Commonwealth v. Yashinski’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2000
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Martinez-Fuerte · Ohio v. Robinette · Commonwealth v. Tarbert
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... Trooper Gibson and his partner systematically engaged the drivers entering the turnpike in conversation. This brief encounter, at least in the case of our appellant, and presumably with most, if not all, of the other drivers entering the turnpike, provided the Trooper sufficient enough contact with the appellant to presumptively determine that he might be operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The lower court may have been inclined to believe the rather incredulous explanation of Trooper Gibson that, in systematically engaging drivers in conversation, he and his partner were performing “public relations” activities for the Pennsylvania State Police as opposed to seeking drunk drivers. Nevertheless, in our opinion such a course of conduct describes a de facto roadblock regardless of intent. A “roadblock” has been characterized as a “systematic program of checking vehicles or drivers.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b). Further, our Supreme Court, in discussing the case of United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 , 96 S.Ct. 3074 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 ] (1976), used the following language to describe conduct which was considered a roadblock in that case, the “routine stopping of a vehicle for brief questioning of its occupants .... ” Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277, 287 , 535 A.2d 1035, 1040 (1987). Regardless of intent and/or the presence of reasonable suspicion, or the lack thereof, this is precisely what Trooper Gibson was engaged in. As mentioned earlier, Gibson”
2 later decisions 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.