green
Positive treatment
Hot · 55 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 3×
97.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2016–2019 ·
…n anonymous tip, corroborated by independent police investigation, may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to supply reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop
at p. 477
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Almodovar, E.
e have recognized a known informant is far less likely to produce false information.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Serrano, J.
n anonymous tip, corroborated by independent police investigation, may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to supply reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Harper, D.
n anonymous tip, corroborated by independent police investigation, may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to supply reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rothhaar, D.
Our Supreme Court has regularly departed from the United States Supreme Court’s construction of the Fourth Amendment, holding Article I, Section 8 “generally provides greater protection than that provided by the Fourth Amendment, because the core of its exclusionary rule is grounded in the protection of privacy while the federal exclusionary rule is grounded in deterring police misconduct.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, A., Aplt.
XIV, § 1. 4 Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). 5 GEORGE ORWELL, ANIMAL FARM 134 (75th Anniversary ed., Signet Classics 2020) (1945) (“All Animals are equal but some Animals are more equal than others.”). 6 See Commonwealth v. Dobson, 307 A.3d 612 , 625-26 (Pa. 2024) (Wecht, J., Opinion in Support of Reversal); Commonwealth v. Galloway, 284 A.3d 870 , 875 (Pa. 2022) (Wecht, J., dissenting from the denial of allocatur). 7 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968) (establishing what has come to be known as the “reasonable suspicion” standard for an investigative detention short of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Waldron, J.
We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). -4- J-A18035-25 “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Daniels, K.
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Courts need to assess totality of the circumstances, and “afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience and acknowledge that innocent facts, when considered collectively, may permit the investigative detention.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kelly, N.
We find that the second issue is dispositive and therefore do not address the third point of error.2 “Our standard of review is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court's factual findings; however, [this court] maintain[s] de novo review over the suppression court's legal conclusions." Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lindsay, M.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted) (unlike deference given to suppression court’s factual findings, “we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions”).15 Officer Kusowski’s initial interaction with Lindsay is ____________________________________________ 14 Despite his response that he did not have a permit to carry the gun, in an abundance of caution, Officer Kusowski specifically asks Lindsay, “but you don’t have a permit?” and Lindsay replies, “nah.” Id. at 1:10. 15 The trial court factually found that the firs…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Holley, T.
In assessing the totality of the circumstances, courts must also afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer's experience[,] and acknowledge that innocent facts, when considered collectively, may permit the investigative detention. -5- J-A13001-24 Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hawkins-Davenport, D.
Unlike the deference we give to the suppression court’s factual findings, “we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Warner, D.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010). ____________________________________________ 1 The Commonwealth certified in its notice of appeal that the suppression court’s order terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution of this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carver, J.
However, unlike the deference we give to the suppression court’s factual and credibility findings, “we [have] de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Collins, V.
It is well-settled that “[r]easonable suspicion is a less stringent standard than probable cause necessary to effectuate a warrantless arrest[.]” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Holmes, G.
As such, I would conclude that the ____________________________________________ 2 Reasonable suspicion depends on a “totality of the circumstances.” Interest of T.W., 261 A.3d 409 , 423 (Pa. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McDowell, D.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
However, “[a]n anonymous tip, corroborated by independent police investigation, may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to supply reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010); see also Jackson, 698 A.2d at 572, 575 (concluding that an anonymous tip of “a man in a green jacket carrying a gun[]” did not, by itself, exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to establish reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory detention and explaining that “the police must investigate further by means not constituting a search and sei…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, K., Aplt.
Jackson said that he was “running from the gunshots.”53 Suffering no obvious injuries, and presumably wanting to continue putting as much distance between himself and the gunshots, Jackson kept running, even though 51 Commonwealth v. Mason, 247 A.3d 1070 , 1080 (Pa. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Veney, B.
We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court's legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Richardson, W.
We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court's legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Owens, P.
We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court's legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Keys, R.
(2×)
Id. at 925 (citing Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010), and Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. 1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jackson, O.
Our review of a suppression order “is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings; however, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” ____________________________________________ 3 The Commonwealth did not file a brief. -5- J-S01030-23 Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396, 400 (2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: S.E., Appeal of: S.E.
In conducting a reasonable suspicion inquiry, a suppression court is required -7- J-A20020-22 to “afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience[.]” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Breeland, A.
