2016 Pa. Super. 293 - Commonwealth v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]here must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. A. Renfroe, Jr. v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Moser

2. ““The Fourth Amendment to the [United States] Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of [the Pennsylvania] Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781, 784 (Pa. Super. 2012). “A search conducted without a warrant is deemed to be unreasonable and therefore constitutionally impermissible, unless an established exception applies.” Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47 , 757 A.2d 884, 888 (2000). “Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception ..., the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Dunnavant, 63 A.3d 1252 , 1257 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013). The “administration of a blood test .’.. performed by an- agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber[, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 ]. Since the blood test in the case at bar was performed without a warrant, the search is presumptively unreasonable “and therefore constitutionally impermissible, unless an established exception applies.” Strickler, 757 A.2d at 888 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Kurtz · Commonwealth v. Johnson

3. “In determining the validity of a given consent, the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing that a consent is the product .of an essentially free and unconstrained choice — not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied, •or a will overborne — under the totality of the circumstances. The standard for measuring the scope of a person’s consent is based on an objective evaluation of what a reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the person who gave the consent. Such evaluation includes an objective examination of the maturity, sophistication and mental or emotional state of the defendant. Gauging the scope of a' defendant’s consent is an inherent and necessary part of the process of determining, on the totality of the circumstances presented, whether the consent is objectively valid, or instead the product of coercion, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Kurtz · Commonwealth v. Venable