422 Pa. Super. 153 - Commonwealth v. Quiles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]e must first ascertain whether the record supports the factual findings of the suppression court, and then determine the reasonableness of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn therefrom. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. When the evidence supports the suppression court’s findings of fact on a motion to suppress, this Court may reverse only when the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are erroneous. However, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact only to the extent that they are supported by the record.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 63 - Commonwealth v. Valentin · 2009 Pa. Super. 231 - Commonwealth v. Au

2. “[pjrobable cause exists if the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the police officer at the time of the arrest are sufficient to justify a person of reasonable caution in believing the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. In determining whether probable cause existed in a particular situation a court will look not just at one or two individual factors, but will consider the “totality of the circumstances” as they appeared to the arresting officer: When we examine a particular situation to determine if probable cause exists, we consider all the factors and their total effect, and do not concentrate on each individual element. We also focus on the circumstances as seen through the eyes of the trained officer, and. do not view the situation as an average citizen might. Finally, we must remember that in dealing with questions of probable cause, we are not dealing with certainties. We are dealing with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [persons] act. Commonwealth v. Simmons, 295 Pa.Super. 72, 83 , 440 A.2d 1228, 1234 (1982)____ It is only the probability, and not a prima facie showing of criminal activity that is the standard of probable cause for a warrantless arrest. Probable cause exists when criminality is one reasonable inference; it need not be the only, or even the most likely inference. As Courts of this Commonwealth have repeatedly emphasized, determinations of probable cause must be based on c”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 425 Pa. Super. 425 - Commonwealth v. Burnside · 438 Pa. Super. 119 - Commonwealth v. Robinson

3. “[t]he apparent authority doctrine was well established in lower court decisions before Leon, which is quite properly never cited or relied upon in Rodriguez”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. McKinstrey