We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010). -8- J-A09033-22 Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 744 A.2d 1261, 265 (Pa. 2000) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnston, Z.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 479 (Pa. 2010) (holding that information provided by an identified caller regarding imminent criminal activity to be committed by a specific person at a particular time and place, when corroborated by police investigation, gave rise to reasonable suspicion); see also Commonwealth v. Butler, 194 A.3d 145, 149 (Pa. Super. 2018); Commonwealth v. Shine, 784 A.2d 167, 171 (Pa. Super. 2001) (holding that an officer’s independent observations that an individual was involved in or would be imminently involved in the commission of a crime, provided reasonable susp…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com v. Mandato, R.
“The scope of review from a suppression ruling is limited to the evidentiary record created at the suppression hearing.” -4- J-A03019-22 Commonwealth v. Neal, 151 A.3d 1068, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2016).2 We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court's legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lomax, R.
We defer to the suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[H]owever, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010). -4- J-S34015-21 We categorize police interactions with members of the public into three general tiers of increasing intrusiveness, which require increasing levels of suspicion on the part of an officer who initiates them: (1) mere encounters, whi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Barr, T., Aplt.
“In reviewing an appeal by the Commonwealth of a suppression order, we may consider only the evidence from the [defendant’s] witnesses along with the Commonwealth’s evidence which remains uncontroverted.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Yount, H.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Sands, 887 A.2d at 272 (reiterating that “the officer must be able to relay specific and articulable facts that would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is driving under the influence”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, C.
In reviewing the denial of Appellant’s suppression motion, we are guided by the following principles: “When, as here, we consider the propriety of a trial court's order granting a motion to suppress, “we may consider only the evidence from the appellee's witnesses along with the Commonwealth's evidence which remains uncontroverted.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 606 Pa. 198 , 996 A.2d 473, 476 (2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Anderson, S.
“Our standard of review is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings; however, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Mason, B.
When, as here, we consider the propriety of a trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress, “we may consider only the evidence from the appellee’s witnesses along with the Commonwealth’s evidence which remains uncontroverted.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rivera, E.
“Our standard of review is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings; however, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cruz-Rivera, F.A.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Foy, J.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mosley, A.
“In conducting a reasonable suspicion inquiry, a suppression court is required to ‘afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience.’” Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765, 773 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Noble, R.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Katona, D., Aplt.
Therefore, they balance the interests differently and reach a different conclusion as to the relative importance of privacy as against securing criminal convictions.”); Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010) (“Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution . . . generally provides greater protection than that provided by the Fourth Amendment, because the core of its exclusionary rule is grounded in the protection of privacy while the [J-83-2019] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 23 federal exclusionary rule is grounded in deterring police misconduct.”) (quotation marks and citation om…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shaw, A.
When we review “an appeal by the Commonwealth of a suppression order, we may consider only the evidence from the appellee’s witnesses along with the Commonwealth’s evidence which remains uncontroverted.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Walker, V.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Faison v. Luther
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carter, W.
“Our standard of review is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings; however, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 606 Pa. 198 , 996 A.2d 473, 476 (2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carter, W.
“Our standard of review is restricted to establishing whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings; however, we maintain de novo review over the suppression court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 606 Pa. 198 , 996 A.2d 473, 476 (2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Poellnitz, T.
Our Supreme Court has explained that, “[r]easonable suspicion is a less stringent standard than probable cause necessary to effectuate a warrantless arrest, and depends on the information possessed by police and its degree of reliability in the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Trahey, T., Aplt.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Batch, C.
“Reasonable suspicion is a less stringent standard than probable cause necessary to effectuate a warrantless arrest, and depends on the information possessed by police and its degree of reliability in the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sanchez, F.
Such a challenge is clear from the issues presented. -5- J-S34027-19 When we review “an appeal by the Commonwealth of a suppression order, we may consider only the evidence from the appellee’s witnesses along with the Commonwealth’s evidence which remains uncontroverted.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson, K.
A12039/19 cause necessary to effectuate a warrantless arrest, and depends on the information possessed by police and its degree of reliability in the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Hicks, M., Aplt.
Although it is beyond cavil that Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides broader protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than its federal counterpart, see generally Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991), this Court long has held that the Terry doctrine “sets forth the reasonableness standard for Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010); see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (Pa. 1997) (noting that “Pennsylvania has always followed Terry in stop and frisk cases”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shields, M.
In conducting a reasonable suspicion inquiry, a suppression court is required to “afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience[.]” Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Com. Ex Rel. Derrick BARNES, Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Secretary Mr. Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Appellees
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Secretary Mr. Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Appellees
1 EAP 2010.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 26, 2010.
Per Curiam.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2010, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.