340 Pa. Super. 318 - Commonwealth v. Hassine’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Commonwealth v. Blystone (1988), Commonwealth v. Gribble (1997)
3 federal appellate · 98 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · Cooper v. State of California · Jenkins v. Anderson · United States v. Miller
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 5704 Exceptions to prohibition on interception and disclosure of communications. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for: (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication involving suspected, criminal activities where: (ii) one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to such interception. However, no interception under this paragraph shall be made unless the Attorney General or a deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney General, or the district attorney, or an assistant district attorney designated in writing by the district attorney, of the county wherein the interception is to be made, has reviewed the facts and is satisfied that the consent is voluntary and has given prior approval for the interception; however such interception shall be subject to the recording and record keep ing requirements of section 5714(a) (relating to recording of intercepted communications) and that the Attorney General, deputy attorney general, district attorney or assistant district attorney authorizing the interception shall be the custodian of recorded evidence obtained therefrom.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Sec. 8. Security from searches and seizures The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, it is abundantly clear that the type of wiretap executed here, similar to the one-conversant, consensual tap allowed under federal law, is legal under the United States Constitution. United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 744 , 99 S.Ct. 1465, 1467 , 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979) (“Neither the Constitution nor any Act of Congress requires that official approval be secured before conversations are overheard or recorded by Government Agents with the consent of one of the conversants.”); see also United States v. Horton, 601 F.2d 319 (7th Cir.1979); United States v. Shaffer, 520 F.2d 1369 (3d Cir.1975). Thus, to the extent Article I, § 8 incorporates the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, section 5704(2)(ii) is constitutional. Are there additional guarantees under Article I, § 8, which makes § 5704(2)(ii) constitutionally infirm? Our research has been unable to unearth a Pennsylvania appellate court case which addresses the issue. However, we find instructive a recent federal case wherein the defendant challenged the Wiretap Act under the Pennsylvania Constitution. United States v. Geller, 560 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D.Pa.1983). In Geller as in the instant case the defendant argued that Article I, § 8, went further than the Fourth Amendment guarantees and, in light of this Commonwealth’s jurisprudential history, “ ‘any’ legislation which permits the interception of wire communication is per se violative of Pennsylvania’s Constitution.” Id. at 1315. $ $ $ >|( $ ‡ While we agree with the”
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.