1999 Pa. Super. 247 - Commonwealth v. Pitts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]here a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. Pa.R.Crim.P 323(h). See Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 , 106 S.Ct. 96 , 88 L.Ed.2d 78 (1985). In reviewing the ruling of a suppression court, our task is to determine whether the factual findings are supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Monarch, 510 Pa. 138, 147 , 507 A.2d 74, 78 (1986). If so, we are bound by those findings. Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 533 , 486 A.2d 376, 379 (1985). Where as here, it is the Commonwealth who is appealing the decision of the suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the prosecution as read in the context of the record as a whole remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. at 532-33 , 486 A.2d at 379 ; Commonwealth v. Hamlin, 503 Pa. 210, 216 , 469 A.2d 137, 139 (1983). Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299, 301 , 608 A.2d 1030, 1031 (1992) (footnote omitted). Moreover, if the evidence when so viewed supports the factual findings of the suppression court, this Court will reverse only if there is an error in the legal conclusion drawn from those findings. Commonwealth v. Reddix, 355 Pa.Super. 514 , 513 A.2d 1041, 1042 (1986).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Mehlman · 2001 Pa. Super. 324 - In the Interest of V. H.

2. “whether he or she is physically denied of his [or her] freedom of action in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by the interrogation. The standard for determining whether police have initiated a custodial interrogation or an arrest is an objective one, with due consideration given to the reasonable impression conveyed to the person interrogated rather than the strictly subjective view of the troopers or the person being seized. Whether an encounter is deemed custodial must be determined with reference to the totality of the circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 443 - Commonwealth v. Seilhamer