgh “could be a significant step toward banning solitary confinement for mentally ill prisoners.”

The issue of whether solitary confinement – isolating inmates in empty, single cells for at least 23 hours a day – constitutes torture is expertly addressed by journalist Atul Gawande’s feature story “Hellhole,” which was published in The New Yorker in 2009 and also made Pro Publica’s list. Gawande cites multiple studies of prisoners, hostages, and prisoners of war showing that “without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that incurred a traumatic injury.”

The wide-scale use of isolation in American prisons began just 30 years ago with the first supermax prison in Marion, Illinois. Today our prisons hold as many as 80,000 American inmates in solitary confinement – many for non-violent breaches of prison rules, according to journalists James Ridgeway and Jean Casella of SolitaryWatch.com.

It is likely just a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court prohibits the use of solitary confinement as violating the 8^th Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment. Until then, we have top-flight reporters like Shroud and Gawande to thank for describing solitary confinement as it really is: legalized torture.

Juvenile Sentencing Laws

Posted on July 8 2012 by Todd Spivak and Rebecca Canterbury

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws that mandate life sentences for juveniles. The Court has evolved rather quickly on the issue of whether people should receive death sentences of life without the possibility of parole for heinous crimes they committed as juveniles.

Just seven years ago, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons that sentencing individuals to death for crimes they committed as youths constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the 8^th Amendment. Thus, the juvenile death penalty was abolished.

Five years later, in 2010, the Court held in Graham v. Florida that it is unconstitutional to sentence individuals under the age of 18 to life without parole in non-homicide cases. Thereafter, juveniles could only be sentenced to life without parole for crimes involving murder.

Now in 2012, the Supreme Court held in Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama that mandatory sentences of life without parole for crimes committed under the age of 18 violated the 8^th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, the Court extended its ruling in Graham v. Florida to all juvenile offenders.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are now scrambling to figure out what to do with the 470 state inmates now serving mandatory life sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, as the Miller decision may be declared retroactive.