A Dickson City man is entitled to a new trial because his lawyer failed to take his advice during his first one, the Pennsylvania Superior Court said in an April 10 ruling.

In preparation for his trial in April 2021, Victor Nieves-Crespo pointed out to his defense attorney, Robert Saurman, a recent state Supreme Court ruling he believed applied to case.

In Commonwealth v. Alexander, the state’s high court raised the bar in regard to warrantless searches of vehicles, ruling police officers need both probable cause and exigent circumstances to make such a search.

In Nieves-Crespo’s case, police officers searching his vehicle found a 45-caliber handgun and a clear plastic bag containing several grams of cocaine under the seat.

The Superior Court pointed out that, at the time, Nieves-Crespo was already in police custody.

In addition, the Superior Court ruled that, in spite of a police officers assertion that a crowd of people were in danger, no there were no people on the street near the car.

The case

Nieves-Crespo was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and firearms violations following a July 2020 traffic stop. At the time, officers were investigating a report of a man having pointed a gun at another person outside Main Street Bistro before fleeing in a vehicle.

During the traffic stop, officers retrieved a 45-caliber handgun and a clear plastic bag containing several grams of cocaine under the seat.

In April of 2021, jurors returned a guilty verdict, concluding a three-day trial. Nieves-Crespo was subsequently sentenced to 7 to 14 years in prison.

On June 13, 2024, Nieves-Crespo filed a “post conviction relief petition,” alleging Saurman represented him inadequately. Following a February 2025 hearing, that petition was denied.

Nieves-Crespo then appealed that ruling to the state’s Superior Court alleging “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Nieves-Crespo argued Saurman failed to cite the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth vs. Alexander, in his argument at trial.

That decision made it necessary for there to be exigent circumstances in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle, including concerns for safety or corruption of evidence.

The Superior Court ruled “mere assertion of danger” isn’t enough to justify a warrantless search and officers must prove a real threat.

“There were at least ten officers present on the scene who could have secured the vehiclewhile a warrant was obtained,” the Superior Court ruled. “The video footage makes clear that there was not a crowd of onlookers present on the street.”

During the post conviction relief hearing in Feb. 2025, Saurman acknowledged Nieves-Crespo brought up the Commonwealth vs. Alexander decision during trial preparation.

Saurman said he didn’t raise the decision at Nieves-Crespo’s trial because he believed the decision applied to  “the smell of marijuana in and of itself is no longer appropriate to be probable cause for a vehicle search.

Although Saurman argued that the legality of the search during the trial, he didn’t cite Commonwealth vs. Alexander.

No threat to onlookers

During a pre-trial hearing, Blakely police officer Michael Shaheen said the vehicle had been searched because there was a “large crowd” in the area.

“It was for everyone’s safety in the area. Again, that’s our number one priority. I don’t want anyone to get hurt so that’s what was done,” he said.

But Shaheen’s body camera showed no one present on the street except Nieves-Crespo and police officers.

Saurman had access to the body camera, but didn’t show it at trial.

“Had the evidence recovered in the vehicle been suppressed, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different,” the Superior Court ruled.

.