395 Pa. Super. 629 - Commonwealth v. Ferretti’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc. (1993), Cooey v. Ohio (1991)
2 federal appellate · 22 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
Relies on Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Smith v. Maryland
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant is required to separately demonstrate a personal privacy interest in the area searched or effects seized, and that such interest was actual, soeietally sanctioned as reasonable, and justifiable. Rather, a defendant must establish a possessory interest, a legitimate presence, or some factor from which a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy could be deduced to prove that this subjective expectation of privacy is legitimate. Residence may give rise to an expectation of privacy, but an individual may also have a sufficient interest in a place other than his home so that the Fourth Amendment protects him. * * * We further stated that, [fjactors to be considered in determining whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in another person’s home include: (1) possession of a key to the premises; (2) having unlimited access to the premises; (3) storing or clothing or other possession on the premises; (4) involvement in illegal activities conducted on the premises; (5) ability to exclude other persons from the premises; and (6) expression of a subjective expectation of privacy in the premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To prevail successfully on a claim of governmental invasion of privacy, [this defendant] is required first to show that a subjective expectation of privacy exists as to the area being searched. An expectation of privacy is present when the individual, by his conduct, "exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy" and that the subjective expectation “is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“standard a part of our state guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. We do so not only because we find the United States Supreme Court's analytical distinction between”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.