Sarah Gad

Sarah Gad is a founding partner of Gad & Gad Law Offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which specializes in criminal defense, wrongful convictions, and immigration advocacy. Sarah is known nationally for her commitment to fighting for justice — and seeing justice prevail in courtrooms across the country.

Before relocating to her home state of Minnesota, Sarah worked for celebrity attorney Kathleen Zellner in Chicago. She played a pivotal role in several high-profile cases, including Mario Casciaro's exoneration and Steven Avery's appeal from the Netflix series Making a Murderer. In 2019. Sarah also represented Lil Durk's brother in a drug-related matter and single handedly got the entire case dismissed on 4th Amendment grounds. In 2019, Sarah received the University of Chicago Humanitarian Award for her work as a law student in uncovering dozens of fake stash houses that exonerated 13 men in Chicago's South Side of Chicago.

That' not all: after being injured in a car crash in 2011, Sarah herself became addicted to the pain medication that she was prescribed. After being criminalized for her addiction, thrown in jail for it, and stigmatized with a "criminal" record, she decided she had no choice but to fight back. She attended the University of Chicago Law School—one of the top law schools int he country—and she now fights for her clients in the exact same courtrooms that she was handcuffed and shackled in years ago—and most importantly, she often prevails.

Criminal Law

Criminal Appeals, Drug Crimes, Fraud, Gun Crimes, Sex Crimes, Theft, Violent Crimes

Appeals & Appellate

Civil Appeals, Federal Appeals

Immigration Law

Asylum, Citizenship, Deportation Defense, Family Visas, Green Cards, Immigration Appeals, Investment Visas, Marriage & Fiancé(e) Visas, Student Visas, Visitor Visas, Work Visas

• FaceTime
• Google Meet
• Zoom
• WhatsApp

• Free Consultation
  All consultations for potential clients are free of charge.
• Credit Cards Accepted
  We accept all major credit cards, including Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and American Express. We also accept Apple Pay.
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  Our firm has a fixed fee for different types of services. We also offer an a sliding scale payment system for low-income clients.

Minnesota

Minnesota Supreme Court

ID Number: 0403328

Founding Partner

Gad & Gad Law Offices

2022 - Current

Assistant Attorney

KNN Law Offices

2020 - 2021

Forensics Director; Associate

Law Offices of Kathleen T. Zellner & Associates

2015 - 2019

University of Chicago

J.D. (2020) | Doctor of Law

2017 - 2020

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities

B.S. (2009) | Chemistry, Microbiology

2005 - 2009

Honors: Summa Cum Laude Highest Distinction

University of Chicago Humanitarian Award

University of Chicago Law School

2019

Recipient of the 2019 University of Chicago Humanitarian Award for pro bono legal work.

State Bar of Minnesota  # 0403328

Member

Current

Prisoners are Patients: The Unconstitutionality of Depriving Inmates With Opioid Use Disorder Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment

Prison Legal News

September 20, 2020

Addicts Are Dying in Jail. They don't have to.

Marie Claire Magazine

March 15, 2019

First, Do No Harm? Opioids as an Iatrongenic Epidemic, Tulane Medicine Grand Rounds, New Orleans, LA

April 2019

Tulane University Medical Center

Countering the Global Narcotics Epidemic: The U.S. Counternacotics Strategy, Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Washington, DC

June 2019

Prisoners Eligibility for Pell Grants, Congressional Black Caucus Briefing, Washington, DC

July 2019

Prisoners Are Patients: The Unconstitutionality of Criminalizing the Disease of Addiction, Medical Grand Rounds

