Commonwealth v. Gindlesperger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 85 - Commonwealth v. Hawkins

2. “When information essential to a finding of probable cause is garnered from the use of confidential informants, the issuing authority determines the reliability of the informant’s information from the facts supplied by the police official. The determination of reliability does not hinge on disclosed records regarding the track record of the informant. Furthermore, the affidavit need not contain the names, dates, or other information concerning prior arrests or convictions. The affidavit must, however, at the very least, contain an averment stating the “customary” phrase that the informant has provided information which “has in the past resulted in arrests or convictions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Clark

3. “In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, our responsibility is to determine whether the record supports the suppression court's factual findings and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings. If the suppression court held for the prosecution, we consider only the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. When the factual findings of the suppression court are supported by the evidence, the appellate court may reverse only if there is an error in the legal conclusions drawn from those factual findings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Sebek