Commonwealth v. Mendenhall’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably In Re DM (2001), 2002 Pa. Super. 383 - Commonwealth v. Reppert (2002)
61 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 Terry v. Ohio · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Berkemer v. McCarty · Florida v. Bostick
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first of these is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 , 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Finally an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 , 99 S.Ct. 2248 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 532 Pa. 62 , 614 A.2d 1378 (1992)(footnote omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”)). . The Court further reasoned that, because a driver has an affirmative duty under the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3746, to remain at the scene of an accident, the officer’s direction to the defendant to remain until the police arrived did not”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a `mere encounter' (or request for information), which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop and respond”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re DM
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.