412 Pa. Super. 92 - Commonwealth v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably 445 Pa. Super. 165 - Commonwealth v. Cameron (1995), 2011 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. Baker (2011)
28 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 United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Calandra · Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Shannon · Commonwealth v. Edmunds
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The Commonwealth] argues that Pennsylvania law does not permit an attack on the veracity of the confidential informant ] because of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied by this [C]ourt in [] Bradshaw[]. [The Commonwealth]’s reliance on Bradshaw is misplaced. Our Supreme Court has recently held that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not incorporate a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 383 , 586 A.2d 887, 891-92 (1991). The court carefully examined the principles underlying the exclusionary rule, as well as the history of Article I, Section 8, and concluded that the rule’s purpose was much broader than the analogous federal provision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for ... concluding] that probable cause existed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he totality of the circumstances test is employed to determine whether an affidavit of probable cause sets forth sufficient facts for the necessary finding of probable cause to support a search warrant and, ‘if a search warrant is based on an affidavit containing deliberate or knowing misstatements of material fact, the search warrant is invalid’.”
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.