2009 Pa. Super. 231 - Commonwealth v. Au’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To guide the crucial inquiry as to whether or not a seizure has been effected, the United States Supreme Court has devised an objective test entailing a determination of whether, in view of all surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave. In evaluating the circumstances, the focus is directed toward whether, by means of physical force or show of authority, the citizen-subject’s movement has in some way been restrained. In making this determination, courts must apply the totality-of-the-circumstances approach, with no single factor dictating the ultimate conclusion as to whether a seizure has occurred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. McAdoo · 2012 Pa. Super. 39 - Commonwealth v. Downey

2. “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without .implicating the Fourth Amendment. “[I]n-terrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. McAdoo · Commonwealth v. Au

3. “[T]he request to see identification was not an intrusion of Appellee’s privacy. Rather, it is the type of question permitted during a mere encounter, which is itself a request for information that needs no level of suspicion. In addition, of significant importance is the testimony which clearly indicates [the officer] parked his cruiser in a manner which permitted the parked vehicle to exit the parking lot at any time. Thus, there was not restraint on the movement of Appellee or the vehicle by the conduct of the officer or the placement of the police cruiser. Consequently, in analyzing the factors surrounding the interaction, none of the conditions which would indicate that a seizure occurred were present.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Au