2005 Pa. Super. 435 - Commonwealth v. Viall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An expectation of privacy will be found to exist when the individual exhibits an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In determining whether a person’s expectation of privacy is legitimate or reasonable, the totality of the circumstances must be considered and the determination will ultimately rest upon a balancing of the societal interests involved. “The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the indi vidual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 183 - Commonwealth v. Williams · 2017 Pa. Super. 231 - Commonwealth v. Cruz

2. “Here [Viall] challenges the consent to search given by [the driver of a vehicle in which he was a passenger] and we must address whether [he] had an expectation of privacy in the backseat area of the car [in which] he was traveling so as to enable him to challenge the validity of the consent given to search that area. In ascertaining [Viall’s] privacy interest, the trial court likened its analysis to that employed when a visitor to a home seeks to challenge the consent given to a search of that home. In such cases the controlling consideration is whether the individual challenging the search and seizure has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises or area to be searched. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 743 A.2d 946, 950 (Pa.Super.1999). It has been held that “a casual visitor who is merely present in [another] person’s home does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy to contest an illegal entry by police into that home” and in order for such an individual to establish an expectation of privacy that individual must demonstrate a significant and cur rent interest in the searched premises. Commonwealth v. Govern, 429 Pa.Super. 464 , 632 A.2d 1316, 1319 (Pa.Super.1993). See also Davis, 743 A.2d at 950 (ruling that the appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises although he was not a named lessee where he carried a key to the apartment, and inside the apartment were the appellant’s clothes, identification tag and prescription medicine); Commonweal”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 51 - Commonwealth v. Powell

3. “[Appellant] does not have ready access to the visitation room. He does not control when he comes and goes, and what he can do when in the visitation room is restricted. For instance, he cannot consume food, drink, or alcohol. Furthermore, access is controlled by the prison, and permission must be granted for [Appellant] to use the visitation room. [Appellant] does not have free access to his visitors. All visitors must be listed on an approval list ahead of time and [Appellant] can only remain in the visitation room for a limited time. There also may be up to three (3) individual inmates having visitations in the same room at one time. [[Image here]] For the foregoing reasons, it unreasonable for an inmate to expect privacy in his conversations in the visitation room. [Appellant] did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy during his meeting with the complaining witness. Furthermore, such an expectation of privacy is not one society is prepared to recognize. While society and our Courts have recognized a certain level of privacy for inmates, the expectation posited by [Appellant] is not within that level.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 22 - Commonwealth v. Prisk