265 Pa. Super. 480 - Commonwealth v. Lehman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The suppression judge obviously did not accept Officer Garrett’s claim that his movement to the driver’s side of the truck was motivated by a fear that the passenger might be of personal danger to him and/or his fellow officer; but his motivation is of no legal significance in this present case, since the officer had a legal right to be where he was when he shone the flashlight into the interior of the truck. See Commonwealth v. Janek, 242 Pa.Super. 340 , 363 A.2d 1299 (1976). At that point, without any acceptable, proved motivation for using the flashlight, did the officer have a legal right to bring into “plain view” what was hidden by the darkness? We find he did, and so held in Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 226 Pa.Super. 79 , 310 A.2d 323 (1973). See also Commonwealth v. Nastari, 232 Pa. Super. 405, 412 , 335 A.2d 468 (1975).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Powell