440 Pa. Super. 269 - Commonwealth v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our review of an order entered by the suppression court is governed by the following standards. We 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. Commonwealth v. Burnside, 425 Pa.Super. 425 , 625 A.2d 678 (1993). 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.” Commonwealth v. Reddix, 355 Pa.Super. 514 , 513 A.2d 1041 (1986). 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. Commonwealth v. Quiles, 422 Pa.Super. 153 , 619 A.2d 291 (1993) (en banc). However, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact only to the extent that they are supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Martinez, 403 Pa.Super. 125 , 588 A.2d 513 (1991).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 443 Pa. Super. 559 - Commonwealth v. Felty · 2000 Pa. Super. 329 - In re J.V.

2. “[I]n order for a stop to be reasonable under Terry [], the police officer’s reasonable and articulable belief that criminal activity was afoot must be linked with his observation of suspicious or irregular behavior on the part of the particular defendant stopped. Mere presence near a high crime area ... or in the vicinity of a recently reported crime ... does not justify a stop under Terry . Conversely, an officer’s observation of irregular behavior without a concurrent belief that crime is afoot also renders a stop unreasonable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 30 - Commonwealth v. Ayala