407 Pa. Super. 415 - Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Wallace (2012), Commonwealth v. Clark (2011)
31 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 Illinois v. Gates · Commonwealth v. Edmunds · Commonwealth v. Dugger · Commonwealth v. Gray · Commonwealth v. Stanley
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... exclusion/suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for every violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning searches and seizes. It is only where the violation also implicates fundamental, constitutional concerns, is conducted in bad faith or has substantially prejudiced the defendant that exclusion may be an appropriate remedy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he task of a magistrate is to make a practical, common sense determination whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, 'there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) A law enforcement officer executing a search warrant shall, before entry, give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of the officer's identity, authority, and purpose to any occupant of the premises specified in the warrant, unless exigent circumstances require the officer’s immediate forcible entry- (B) Such officer shall await a response for a reasonable period of time after this announcement of identity, authority, and purpose, unless exigent circumstances require the officer’s immediate forcible entry. (C)If the officer is not admitted after such reasonable period, the officer may forcibly enter the premises and may use as much physical force to effect entry therein as is necessary to execute the search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.