2011 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others[,] the officer may conduct a pat down search to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon. Terry [ v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 24, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ]. "The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence." Adams v. Williams , 407 U.S. 143 , 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Hemingway · 48 Pa. D. & C.5th 162 - Commonwealth v. Godbolt

2. “Where a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. When reviewing a decision from the suppression court, our responsibility is (1) to determine whether the record supports the factual findings of the court below, and (2) to evaluate the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings. Where, as here, it is the Commonwealth who is appealing the decision of the suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the prosecution which when read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. If the record supports the factual findings below, we are bound by those findings. However, while we are bound by the suppression court’s findings of fact if supported by the record, we are not bound by the court’s legal conclusions which are drawn from the facts of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 273 - Commonwealth v. Joseph

3. “When properly understood, Reppert stands for the proposition that pre-stop furtive movements, by themselves, may not be used to justify an investigative detention and search commenced after the conclusion of a valid traffic stop where the totality of circumstances has established that the furtive movements did not raise immediate concern for the safety of the officer who undertook the initial vehicle detention.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 81 - Commonwealth v. Buchert