2001 Pa. Super. 201 - Commonwealth v. Carter’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. “The first of these is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. The second, an “inves tigative detention” must be supported by reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest. Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Pierre · Commonwealth v. Bryant

2. “if during a mere encounter, an individual on his own accord, puts his hands in his pocket, thereby creating a potential danger to the safety of a police officer, the officer may justifiably reach for his side arm and order the individual to stop and take his hand out of his pocket. Such reaction by a police officer does not elevate the mere encounter into an investigative detention because the officer's reaction was necessitated by the individual's conduct.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hemingway · Commonwealth v. Thomas

3. “On February 22, 1997, Officer Patrick Kinavey, a City of Pittsburgh police officer, was performing his general patrol duties in the Hazelwood section of Pittsburgh, a known high drug and crime area. At approximately 8:25 P.M., he observed Appellee on Flowers Avenue walking towards a pickup truck parked on the street. Appellee began conversing with the two occupants of the truck. The officer observed him placing his left hand in his jacket pocket and start to remove that hand. Appellee appeared to look in the direction of the marked cruiser being operated by Officer Kina-vey. He then mouthed the word “popo” (meaning police). The officer pulled his vehicle in front of the truck and as he drove by, he recognized one of the occupants of the truck as a self-described heroin user. Appellee then started walking away from the truck and the officer turned and began to follow him. When he came close to Appellee, the officer parked his vehicle, got out of the vehicle and asked Appellee if he could speak with him. Appellee responded, “what’s up?” The officer again asked Appellee if he could speak with him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 313 - Commonwealth v. Donaldson