Commonwealth v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Torres (2001), In the Interest of O.A. (1998)
31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Harris
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The standard for evaluating whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant is the totality of the circumstances test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) and adopted by the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476, 484 , 503 A.2d 921, 925 (1985). Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 418, 424 , 668 A.2d 114, 116 (1995). A magistrate is to make a practical common-sense 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. Id. at 424 , 668 A.2d at 116-117 (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he magistrate was presented with an affidavit containing information from an informant who was known to police and had provided reliable information in the past. The affidavit specifically states that the informant had provided tips on three prior occasions, resulting in one conviction and two cases pending before the courts. Furthermore, the affidavit provides the names of the prior arrestees and the dates they were arrested.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“has been reliable in the past with the arrest and conviction of the following people: J. Snoe on 7-18-92 for poss of Crack Cocaine, who received two years probation from Judge Little. L. Cargile on 7-23-92 for poss of Marij, who case is still pending in the Courts of Allegheny County. J. Newsome on 7-30-92 for poss with intent to Del Crack Cocaine, who case is still pending in the Courts of Allegheny County.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.