2002 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Ballard’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
January 2014
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Commonwealth v. Strickler · Commonwealth v. Ellis · Commonwealth v. Petroll · 394 Pa. Super. 207 - Commonwealth v. Blair
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plain view doctrine permits the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view when: (1) an ‘officer views [the] object from a lawful vantage point’; and (2) it is ‘immediately apparent’ to him that the object is incriminating. Commonwealth v. Petroll, 558 Pa. 565 , 738 A.2d 993, 999 (1999).... In determining ‘whether the incriminating nature of an object [is] immediately apparent to the police officer,’ we look to the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Id. An officer can never be one hundred percent certain that a substance in plain view is incriminating, but his belief must be supported by probable cause. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285 , 662 A.2d 1043, 1049 (1995).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In considering the denial of a suppression motion, our standard of review is well settled. We must determine whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from these findings. In doing so, we may consider only the prosecution’s [evidence] and [Appellant’s] evidence to the extent it is not contradictory. If the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports these findings of fact, we may not reverse the lower court unless its accompanying legal conclusions are in error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our Supreme Court has expressly recognized that incriminating objects ‘plainly viewable [in the] interior of a vehicle’ are in ‘plain view’ and, therefore, subject to seizure without a warrant. This doctrine rests on the principle that an individual cannot have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy in an object that is in plain view.’”
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.