Commonwealth v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McFarren · 26 Pa. Commw. 201 - Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Dreisbach · 112 Pa. Commw. 303 - Commonwealth v. Penich · 112 Pa. Commw. 510 - Bush v. Commonwealth
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e believe that the officer’s request for a blood test was reasonable in this case in view of the fact that the breath test alone would not have revealed the presence of marijuana in Licensee’s system. Thus, the second test was not requested simply to substantiate the accuracy of the first test for alcohol, but rather, was requested in order to determine whether Licensee was under the influence of a controlled substance. The reasonableness of the multiple testing here is not vitiated, in our opinion, by the fact that a single blood test could have been used to detect both blood alcohol and marijuana. We do not think that McFarren necessarily requires a police officer to choose to administer a blood or urine test in the first instance where he suspects the presence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance. To do so would more than likely result in increased use by the police of the more intrusive types of chemical testing in the first instance. As we stated in Penich , the police officer may use his discretion in choosing which type of test to administer first. Once having done so, he must establish reasonable grounds for requesting a second type of test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If ... a second type of test is requested ... the officer must establish the reasonableness of the request. Where the only purpose for the second test is to substantiate the accuracy of the initial test, reasonableness is not established .... The issue of reasonableness is a question of law for the court to resolve based on the particular facts of each case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.