401 Pa. Super. 553 - Commonwealth v. Peticca’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of our Pennsylvania Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. They provide that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and that the warrant must describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. This constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not some new thing produced by recent decisions in the courts. It is rooted in long recognized principles of humanity and civil liberty. Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261 , 65 L.Ed. 647 (1921); Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 , 18 S.Ct. 183 , 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). In order to insure the protection of those constitutional provisions both this Court and the United States Supreme Court require law enforcement officers to obtain a judicially issued search warrant absent certain exigent circumstances. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 , 84 S.Ct. 889 , 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); Commonwealth v. Silo, 480 Pa. 15 , 389 A.2d 62 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1132 , 99 S.Ct. 1053 , 59 L.Ed.2d 94 (1979); Commonwealth v. Linde, 448 Pa. 230 , 293 A.2d 62 , cert. dismissed, 409 U.S. 1031 , 93 S.Ct. 523 , 34 L.Ed.2d 482 (1972); Commonwealth v. Cockfield, 431 Pa. 639 , 246 A.2d 381 (1968); Commo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 427 Pa. Super. 224 - Commonwealth v. Curtin

2. “We examined the sparse law on the question presented and conclude that the role of the issuing authority (as the arbiter of the presence or absence of probable cause) was not perverted in contravention of one’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The essential function of the issuing authoritg was preserved at bar when Judge Battle affixed his signature on both the search warrant application and affidavit of probable cause to conclude that “probable cause” existed to authorize the search of the appellant’s premises.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 374 - Commonwealth v. Vaughan

3. “Thus, consistent with the principle objectives recited in Chandler to approve a search warrant application, the issuing authority instantly “actually ma[d]e a finding of probable cause to validate the warrant before he issue[d] it ... by written order.” Stated differently, the record shows that the issuing authority rendered a judicial determination on the issue of probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 374 - Commonwealth v. Vaughan