Gun Charge Dropped After Legal Team Challenges Second and Fourth Amendment Violations

When constitutional rights collide with criminal charges, every defense strategy matters. This principle became evident in a Chester County case where attorneys Daniel Hunter and Kenneth Kitay, along with paralegal Stacey Shirk, successfully defended their client by challenging both an illegal search and a Pennsylvania law under the Second Amendment. The outcome? A withdrawn gun charge and reduced consequences for the client.

This blog takes a closer look at the details of the case, the defense strategy, and its broader implications for Pennsylvania’s legal landscape.

The Arrest and Initial Charges

The case began when the client was arrested while parked in a public lot. Following the arrest, officers ordered a private towing company to remove the client’s vehicle. After this order, the arresting officer conducted what they described as an “inventory search” of the vehicle. During the search, the officer opened a sealed backpack, discovering a firearm. The client was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm without a license, a serious firearms offense in Pennsylvania.

From the onset, these circumstances raised key legal questions about the nature of the search and the constitutionality of the charge.

The Legal Strategy

The defense team, led by Daniel Hunter and Kenneth Kitay, crafted a comprehensive strategy to identify and expose legal violations in the case. This strategy was outlined in a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, focusing on two elements:

1. The legality of the vehicle search: Did the search violate the client’s Fourth Amendment [1] protections against unlawful search and seizure?
2. The constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s concealed carry law: Does requiring a license to carry violate the Second Amendment[2]?

Challenging the Vehicle Search

The defense argued that the search violated the Fourth Amendment due to its unlawful nature. They presented these core points in their motion:

• Improper Impound: The client’s vehicle was legally parked, turned off, and posed no public safety hazard. There was no valid reason to tow the car, making the subsequent search questionable.
• Timing of the Search: The search was conducted after the client had been taken into custody. By this point, the vehicle was no longer accessible to the client, and there was no immediate need for intervention.
• Violation of Inventory Search Rules: Pennsylvania law allows inventory searches as part of an impound process, but this search went beyond the scope of such rules by opening a sealed backpack.

As a result, the defense demonstrated that the towing and subsequent search lacked legal justification. This leads to the conclusion that the evidence obtained through the search should be inadmissible in court.

Challenging Pennsylvania’s Concealed Carry Law

The defense also targeted the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s concealed carry law [3] under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(2). They relied on precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen [4] and referenced the 2024 case Suarez v. Paris [5], which ruled that parts of Pennsylvania’s firearm transport laws unjustifiably infringed on Second Amendment rights.

The defense argued that requiring a license to carry concealed firearms imposed an unconstitutional burden on an individual’s fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense. This position was bolstered by recent interpretations of the Second Amendment, which emphasize the protection of individual rights to firearm possession and transport without undue restrictions.

The Outcome

Faced with a robust defense strategy, the prosecution acknowledged the significant legal issues raised by the defense. As a result:

• The firearms charge was dropped.
• The case was resolved with an amended plea to DUI, significantly reducing the client’s potential exposure to harsh penalties.

This outcome not only alleviated the client’s immediate legal challenges but also reinforced key constitutional protections.

Legal Analysis and Implications

The success of this case sets an important precedent for similar cases in Pennsylvania and beyond. It highlights two critical aspects of constitutional law:

1. Fourth Amendment Protections: This decision serves as a reminder to law enforcement that vehicle searches must adhere strictly to established legal guidelines. Any deviation risks suppressing evidence in court, as seen here.
2. Second Amendment Challenges: Increasingly bold challenges to Pennsylvania’s firearm laws signal a shift toward more expansive interpretations of gun rights. While these debates are far from over, this case adds to a growing body of decisions scrutinizing the state’s restrictions.

For attorneys, this case underscores the importance of detailed legal analysis and the courage to challenge unconstitutional practices. For Pennsylvania residents, it signals hope that overreach in enforcement and legislation can and will be challenged in court.

Protecting Rights Requires Tenacity

This case is more than a courtroom victory; it’s a testament to the dedication and expertise of the legal team behind it. Attorneys Kenneth Kitay and Daniel Hunter, supported by paralegal Stacey Shirk, delivered not only justice for their client but also a firm defense of constitutional rights.

Whether you’re facing criminal charges or fighting for your rights, having experienced legal professionals like the team at Kitay Law Offices can make all the difference.

Are you facing a legal challenge? Contact Kitay Law Offices today to schedule a consultation. Your rights matter, and we’re here to defend them.