2000 Pa. Super. 253 - Commonwealth v. Black’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Generally under Pennsylvania law, a defendant charged with a possessory offense has automatic standing to challenge a search. “However, in order to prevail, the defendant, as a preliminary matter, must show that he had a privacy interest in the area searched.” An expectation of privacy is present when the individual, by his conduct, exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and that the subjective expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances: Pennsylvania law makes clear there is no legally cognizable expectation of privacy in a stolen automobile. Additionally, this Court has declined to extend an expectation of privacy to an “abandoned” automobile.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 87 - Commonwealth v. Burton · 2010 Pa. Super. 51 - Commonwealth v. Powell