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.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 2 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. Feczkogreen2 sentences2021See 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b) (investigation by police officers); see also Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (holding vehicle stop could not serve investigative purpose relevant to driver suspected of using multiple lanes); Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32, 34-35 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding vehicle stop following suspected violation of driving too closely could not serve investigative purpose and, therefore, required probable cause). 2013Id. at 1291 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2023Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[T]his Court [has] held that a police officer must have probable cause to support a [] stop where the officer's investigation subsequent to the stop serves no investigatory purpose relevant to the suspected Vehicle Code violation.” Commonwealth v. Venable, 200 A.3d 490, 498 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citation, quotations and original brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Venablegreen1 sentence2023Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[T]his Court [has] held that a police officer must have probable cause to support a [] stop where the officer's investigation subsequent to the stop serves no investigatory purpose relevant to the suspected Vehicle Code violation.” Commonwealth v. Venable, 200 A.3d 490, 498 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citation, quotations and original brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. DeWittgreen1 sentence2021Moreover, “a police officer may stop a motor vehicle if he or she reasonably believes that a provision of the [] Vehicle Code is being or has been violated.” Commonwealth v. Dewitt, 608 A.2d 1030, 1032 (Pa. 1992). -7- J-S23011-21 Probable cause, rather than reasonable suspicion, is required to justify a vehicle stop for a suspected Vehicle Code violation when the driver’s detention cannot serve an investigatory purpose relevant to the suspected violation. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Freemangreen1 sentence2021See 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b) (investigation by police officers); see also Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (holding vehicle stop could not serve investigative purpose relevant to driver suspected of using multiple lanes); Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32, 34-35 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding vehicle stop following suspected violation of driving too closely could not serve investigative purpose and, therefore, required probable cause). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cookgreen1 sentence2009Commonwealth v. Cook, 865 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Elliottgreen2 sentences1994The suppression court reached its decision on the basis of its interpretation of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), “and concluded that that case stands for the proposition that a police officer may only order a passenger out of a vehicle when he possesses a reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous.” Elliott, supra at 545 , 546 A.2d at 658 (footnote omitted). 1994The suppression court reached its decision on the basis of its interpretation of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), "and concluded that that case stands for the proposition that a police officer may only order a passenger out of a vehicle when he possesses a reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous." Elliott, supra at 545 , 546 A.2d at 658 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
green
2 sentences1994The suppression court reached its decision on the basis of its interpretation of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), “and concluded that that case stands for the proposition that a police officer may only order a passenger out of a vehicle when he possesses a reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous.” Elliott, supra at 545 , 546 A.2d at 658 (footnote omitted). 1994The suppression court reached its decision on the basis of its interpretation of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), “and concluded that that case stands for the proposition that a police officer may only order a passenger out of a vehicle when he possesses a reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous.” Elliott, supra at 545 , 546 A.2d at 658 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.