Boettger v. Loverro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[consistent with the limitations imposed by the Wiretap Act and its statutory exclusionary rule, our Supreme Court has recognized that the practices it governs are inherently illegal and may be carried on by law enforcement agents only within closely circumscribed parameters. See Boettger v. Loverro, 521 Pa. 366 , 555 A.2d 1234, 1236-37 (Pa.1989). The following excerpt is illustrative: Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Surveillance Control Act, is a pervasive scheme of legislation which suspends an individual’s constitutional rights to privacy only for the limited purpose of permitting law enforcement officials, upon a showing of probable cause, to gather evidence necessary to bring about a criminal prosecution and conviction. The statute sets forth clearly and unambiguously by whom and under what circumstances these otherwise illegal practices and their derivative fruits may be used. [Commonwealth v.] Cruttenden, 976 A.2d [1176] at 1179 [ (Pa.Super.1269) ] (quoting Boettger, 555 A.2d at 1236-37 (emphasis in Boettger)).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 109 - Commonwealth v. Cruttenden · 142 Pa. Commw. 136 - Boettger v. Miklich

2. “§ 5721. Suppression of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidence (a) Motion to suppress. — Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or other adversary proceeding in or before any court or other authority of this Commonwealth may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on any of the following grounds: (1) The communication was unlawfully intercepted. (2) The order of authorization if required is insufficient on its face. (3) The interception unless made in accordance with section 5704 (relating to exceptions to prohibition on interception and disclosure of communications) was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or in accordance with the requirements of section 5712 (relating to issuance of order and effect). (b) Procedure. — The motion shall be made at least ten days before the trial, hearing, or other adversary proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make the motion or the moving party was not aware of the grounds for the motion. Motions by co-indictees are to be heard in a single consolidated hearing. The court, upon the filing of such motion by the aggrieved person, shall make available to the aggrieved person or his counsel the intercepted communication and evidence derived therefrom. If the motion is granted, the entire contents of all intercepted wire or oral communications obtained during or after any interception which is determined to be in violation of t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boettger v. Loverro

3. “Boettger /”), characterized the action of the District Attorney’s office as inadvertence. “Inadvertently, but in violation of the disclosure section of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b), the District Attorney attached a copy of the transcript to his answer and filed it with the clerk of courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boettger v. Loverro