2016 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Eichler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he circumstantial evidence that [a]ppellee drove while he was incapable of driving safely due to ingestion of alcohol was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt his violation of subsection 3802(a)(1). Appellee admitted that he had been drinking at a local club, and that he was driving himself and his brother home when he lost control of his vehicle. The investigating officer discovered [a]ppellee's vehicle "almost over the hillside at the top ... into some brush," having rotated 180 degrees before coming to a halt off the road. When the officer arrived on the scene, [a]ppellee and his brother were out of the vehicle, "on the street right near the vehicle." The officer "smell[ed] a strong odor of alcohol coming from [appellee's] person and his breath." The officer then administered three field sobriety tests, and based on the results thereof, he concluded that [a]ppellee was incapable of safely driving due to alcohol consumption. After arresting [a]ppellee, the officer transported him to McKeesport Hospital for a blood alcohol test, which revealed that [a]ppellee had a very high blood alcohol content: 0.326 percent. While the officer acknowledged that he had not observed the accident and did not know exactly what time it had occurred, he opined that it was "doubtful" that the accident had occurred two or three hours or even ten minutes prior to his arrival on the scene "due to traffic on the road." The undisputed evidence of [a]ppellee's strikingly high blood alc”

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

2. “Professor LaFave gathers 49 cases in support of this precept, including Trimble v. State , 842 N.E.2d 798 , 802 (Ind. 2006) (police entry onto private property and their observations do not violate Fourth Amendment when police have legitimate investigatory purpose for being on property and limit their entry to places visitors would be expected to go; the route which any visitor to residence would use is not private in Fourth Amendment sense, so if police take that route for purpose of making general inquiry or for some other legitimate reason , they are free to keep their eyes open), and State v. Lodermeier , 481 N.W.2d 614 , 624 (S.D. 1992) (approving officer's examination of exterior of garden tractor parked in driveway, because "even though it is part of the curtilage, an officer with legitimate business may enter a driveway and, while there, may inspect objects in open view"). See LaFave, § 2.3(f) at n. 225 and 229.”

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

3. “when the police come on to private property to conduct an investigation ... and restrict their movements to places visitors could be expected to go (e.g., walkways, driveways, porches), observations made from such vantage points are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.”

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