Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2026 23 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Simonsongreen2 sentences2026“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include, inter alia, the stop and frisk exception, Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception …, the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 16 | 16 |
Com. v. Smith, M.green2 sentences2026These exceptions include . . . the plain view exception . . . [and] the stop and frisk exception[.5] Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2023These exceptions include “the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception, ... the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citation omitted). | 6 | 7 |
Com. v. McMahon, J.green2 sentences2026This Court has explained that “[s]uch exceptions include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception[,] the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1072 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up). 2024The "well well delineated exceptions" to exceptions" to the the warrant requirement include warrant requirement include `the the consent consent exception, exception, the the plain view exception, plain view exception, the the inventory search exception, inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances the exigent circumstances exception, exception, the automobile exception the automobile exception ... ... the stop and the stop and frisk exception, and frisk exception, and the search incident the search to arrest incident to arrest exception."" exception."' Commonwealth y v. McMahon, 280 | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Kohlgreen2 sentences2018The “administration of a blood test . . . performed by an agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. -3- J-S18009-18 Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). 2018The “administration of a blood test . . . performed by an agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. -3- J-S18009-18 Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2026The purpose of the stop-and-frisk exception is to “attempt to discover the presence of weapons which may be used to endanger the safety of police or others.” Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1 , 11 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Wilson, 927 A.2d 279, 285 (Pa. Super. 2007)); see also Adams, 205 A.3d at 457 (“officer safety is a legitimate governmental interest that is worthy of protection”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Adams, E., Aplt.green1 sentence2026The purpose of the stop-and-frisk exception is to “attempt to discover the presence of weapons which may be used to endanger the safety of police or others.” Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1 , 11 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Wilson, 927 A.2d 279, 285 (Pa. Super. 2007)); see also Adams, 205 A.3d at 457 (“officer safety is a legitimate governmental interest that is worthy of protection”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Luczkigreen1 sentence2024Smith, 285 A.3d at 332 . -6- J-S44028-23 “The plain view doctrine provides that evidence in plain view of the police can be seized without a warrant.” Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530, 546 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Evansgreen1 sentence2019Evans, 153 A.3d 323, 327-28 (Pa. Super. 2016) (listing various exceptions to the warrant requirement, including "the stop and frisk exception"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen1 sentence2019A police officer may conduct a Terry frisk when the officer has reasonable suspicion "that criminal activity is afoot and that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others." Commonwealth v. Davis, 102 A.3d 996, 999 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2018Here, Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Daniels, 593 A.2d 895, 898 (Pa. Super. 1991), appeal denied, 600 A.2d 533 (Pa. 1991), for the proposition that, “[t]he plain view exception cannot be used as a pretext when police officers know in advance the location of an item and intend to seize it.” Daniels, supra at 898 ; (see also Appellant’s Brief, at 15). 2018Here, Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Daniels, 593 A.2d 895, 898 (Pa. Super. 1991), appeal denied, 600 A.2d 533 (Pa. 1991), for the proposition that, “[t]he plain view exception cannot be used as a pretext when police officers know in advance the location of an item and intend to seize it.” Daniels, supra at 898 ; (see also Appellant’s Brief, at 15). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Davidsongreen2 sentences1990See generally Commonwealth v. Davidson, 389 Pa.Super. 166 , 566 A.2d 897 (1989). 1990See generally Commonwealth v. Davidson, 389 Pa.Super. 166 , 566 A.2d 897 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Dunnavant
green
2 sentences2020“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception . . ., the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Dunnavant, 63 A.3d 1252 , 1257 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013). 2020“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception . . ., the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Dunnavant, 63 A.3d 1252 , 1257 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 13 | 2016–2020 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1990The Commonwealth also argues that the inspection of the tennis ball was permissible under the stop and frisk doctrine of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 1990The Commonwealth also argues that the inspection of the tennis ball was permissible under the stop and frisk doctrine of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 3 | 1986–1993 |
In the Interest of D.T.M.
neutral
2 sentences2022Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 33 (Pa. 2017). 2022Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 33 (Pa. 2017). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2018The “administration of a blood test . . . performed by an agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. -3- J-S18009-18 Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). 2018The “administration of a blood test . . . performed by an agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. -3- J-S18009-18 Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Dunnavant, G.
green
2 sentences2018“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception, . . , the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Dunnavant, 63 A.3d 1252 , 1257 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis added), affirmed by an equally divided court, 107 A.3d 29 (Pa. 2014). 2018“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception . . ., the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Dunnavant, 63 A.3d 1252 , 1257 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2013) (emphasis added), affirmed by an equally divided court, 107 A.3d 29 (Pa. 2014). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Com. v. Cunningham, D.
green
1 sentence2026The purpose of the stop-and-frisk exception is to “attempt to discover the presence of weapons which may be used to endanger the safety of police or others.” Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1 , 11 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Wilson, 927 A.2d 279, 285 (Pa. Super. 2007)); see also Adams, 205 A.3d at 457 (“officer safety is a legitimate governmental interest that is worthy of protection”). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Collins v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
green
1 sentence2024Demery relies on Commonwealth v. Romero, 183 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2018) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court) (“OAJC”), to support his claim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Dowds
green
1 sentence2022Such exceptions include “the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception . . . the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). -8- J-S35040-21 to our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Dowds, 761 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2000), and claims that Williamson’s denials concerning the Chevrolet Impala were sufficient to establish abandonment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.