2000 Pa. Super. 34 - Commonwealth v. Casanova’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n Pennsylvania, automobile searches may only be conducted without a warrant “when there exists probable cause to search and exigent circumstances necessitating a search.” [Commonwealth v. Stewart, 740 A.2d 712, 715 (Pa.Super.1999) (citations omitted) ]. We turn first to whether the police had probable cause to search appellant’s car. ¶ 9 It is well-settled that: “the level of probable cause necessary to justify a warrantless search of an automobile is the same as that required to obtain a search warrant.” Commonwealth v. Talley, 430 Pa.Super. 351 , 634 A.2d 640, 643 (1993) (citing Commonwealth v. Pleummer, 421 Pa.Super. 51 , 617 A.2d 718 (1992)). “Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer are reasonably trustworthy and sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that the person has committed the offense.” Commonwealth v. Zook, 532 Pa. 79 , 615 A.2d 1, 6 (1992). Commonwealth v. Gelineau, 696 A.2d 188, 192 (Pa.Super.1997). Further, “we must focus on the circumstances as seen through the eyes of a trained police officer, and remember that in dealing with questions of probable cause, we are not dealing with certainties, but the practical and factual considerations of every day life on which reasonable and prudent men act.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 444 Pa.Super. 488 , 664 A.2d 178, 179 (1995) (citing Commonwealth v. Dennis, 417 Pa.Super. 425 , 612 A.2d 1014, 1016 (1992)). Here, police officers received comp”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 284 - Commonwealth v. Winkle

2. “On October 17, 1996, Philadelphia Police Officer John Maddrey set up surveillance of the 3300 block of Rand Street because the police had received several complaints of drug traffic in the area. During the surveillance, Officer Mad-drey watched Reggie Meyers, one of appellant’s co-defendants, engage in four separate drug transactions. In each case, the buyer would approach Meyers and give him money. Meyers would then go to a Dodge Aries automobile that was parked nearby, remove a plastic bag from beneath its bumper, remove an item from that bag, and give that item to the buyer. Officer Maddrey instructed backup officers to arrest the fourth buyer, Kathleen Kennedy, appellant’s other co-defendant. The backup officers detained her out of Meyers’ sight and confiscated one packet of crack cocaine. In the meantime, appellant arrived in a Mazda automobile, which he parked near Meyers. Meyers entered the Mazda and gave some money to appellant. After Meyers exited the vehicle, another man approached him and handed him money. Meyers returned to the Dodge Aries, removed the bag from underneath the bumper, removed an object from the bag, replaced the bag underneath the bumper, and gave that object to the man. As he walked away, this man took a substance from the bag, put it in a pipe, and began smoking it. Meyers walked back to appellant, who was now standing near the Mazda, and handed him the money from the third man. At this point, police officers arrested Meyers and appellant. The of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 284 - Commonwealth v. Winkle

3. “In Luv , officers obtained a search warrant for defendant’s home. Defendant then left his home and went to his girlfriend’s home, where he parked his car. Officers suspected that there were drugs in defendant’s car and attempted to get a new search warrant for defendant’s car. Before they could do so, however, defendant drove away. Believing that defendant was on his way to sell the drugs contained in the car, the officers stopped him before they could get a new warrant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 136 - Commonwealth v. Nahavandian