Commonwealth v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

132 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . it is . . . clear that an investigative stop of a moving vehicle to be valid must be based upon objective facts creating a reasonable suspicion that the detained motorist is presently involved in criminal activity.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Neith · 418 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Lagamba

2. “If the alleged basis of a vehicular stop is to permit a determination whether there has been compliance with the Motor Vehicle Code of this Commonwealth, it is encumbent [sic] upon the officer to articulate specific facts possessed by him, at the time of the questioned stop, which would provide probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the driver was in violation of some provision of the Code.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Whitmyer · 418 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Lagamba

3. “Where individuals proceeding in an automobile are forced to interrupt their travel at police direction, such action clearly amounts to a seizure of those individuals and the basis for that stop must meet Fourth Amendment standards. Traditionally, we have held that a seizure is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment where probable cause exists at the time of that seizure . . . The decisions of the United States Supreme Court and this Court have defined probable cause as being present where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution and belief to conclude that the suspect had committed or is committing a crime. . . The United States Supreme Court in [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ] and in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), has suggested that even in the absence of probable cause there may be, under certain circumstances, justification for a limited intrusion upon the privacy of an individual . . . However, these decisions have made it clear that to justify the intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably-warranted the intrusion . . . Thus, it is also clear that an investigative stop of a moving vehicle to be valid must be based upon objective facts c”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Fassett · 310 Pa. Super. 441 - Commonwealth v. Bridgeman