253 Pa. Super. 433 - Commonwealth v. Forster’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably 299 Pa. Super. 447 - Commonwealth v. Mazzochetti (1982), 407 Pa. Super. 415 - Commonwealth v. Davis (1991)
29 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Beck v. State of Ohio · United States v. Ventresca
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.
“... the law does not require that the information in a warrant affidavit establish with absolute certainty that the object of the search will be found at the stated location, nor does it demand that the affidavit information preclude all possibility that the sought after article is not secreted in another location.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘We must further be mindful “that only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard of probable cause, Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); that affidavits of probable cause are tested by much less rigorous standards than those governing the admissibility of evidence at trial, McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 311 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967); that in judging probable cause issuing magistrates are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense, United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); and that their determination of probable cáuse should be paid great deference by reviewing courts. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270-271 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]hen a magistrate has found probable cause, the courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner. Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.”
1 later decision 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.