2003 Pa. Super. 347 - Commonwealth v. Stevenson’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. “A mere encounter can be any formal or informal interaction between an officer and a citizen, but will normally be an inquiry by the officer of a citizen. The hallmark of this interaction is that it carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. In contrast, an investigative detention, by implication, carries an official compulsion to stop and respond, but the detention is temporary, unless it results in the formation of probable cause for arrest, and does not possess the coercive conditions consistent with a formal arrest. Since this interaction has elements of official compulsion it requires reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. In further contrast, a custodial detention occurs when the nature, duration and conditions of an investigative detention become so coercive as to be, practically speaking, the functional equivalent of an arrest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Pierre · 2005 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Jones

2. “whether the record supports the trial court’s factual findings and whether the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are free from error. Our scope of review is limited; we may consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 404 - Commonwealth v. Patterson · 2009 Pa. Super. 227 - Commonwealth v. Manley

3. “The term mere encounter refers to certain non-coercive interactions with the police that do not rise to the level of a seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment. For example, a mere encounter transpires when an officer approaches a citizen on a public street for the purpose of making inquiries. In contrast, an investigative detention occurs when a police officer temporarily detains an individual by means of physical force or a show of authority for investigative purposes. In other words, in view of all the circumstances, if a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave, then the interaction constitutes an investigatory detention. An investigatoiy detention triggers the constitutional protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the prerequisites for such a detention as set forth in Terry [v. Ohio].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 25 Pa. D. & C.5th 191 - Commonwealth v. Perini