Commonwealth v. Beaman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Initially, we note that the stopping of an automobile at a checkpoint constitutes a seizure for constitutional purposes, thus implicating the protections of both the Fourth Amendment to the United State Constitution, see Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz , 496 U.S. 444 , 450, 110 S.Ct. 2481 , 110 L.Ed.2d 412 [ ] (1990), and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, see Blouse , [ supra at] 1178. These provisions do not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only "unreasonable" ones. Thus, the central question in any litigation challenging a particular search or seizure is whether that search or seizure was constitutionally "reasonable." The reasonableness of a seizure that is less intrusive than a traditional arrest depends upon a three-pronged balancing test derived from Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 [ ] (1979), in which the reviewing Court weighs "the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." Id. at 50 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 [ ]. * * * Because of the severe consequences of drunken driving in terms of roadway deaths, injuries, and property damage , see generally Sitz , [ supra at] 451, 110 S.Ct. 2481 [ ] (summarizing national statistics); Tarbert , [ supra at] 1042 (summarizing Pennsylvania statistics), both the United States Supreme Court and [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court have recognized that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Mercado · 2014 Pa. Super. 245 - Commonwealth v. Gillespie

2. “[T]he conduct of the roadblock itself can be such that it requires only a momentary stop to allow the police to make a brief but trained observation of a vehicle's driver, without entailing any physical search of the vehicle or its occupants. To avoid unnecessary surprise to motorists, the existence of a roadblock can be so conducted as to be ascertainable from a reasonable distance or otherwise made knowable in advance. The possibility of arbitrary roadblocks can be significantly curtailed by the institution of certain safeguards. First the very decision to hold a drunk-driver roadblock, as well as the decision as to its time and place, should be matters reserved for prior administrative approval, thus removing the determination of those matters from the discretion of police officers in the field. In this connection it is essential that the route selected for the roadblock be one which, based on local experience, is likely to be travelled by intoxicated drivers. The time of the roadblock should be governed by the same consideration. Additionally, the question of which vehicles to stop at the roadblock should not be left to the unfettered discretion of police officers at the scene, but instead should be in accordance with objective standards prefixed by administrative decision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Mercado · Commonwealth v. Worthy

3. “The existence of individual suspicion, however, is not an “irreducible” component of reasonableness in every circumstance. Rather, where regimes of suspicionless searches or seizures are designed to serve governmental “special needs” that exceed the normal demands of law enforcement, they will be upheld in certain instances. Because of the severe consequences of drunken driving in terms of roadway deaths, injuries, and property damage, both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have recognized that the government has a compelling interest in detecting intoxicated drivers and removing them from the roads before they cause injury. This has raised the question of whether the law permits police officers to effect suspicionless seizures in the form of brief vehicle stops at publicly announced sobriety checkpoints along roadways known to be frequented by intoxicated drivers. As noted, and as with all similar questions, this question has been answered with reference to the balancing test described above. As to the Fourth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has determined that DUI roadblocks constitute a reasonable means of advancing the vital public interest in reducing drunk driving deaths and injuries, and that they only involve a modest intrusion on the privacy and liberty of motorists. Accordingly, the Court has found that suspicionless stops at such roadblocks are constitutionally reasonable. The question remains, however, whether the greater individual privacy ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 372 - Commonwealth v. Sands