445 Pa. Super. 165 - Commonwealth v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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. “The standard for determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant is the "totality of the circumstances test” as set forth below: The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity” and "basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a "substantial basis for ... concluding that probable cause existed.” Commonwealth v. Karns, 389 Pa.Super. 58 , 566 A.2d 615 (1989), quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). However, if a warrant is based upon an affidavit which contains deliberate or knowing misstatements of material fact, the search warrant must be rendered invalid. Commonwealth v. Clark, 412 Pa.Super. 92 , 602 A.2d 1323 (1992). In deciding whether a misstatement is material, the test is not whether the statement strengthens the application for the search warrant, but rather whether it is essential to it. Commonwealth v. Yucknevage, 257 Pa.Super. 19 , 390 A.2d 225 (1978).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 31 - Commonwealth v. Whiting · 2011 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. Baker