2003 Pa. Super. 15 - Commonwealth v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is the commonwealth’s burden to prove that a defendant consented to a warrantless search. Cleckley, 558 Pa. at 520, 738 A.2d at 429 (citing Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548 , 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); Commonwealth v. Silo, 480 Pa. 15 , 389 A.2d 62 (1978)). To establish a voluntary consensual search, the commonwealth must prove ‘that a consent is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice - not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied, or a will overborne - under the totality of the circumstances.’ Mack, 568 Pa. at 334, 796 A.2d at 970 (quoting Strickler, 563 Pa. at 79 , 757 A.2d at 901 (2000).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hart · 2005 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Moultrie

2. “State case law recognizes three categories of interaction between police officers and citizens, which include: (1) a mere encounter, or request for information, which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but which carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond; (2) an investigative detention, which must be supported by reasonable suspicion as it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest; and (3) arrest or custodial detention, which must be supported by probable cause.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 314 - Commonwealth v. Bolton · 2009 Pa. Super. 231 - Commonwealth v. Au

3. “1. the existence of a prior, lawful detention; 2. the presence or absence of police excesses, i.e., use of sirens and flashers, commands to halt, the display of weapons, and the operation of the police car in an aggressive manner; 3. any physical contact or police direction of the subject’s movements; 4. the demeanor of the police officer; 5. the location of the confrontation; 6. the manner of expression used by the officer in addressing the citizen; 7. the content of the interrogatories or statements; 8. the existence and character of the initial investigative detention; 9. the seamlessness of the transition between the traffic stop and the subsequent encounter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 101 - Commonwealth v. Bell