322 Pa. Super. 37 - Commonwealth v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On 27 January 1981 a confidential informant related the following information to your affiant: Between 23 January 1981 and 27 January 1981 the confidential informant # 1 was at the residence of Ronald Gray, specifically described above. At the time the informant was present the informant personally saw approxi mately 20 pounds of marijuana. The informant further related that he had seen marijuana in the automobiles described above. Your affiant believes the confidential informant to be reliable for the following reasons: Two other confidential informants gave confirming information. In addition Trp. Thomas R. Scales confirmed information. On 16 January 1981 your affiant spoke with confidential informant # 2. At this time informant # 2 related that RONALD GRAY is one of the major drug distributors in Lycoming County. Informant # 2 is believed to be reliable because he has given information relating to Laughlin Jennings who is presently under criminal charges; Regina Webster and Curtis Missien who are presently under criminal charges; and David Fryday who is presently under criminal charges (the information relating to Fryday confirmed in a statement by Gina Brown who related that she purchased her drugs from Fryday). The informant # 2 stated that Fryday would be found in Wellsboro, Pa. as Fryday had left Williamsport. On 27 January 1981 Fryday was arrested in Wellsboro. On 19 January 1981 District Attorney Kenneth D. Brown and Trp. John J. Monahan related the following to your”

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

2. “Where the affiant relies on information from a confidential informant, “ ‘the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which [the] informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed ... was credible or his information reliable.’ ” Commonwealth v. White, [311] Pa.Super. [146], [150], 457 A.2d 537, 539 (1983) quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114-115 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). Accord: Commonwealth v. Davis, 466 Pa. 102, 110 , 351 A.2d 642, 646 (1976); Commonwealth v. Prosdocimo, [308] Pa.Super. [187], [193], 454 A.2d 84, 87 (1982); Commonwealth v. Turner, 284 Pa.Super. 395, 398 , 425 A.2d 1161, 1162 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 337 Pa. Super. 332 - Commonwealth v. Bonasorte

3. ““The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband ... will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for ... concluding]’ that probable cause existed.” Id. 103 S.Ct. at 2332 quoting from Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271 , 80 S.Ct. 725, 736 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 337 Pa. Super. 332 - Commonwealth v. Bonasorte