Commonwealth v. Riccardi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Attorney General contends that unannounced forcible entry to execute a search warrant is always reasonable in narcotics cases, on the ground that narcotics violators normally are on the alert to destroy the easily disposable evidence quickly at the first sign of an officer’s presence. We do not agree with this contention. Neither this court nor the United States Supreme Court has held that unannounced forcible entries may be authorized by a blanket rule based on the type of crime or evidence involved. Indeed in the Ker case the court was divided 4 to 4 on the question whether the evidence offered to excuse compliance with the notice and demand requirements was sufficient. [In Ker, Justice Harlan was of the opinion that Fourth Amendment standards should not be applied to the states. Thus, the judgment of conviction was affirmed, 5-4.] * * * * # e Under the Fourth Amendment, a specific showing must always be made to justify any kind of police action tending to disturb the security of the people in their homes. Unannounced forcible entry is in itself a serious disturbance of that security and cannot be justified on a blanket basis. Otherwise the constitutional test of reasonableness would turn only on practical expediency, and the amendment’s primary safeguard—the requirement of particularity—would be lost. Just as the police must have sufficiently particular reason to enter at aH, so must they have some particular reason to enter in the manner chosen.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Ill. App. 3d 817 - People v. Stephens

2. ““Notwithstanding the above, the Commonwealth argues that this case presents ‘exigent circumstances’ suspending the announcement requirement simply because the police believed that the drugs would be easily destroyed. However, as the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth stated in Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 Pa. 441 , 240 A.2d 795 (1968): ‘The fact that some lottery paraphernafia is easily destroyed does not justify the suspension of the Fourth Amendment in all lottery prosecutions. One of the prices we have to pay for the security which the Fourth Amendment bestows upon us is the risk that an occasional guilty party will escape. 429 Pa. at 448 , 240 A.2d at 798 [citation omitted].’ To excuse the pofice’s failure to announce their purpose and presence and thereafter to aHow a reasonable time for the voluntary surrender of the premises, there “* * * must be more than a presumption that the evidence would be destroyed because it could be easily done. Commonwealth v. DeMichel, supra, at 563, quoting State v. Mendoza, 104 Ariz. 395, 399 , 454 P.2d 140, 144 (1969).’ The entry by the police in the circumstances of this case violated the standards of the Fourth Amendment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 Ill. App. 3d 817 - People v. Stephens

3. ““It is settled in this Commonwealth that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that a police officer give notice of his identity and announce his purpose before forcibly entering upon private premises to conduct a search or make an arrest. Commonwealth v. DeMichel, 442 Pa. 553 , 277 A.2d 159 (1971). ‘The purpose of this announcement rule is that “ * * * the dignity and privacy protected by the fourth amendment demand a certain propriety on the part of policemen even after they have been authorized to invade an individual’s privacy. Regardless of how great the probable cause to believe a man guilty of a crime, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to surrender his privacy voluntarily.” ’ ” (Citations omitted) (Emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 316 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Williams