349 Pa. Super. 255 - Commonwealth v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(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 has 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. (Emphasis added)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 362 Pa. Super. 549 - Commonwealth v. Adams · 383 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Barone

2. “Q. Sir, the essence of it is is [sic] that when you allowed these telephone conversations between my client and yourself to be recorded, you did so because you had no choice. You knew that if you didn’t, the deal would go out the window and you would be prosecuted. Now, isn’t that a true statement? A. Yes. RR. at 535. * # * * # * Q. So, in essence, Mr. McCullough, if you refused to do what Trooper Anderson asked you to do in relation to the recording of telephone calls and the signing of consents, the charges would be revived as you’ve already testified and the bottom line at the point in time was that you had no choice; they had you over a barrel; isn’t that true? MR. SCUTELLA: Objection, your Honor. It calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness. That’s the matter before the Court, whether or not he had a choice. MR. AMBROSE: Your Honor, his state of mind is relevant. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (By Mr. Ambrose) Isn’t that true, sir? A. That’s true.”

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

3. “[T]he current electronic surveillance statute strikes a balance between citizens11 legitimate expectation of privacy and the needs of law enforcement officials to combat crime. In this regard the General Assembly has provided safeguards to protect the liberties of the citizens of the Commonwealth. For instance, the statute requires the Attorney General, deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney General, district attorney, or an assistant district attorney designated in writing by the district attorney, to make a review of the facts of each case. Consent for the interception must be given by one of the parties. The Attorney General, deputy attorney general, district attorney, or assistant district attorney must be satisfied that the consent is voluntary. Only then will approval for the interception be given.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 383 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Barone