November 2019

Virginia Hospital System

Keynote Speaker, National Muslim Law Students Association, Chicago, IL

November 2019

Criminal Law Specialist

Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice

2022

Q. i was pulled over because of an anonymous tip.

January 28, 2023

A: Generally speaking, if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a car has drugs or other contraband, then they are permitted to stop the driver of that car and search it without a warrant. This means that they can temporarily detain you and bring in K9 dogs, etc. while they search you—and they may do so without a warrant. If the police have NO probable cause to search your vehicle (i.e., they pulled you over for a broken tail light and there is nothing in plain view to suggest that your car contained contraband), only then must they obtain your consent to search it. You always have the right to refuse search requests under the Fourth Amendment, but the police may go ahead and do so anyway if they feel they have probable cause. Probable cause is a very low burden, unfortunately—but that does not mean that the search cannot be challenged as illegal. Police are not exactly constitutional scholars, and illegal searches happen all the time. Any good lawyer should closely examine the circumstances surrounding the stop and determine whether the stop and search was illegal. If it turns out that it was an illegal search, then the lawyer should move to suppress any any contraband that was discovered during the illegal stop. This is known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. It's not clear from the information you provided why the police elected to stop your car if it was red and the tipster said it was blue. But, they must explain that in their report—in other words, they must explain what gave them the probable cause to believe that you were involved in the drug deal when you were driving a red car vs. a blue car. If they cannot provide a satisfactory explanation as to why they pulled you over in the first place, then your lawyer should challenge the stop and search as unconstitutional and move to suppress any contraband uncovered from the search as fruit of the poisonous tree. When police have probable cause to believe that there is contraband in someone's car, they man only search compartments of that car that realistically could contain the contraband that they have probable cause to believe is in your car. Let's say hypothetically, cops received an anonymous tip that a person in a green van with a MN license plate was selling stolen televisions out of that van. The police spot a green van that matches the description that the anonymous tipster provided. This alone could engender the probable cause necessary for a police officer to stop and search the vehicle. However, the police officer in this hypothetical would only be able to search areas of the van that realistically could contain the televisions—meaning, the officer couldn't search the center console or other small compartments in the car that could not realistically fit a television. You should definitely speak with your lawyer about the circumstances of the stop and determine whether it can be attacked as an unconstitutional search and seizure. In that case, anything that resulted from a potentially illegal stop can and should be suppressed. I hope this helps.

Q. What are the proper steps/rules for collecting video evidence and where does the chain of command begin?

January 28, 2023

A: The chain of custody typically starts once information is handed off from store employees to law enforcement. However, the chain of custody can include store employees who are either store detectives or security, or some type of asset protection specialist. Most major retailers have their own dedicated asset protection team dedicated to catching and deterring theft, and if a crime is reported, the chain of custody begins once these internal store detectives start investigating and collecting evidence in order to submit to law enforcement. The three week lapse suggests that there was some type of internal store investigation prior to the case being handed off to law enforcement in anticipation of prosecution (major retailers will usually conduct their own store investigation and prepare an "internal apprehension report" and send that off to law enforcement to pursue actual charges). I recently had a case alleging theft at a major department store with very sloppy chain of custody handling, and according to that store, their internal security/detectives (which I cited to underscore the chain of custody issues in that investigation) have the following duties: "Prepare prompt and complete reports relative to all theft incidents, merchandise recoveries, accident investigations, audits, and other activities as assigned by the Asset Protection/Loss Prevention Manager. Have knowledge of and maintain strict compliance with the law and company policies concerning apprehensions, searches and seizures, and the preservation of evidence." So in short, if they are just regular employees, then the chain of custody generally begins once those ordinary employees hand off evidence to law enforcement. If the store employees are some type of internal store detectives, the chain of custody begins when those store detectives begin collecting and handling evidence to forward to police/law enforcement. In any case, regular employees can be called to testify as witnesses. The State need not call all employees who alleged to have witnessed the crime, but they will have to call at least one employee who is familiar with the store surroundings to take the stand to authenticate the video (i.e. the prosecution will likely ask something along the lines of "is that is an accurate depiction of _____ store #____ located at _________ on ___ day?"). I hope this helps.

Q. Can you have evidence suppressed at the time of trial in Minnesota

January 27, 2023

A: That is a good question. Generally, motions to suppress are filed well in advance of trial. In felony and gross misdemeanor cases, motions must be served upon opposing counsel no later than three days before the Omnibus Hearing—unless the court finds good cause to permit the motion to be made and served later. Good cause typically means that the motion could not have been filed before the deadline for some reason. In misdemeanor cases, motions must be filed at least three days before the hearing and no more than 30 days after the arraignment unless the court for good cause permits the motion to be made and served later As a general rule, each piece of non-testimonial evidence—such as photographs, videos, and tangible documents— must be authenticated before it can be introduced at trial. This means that the party intending to introduce the evidence must establish that the item of evidence is what it purports to be (this is how you authenticate an item of evidence). You might hear in trials, "your honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit X." In order for the judge to admit the exhibit, the video must be authenticated by the party seeking to introduce it—meaning, the party attempting. When the State tries to enter the video into evidence as an exhibit, your lawyer should object and say the evidence is is not authenticated and therefore should be inadmissible. The judge will respond by either admitting the evidence or excluding the evidence. Even if the judge admits the evidence, make sure that your attorney objects to it so that you can preserve the issue for appeal. ' Whatever the case may be, your attorney MUST argue that the evidence should be suppressed before or during trial or the argument or will be waived on appeal. Hope this helps!