422 Pa. Super. 393 - Commonwealth v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Parker directs us to our supreme court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Timko, 491 Pa. 32 , 417 A.2d 620 (1980), to support his assertion that a separate search warrant was required before the police could listen to the tape. In that case, the police lawfully arrested Timko. The police then performed an automobile search incident to. arrest. During their search, the police removed a zippered valise from Timko’s car and searched it. Timko challenged the search of his valise claiming that in order for the police to open his valise and search it, a separate search warrant was required. Our supreme court agreed and held that once the valise was reduced to the custody of the police, there was neither danger to police officers nor an exigent circumstance which could justify the immediate search of the closed container. Id. at 39 , 417 A.2d at 623 . There, the court stated that the valise could not be searched without a warrant simply because it had been seized from an automobile. Id. The rationale in Timko is persuasive. There, the valise was lawfully seized pursuant to arrest. However, without a search warrant, the police were prohibited from searching within the valise where the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Timko , at 38, 417 A.2d at 623 . The Commonwealth, here, claims that the tape was validly seized, either pursuant to the plain view doctrine or Parker’s consent. However, even if the seizure of tape were valid, if Timko is applied, accessing the contents of t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 83 - Commonwealth v. Murphy

2. ““The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.” Pa. Constitution Article 1, Section 8. (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In re Seized Property of Bartholomew

3. “appellant has failed to indicate [on appeal] whether his seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, or both Constitutions. For the sake of judicial economy, we will analyze this case under both Constitutions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Martin