340 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kendrick’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. “It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A ‘practical, non-technical’ probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 438 Pa. Super. 119 - Commonwealth v. Robinson · 376 Pa. Super. 291 - Commonwealth v. Bailey

2. “This Court believes that a film vial, a common package for carrying narcotics, is more closely akin to those rare single-purpose containers which “by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance.” Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 , 764-765 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 2593-2594 n. 13, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979). Admittedly, a film container has other uses and therefore is not purely a “single-purpose” container. However, given the circumstances of this case, we believe that the trained narcotics detective’s view of the container was tantamount to a view of the heroin itself. See Texas v. Brown, supra, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 (Stevens, J., concurring at 748-50, 103 S.Ct. at 1547). Therefore, we hold that the search of the film vial was lawful.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 454 Pa. Super. 347 - Commonwealth v. White · 443 Pa. Super. 351 - Commonwealth v. Evans

3. “In the instant case, evidence at the suppression hearing revealed a valid search warrant authorizing a narcotics search of the residence. When the detectives attempted to execute the warrant, they were immediately confronted by a gunman. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the detectives to conclude either that criminal activity was currently taking place, or had taken place just prior to their arrival. Focusing now on appellee, the evidence showed that appellee was present in a house in which the detectives suspected drug trafficking activities. Moreover, when the detectives arrived at the residence to execute the warrant, appellee attempted to avoid police detection by retreating into a bedroom. Failing to avoid detection and once under police custody, appellee then attempted to hide the film vial under his body. In light of the foregoing, we do not hesitate in finding that there was probable cause to associate the concealed object with criminal activity. See Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, supra [ 332 Pa.Super. 108 , 480 A.2d 1209 (1984) ]; Texas v. Brown, supra; Commonwealth v. Gease, 304 Pa.Super. 433 , 450 A.2d 989 (1982). We hold, therefore, that the seizure was lawful. 6 This Court believes that a film vial, a common package for carrying narcotics, is more closely akin to those rare single purpose containers which “by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appeara”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 418 Pa. Super. 614 - Commonwealth v. Mallory