416 Pa. Super. 608 - Commonwealth v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, a seizure was thought to have occurred, for purposes of triggering constitutional protection, if the officer “by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen____”. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The test to determine whether a sufficient restraint of personal liberty has occurred was first formulated in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 , 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). To distinguish between a constitutionally significant seizure and an [sic] police-citizen encounter without fourth amendment implications, the Mendenhall court noted the following: The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but “to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals.” As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person’s liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. We conclude that a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 434 Pa. Super. 268 - Commonwealth v. Peters

2. “In this sense as well, Hodari D. is inconsistent with established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, including principles emphasized in the very cases relied upon by the majority . . . . in Michigan v. Chesternut , the Court reiterated that in determining whether a Terry stop has occurred, it is necessary to utilize a standard that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 427 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Carroll

3. “concludes that the timing of the seizure is governed by the citizen's reaction, rather than by the officer's conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 427 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Carroll