423 Pa. Super. 393 - Commonwealth v. Germann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he term ‘reasonable’ inventory search like the term ‘legal’ contract is verbose. If the search is, in fact, an inventory search, it must be reasonable. For example, if while taking inventory of the contents of the car, the police remove the seats, rip open the upholstery and find contraband, the evidence must be suppressed — not because the inventory [search] was unreasonable but rather because it is apparent that the police were not conducting an inventory pursuant to the objectives laid down in Opperman , but were searching for incriminating evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of: M.W., a Minor · 2013 Pa. Super. 252 - Commonwealth v. Gatlos

2. “Our courts have sanctioned the warrantless search of a vehicle, stopped for an ordinary traffic offense, only in those cases where independent probable cause was established to justify the search. We have persistently admonished, however, that stopping an automobile or arresting a driver for an ordinary traffic offense, does not, without more, permit a warrantless search of the vehicle. [ Commonwealth v. ] Dussell, [ 439 Pa. 392 , 266 A.2d 659 (1970)]; Commonwealth v. Trunzo, 404 Pa.Super. 15 , 589 A.2d 1147 (1991). The validity of a warrantless automobile search incident to a summary offense depends on the reasonable cause the seizing officer has to believe that the contents of the automobile offend the law; not the right to arrest. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 442 Pa. 98 , 275 A.2d 51 (1971); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 376 Pa.Super. 291 , 545 A.2d 942 (1988) (collecting cases). To justify [a warrantless] search, even though a movable vehicle is involved, an officer must have independent probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed by the occupants of the vehicle, or that it has been used in the furtherance of the commission of a felony, or the officer must have a basis for believing that evidence of a crime is concealed within the vehicle, or that there are weapons therein which are accessible to the occupants. Bailey, [376 Pa.Super.] at 300, 545 A.2d at 947 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The evidence required to establish "probable cause" must be more than mere”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 430 Pa. Super. 351 - Commonwealth v. Talley

3. “Logically, since an inventory search is to protect the owner’s property, the owner, whenever available, should be given the opportunity to determine how he wants his property secured. The Supreme Court has implicitly embraced this view: that it should be only in the atypical case that police officers would find it necessary to conduct a general inventory search of an impounded vehicle. The owner of the property may be able to take reasonable steps to safeguard his property at the time of arrest, thus obviating the necessity of impoundment.... [I]t is only reasonable that the owner be allowed to choose whether or not he wishes his car impounded.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Thompson