People in Pennsylvania generally have the right to possess a firearm and there are many people who own guns. However, there are a number of restrictions on that right. People need to register the firearms and have a license if they want to carry them. Also, there are ways in which people can lose their right to possess them. Typically, people who have committed certain felonies and other crimes of violence are prohibited from possessing firearms.
Some of the most common types of property crime charges in Pennsylvania are theft/larceny, robbery and burglary. All involve one person taking property that belongs to another without the owner's permission, but they vary in key details. For instance, robbery necessarily requires the use or threat of force.
Amid an ongoing spate of horrifying acts of gun violence, lawmakers are discussing ways to limit access to guns by dangerous people. One proposal is to require mandatory background checks for all gun sales. Activists say that many sales take place over the Internet, where sellers don't necessarily know who the buyers are, and buyers don't necessarily know where the sellers got the guns in the first place.
Although many drug arrests come about as a result of traffic stops and other encounters when police say they find illegal drugs in the defendant's possession, the authorities are always looking for ways to break up drug distribution networks. State and federal law enforcement often spend months investigating suspected drug rings, and then try to arrest a large number of people at once.
Even people who have never been arrested and never worked in the criminal justice system are often familiar with the Miranda warning. As heard in countless TV shows and movies, the warning advises arrestees that they have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be provided for them if they cannot afford one.
America’s criminal justice system is supposed to be fair, impartial and above all, as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, the statistics on criminal justice accuracy are not promising. In recent decades, researchers and advocacy groups like the Innocence Project have been tracking (and desperately trying to correct) wrongful convictions in the United States.
Many people in Pennsylvania and across the country have been interested in electronic ankle bracelets as an alternative to imprisonment. Commonly used in white-collar cases, people like Paul Manafort and Harvey Weinstein have been released on bail while their movement is tracked. A more controversial use of the systems arose when Immigration and Customs Enforcement began using the ankle bracelets for undocumented immigrant families after the scandal around the separation of parents from their children.
Both black and white judges in Pennsylvania and Florida treat African American defendants unfairly according to a study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Researchers from Harvard Law School and Princeton University studied cases involving 93,914 defendants who appeared before bail judges in Philadelphia and 65,944 defendants who had their bail hearings in Miami, and they found that the average bail set for black defendants was $7,281 higher than the average bail set for white defendants.
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have not yet taken steps to revise the way police departments conduct lineups, although such changes have been implemented in many states. The reliability of eyewitness identifications has been a controversial issue for decades, but legislators and police departments only began to take action when incontrovertible DNA evidence was introduced in the 1980s and it became clear that many people had been sentenced to prison for crimes they did not commit.
The Fourth Amendment protects Pennsylvania residents against unreasonable search and seizure, but the courts have long held that this protection does not apply to information that is willingly shared with third parties such as banks or telephone companies. The digital age has radically changed the way that data is gathered and stored, and the Supreme Court was recently tasked with deciding whether or not the third-party doctrine should be applied to cell site location information.