2007 Pa. Super. 149 - Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[P]robable cause does not demand the certainty we associate with formal trials.” [Gates, 462 U.S. at 246 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 .] Rather, a determination of probable cause requires only that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” [Torres, 764 A.2d at 537 , quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-239 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 ]. Thus, where the evidence available to police consists of an anonymous tip, probable cause may be established upon corroboration of major portions of the information provided by the tip. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 246 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 . Similarly, where the evidence consists of the allegations of a police informant who has not previously provided information, probable cause requires only corroboration of principal elements of information not publicly available. See Torres, 764 A.2d at 539-540 . As recognized by the Court in Gates, “[i]t is enough, for purposes of assessing probable cause, that ‘[c]orroboration through other sources of information reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale,’ thus providing ‘a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.’ ” [Gates, 462 U.S. at 244-245 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269, 271 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 85 - Commonwealth v. Otterson

2. “Our standard of review of a denial of suppression is 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 85 - Commonwealth v. Otterson

3. “[T]he task of the issuing authority is to make a practical, common sense assessment whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Further, [a] magistrate’s finding of probable cause must be based on facts described within the four corners of the affidavit!.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 85 - Commonwealth v. Otterson