383 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Barone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “John A. Barone was charged with possession and delivery of a controlled substance as a result of an alleged sale of 2.3 grams of cocaine to Donald Kenyon in Barone’s home on April 24, 1985. Kenyon, a police informant, was wearing a concealed recording device, which enabled law enforcement officials to record the conversation between Barone and Kenyon at the time of the sale. Barone was arrested on September 19, 1985, waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and filed a motion to suppress the recording made by the police at the time of the sale. Hearings were held, but the motion to suppress was denied. On direct appeal, [the Superior Court], in a memorandum decision held that the decision in [Schaeffer ] was determina tive that a warrantless, recorded interception of a person’s conversation in his own home, even with the consent of the other party to the conversation, was an unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, [the Superior Court] reversed Bar-one’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted allocatur and by per curiam order directed as follows: The petition for allowance of appeal is granted, the order of the Superior Court is reversed pursuant to [.Blystone ], and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings to dispose of respondent’s remaining appellate issues.”

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

2. “Section 5704 permits consensual participant monitoring where a wire or oral communication involves suspected criminal activities. In granting approval for the monitoring, the Attorney General or the district attorney or their designees must review the facts. Thus, the police must be able to articulate reasonable grounds for the monitoring, then the Attorney General or district attorney must find that in fact those reasonable grounds do exist. Thus, the statute itself imposes a double check against unreasonable seizures of a person’s conversations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 424 Pa. Super. 181 - Commonwealth v. Taylor