440 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Collazo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) Removal to garage or place of safety. Any police officer may remove or cause to be removed to the place of business of the operator of a wrecker or to a nearby garage or other place of safety any vehicle found upon a highway under any of the following circumstances: (1) Report has been made that the vehicle has been stolen or taken without the consent of its owner. (2) The person or persons in charge of the vehicle are physically unable to provide for the custody or removal of the vehicle. (3) The person driving or in control of the vehicle is arrested for an alleged offense for which the officer is required by law to take the person arrested before an issuing authority without unnecessary delay. (4) The vehicle is in violation of section 3353 (relating to prohibitions in specified places) except for overtime parking. (5) The vehicle has been abandoned as defined in this title[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of: M.W., a Minor · 2000 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Hennigan

2. “[this] Court has observed that "two factors must be present in order to justify the reasonableness of an inventory search in the absence of probable cause. The Commonwealth must show: (i) that the vehicle in question was lawfully within the custody of the police, and (2) that the search was in fact an inventory search pursuant to the objectives laid down in [ Opperman ]" Commonwealth v. Germann , [ 423 Pa.Super. 393 ], 621 A.2d 589 , 594 (Pa.Super. 1993), citing Commonwealth v. Brandt [ 244 Pa.Super. 154 ], 366 A.2d 1238 (Pa.Super. 1976). The Court, in Commonwealth v. Germann , supra , observed further that " 'motive' is the sole factor which distinguishes a criminal investigatory search from a noncriminal inventory search of an automobile." Id . at 595, citing United States v. Abbott , 584 F.Supp. 442 (W.D.Pa. 1984).”

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

3. “[I]t is well-settled that an out-of-court statement offered to explain a course of conduct is not hearsay .... This Court has repeatedly upheld the introduction of out-of-court statements for the purpose of showing that based on information contained in the statements, the police followed a certain course of conduct that led to the defendant’s arrest. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has cautioned that such course of conduct testimony must bear close scrutiny prior to being admitted into evidence. The Court said: Nevertheless, it cannot be said that every out-of-court statement having bearing upon subsequent police conduct is to be admitted, for there is great risk that, despite cautionary jury instructions, certain types of statements will be considered by the jury as substantive evidence of guilt. Further, the police conduct rule does not open the door to unbounded admission of testimony, for such would nullify an accused’s right to cross- examine and confront the witnesses against him. Clearly, there is need for a balance to be struck between avoiding the dangers of hearsay testimony and the need for evidence that explains why police pursued a given course of action. This balancing process is governed by the sound discretion of the trial court, and, as with other evidentiary decisions, the trial court’s decision will be upheld on appeal unless there has been an abuse of that discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Drummond