2007 Pa. Super. 207 - Commonwealth v. Moore’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. “Although prison walls do not separate inmates from their constitutional rights, because of the unique nature and requirements of the prison setting, imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many significant rights ... to accommodate a myriad of institutional needs ... chief among which is internal security. Prisoners have used-the mail to transport contraband into and out of prison, to discuss and participate in ongoing criminal activity, and to coordinate escape plans. An unrestricted privacy interest in non-privileged mail would assist criminal objectives by facilitating the transmission of information. On the other hand, prisoners must appreciate the inherent loss of privacy in a prison, where security and surveillance obviate any legitimate expectation of privacy.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Md. App. 716 - Sparkman v. State · 2007 Pa. Super. 304 - Commonwealth v. Thompson

2. “In determining the scope of protection afforded under Article I, Section 8, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court employs the same two-part test employed by the United States Supreme Court to determine the sweep of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — a test first articulated by Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in [Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 , (1967) ]. That test requires a person to (1) have established a subjective expectation of privacy and (2) have demonstrated that the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable and legitimate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 73 - Commonwealth v. Grahame

3. “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 individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.”

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