Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2011 Pa. Super. 228 - Commonwealth v. Colon

2011 Pa. Super. 228 - Commonwealth v. Colon’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Brown · Commonwealth v. Hammer · 2011 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Hoover · 2006 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Koehler

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. “(b) Searches and seizures authorized.— (1) Agents may search the person and property of offenders in accordance with the provisions of this section. (d) (2) A property search may be conducted by an agent if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the real or other property in the possession of or under the control of the offender contains contraband or other evidence of violations of the conditions of supervision. (6) The existence of reasonable suspicion to search shall be determined in accordance with constitutional search and seizure provisions as applied by judicial decision. In accordance with such case law, the following factors, where applicable, may be taken into account: (i) The observations of agents. (ii) Information provided by others. (iii) The activities of the offender. (iv) Information provided by the offender. (v) The experience of agents with the offender. (vi) The experience of agents in similar circumstances. (vii) The prior criminal and supervisory history of the offender. (viii) The need to verify compliance with the conditions of supervision.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.