2004 Pa. Super. 366 - Commonwealth v. LaMonte’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncon-tradicted 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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Jones · 2006 Pa. Super. 177 - Commonwealth v. Brown

2. “(1) the presence or absence of police excesses; (2) physical contact or police direction of the subject’s movements; (3) the demeanor of the police officer; (4) the location of the encounter; (5) the manner of expression used by the officer in addressing the subject; (6) the content of the interrogatories or statements; (7) whether the subject was told that he or she was free to leave; and (8) the maturity, sophistication, and mental or emotional state of the defendant (including age, intelligence and capacity to exercise free will).”

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

3. “Where, as in the case sub judice, there is a factual finding of a consensual search, 5 our analysis of the legal propriety of this decision is two-pronged. Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 56-57 , 757 A.2d 884, 888-889 (2000). The central Fourth Amendment inquiries in consent cases entail assessment of the constitutional validity of the citizen/police encounter giving rise to the consent; and, ultimately, the voluntariness of consent. Where the underlying encounter is found to be lawful, voluntariness becomes the exclusive focus. Where, however, a consensual search has been preceded by an unlawful seizure, the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the evidence obtained absent a demonstration by the government both of a sufficient break in the causal chain between the illegality and the seizure of evidence, thus assuring that the search is not an exploitation of the prior illegality, and of voluntariness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Moultrie