totality of the circumstances test in Pennsylvania

2026“In determining whether probable cause exists, we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Thompson, 985 A.2d at 931 (citation omitted).

2025Those circumstances included a complaint of an illegal speakeasy operating from a building that looked abandoned, prior surveillance of the building showing people going in and out in the early morning hours, no signage on the outside of the building, no liquor license associated with the building, Officer Perez’s purchase of alcoholic drinks poured directly from a bottle carrying a Hennessy label, and her ____________________________________________ 2 In Thompson, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s determination that the officer’s experience and the other factors provided pr

2025“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” Commonwealth ____________________________________________ 7 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). -6- J-S04005-25 v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706, 721 (Pa. 2014). “[W]e require only a probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity [and] we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Commonwealth v. R.

2018In determining whether probable cause exists, we apply a totality of the circumstances test. com. v. Martin, 627 Pa. 623, 648-49 , 101 A.3d 706, 721 (2014) (emphasis in original).

2024Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 307 A.3d 742, 746 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ____, ___ A.3d ____ (2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lyons, 622 Pa. 91, 110 , 79 A.3d 1053, 1063-1064 (2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1048 , 134 S.Ct. 1792 , 188 L.Ed.2d 761 (2014)). [T]he question of whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant must be answered according to the totality of the circumstances test articulated in Commonwealth v. Gray, [ 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985)], and its Pennsylvania progeny, which incorporates the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Illi

2024Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 307 A.3d 742, 746 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ____, ___ A.3d ____ (2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lyons, 622 Pa. 91, 110 , 79 A.3d 1053, 1063-1064 (2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1048 , 134 S.Ct. 1792 , 188 L.Ed.2d 761 (2014)). [T]he question of whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant must be answered according to the totality of the circumstances test articulated in Commonwealth v. Gray, [ 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985)], and its Pennsylvania progeny, which incorporates the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Illi

2024Commonwealth v. Davis, 704 A.2d 650, 654 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation omitted). -6- J-S21004-24 In Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 503 (Pa. Super. 2020), this Court was presented with a similar issue.

2016The factors most commonly considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis of the single vs. multiple conspiracies issue ... are: the number of overt acts in common; the overlap of personnel; the time period during which the alleged acts took place; the similarity in methods of operation; the locations in which the alleged acts took place; the extent to which the purported conspiracies share a common objective; and, the degree to which interdependence is needed for the overall operation to succeed. -4- J-S34025-16 Id. (quoting Davis, 704 A.2d at 654 ).

2025Moving forward, the High Court instructed that “the informant’s ‘veracity’ or ‘reliability’ and his ‘basis of knowledge’” should be [J-5-2025] - 20 construed “as relevant considerations in the totality-of-the circumstances analysis” rather than “independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case.” Id. at 230, 233 .

2024Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 307 A.3d 742, 746 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ____, ___ A.3d ____ (2024) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lyons, 622 Pa. 91, 110 , 79 A.3d 1053, 1063-1064 (2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1048 , 134 S.Ct. 1792 , 188 L.Ed.2d 761 (2014)). [T]he question of whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant must be answered according to the totality of the circumstances test articulated in Commonwealth v. Gray, [ 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985)], and its Pennsylvania progeny, which incorporates the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Illi

2025Moreover, “[a]lthough cases involving similar or comparable seizure determinations may serve as guideposts, a suppression court must independently employ the totality-of the-circumstances test in determining whether a seizure occurred.” Lyles, 97 A.3d at 305 .

2022“The totality-of-the-circumstances test is ultimately centered on whether the suspect has in some way been restrained by physical force or show of coercive authority.” Lyles, 97 A.3d at 302 .

2019Commonwealth v. Clark, 558 Pa. 157 , 735 A.2d 1248, 1252 (1999) (relying on Gates, supra).

2019Commonwealth v. Clark, 558 Pa. 157 , 735 A.2d 1248, 1252 (1999) (relying on Gates, supra).

2024Rather, “[e]ven a combination of innocent facts, when taken together, may warrant further investigation by the police officer.” Commonwealth v. Raglin, 178 A.3d 868 , 872 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal citations omitted), quoting Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 , 1189 (Pa. 2004).

2016“The totality of the circumstances test does not limit our inquiry to an examination of only those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct.” ____________________________________________ 2 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Epps, 608 A.2d 1095, 1096 (Pa. Super. 1994) (“It is well settled that to justify their decision to stop and briefly detain appellant, the police need not establish their suspicions to a level of certainty, a preponderance, or even a fair probability.”). 3 See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185, 1190 (Pa. 2005) (“reasonable suspicion does not require that the activity in ques

2020The totality of the circumstances test dictates that we consider all relevant facts, when deciding whether [the officer had] probable cause. - 11 - J-S60015-19 Id. at 186-187 (quoting Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. 1999)).

2019In making this determination, “we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Id. (quoting Thompson, 985 A.2d at 931 ). “[A] determination of probable cause based upon information received from a confidential informant depends upon the informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge viewed in a common sense, non-technical manner.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 1999) (citing Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. 1999)). “[A]n informant’s tip may constitute probable cause where police independently corroborate the tip, or where the informant has provided accurate information

2023Rather, “[e]ven a combination of innocent facts, when taken together, may warrant further investigation by the police officer.” Cook, 735 A.2d at 676 .

2021Rather, ‘[e]ven a combination of innocent facts, when taken together, may warrant further investigation by the police officer.’ Cook, 735 A.2d at 676 .

2026In Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court created a totality of the circumstances test, to be used on a case- by-case basis, to determine whether a defendant possessed the intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

2025In Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978), our Supreme Court created a totality of the circumstances test, to be used on a case- by-case basis, to determine whether a defendant possessed the intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

2025“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” Commonwealth ____________________________________________ 7 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). -6- J-S04005-25 v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706, 721 (Pa. 2014). “[W]e require only a probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity [and] we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Commonwealth v. R.

2015This activity is irrelevant to the totality of the circumstances analysis because “[s]uch a subsequent observation cannot provide grounds for the antecedent Terry stop.” Espada, 528 A.2d at 971 (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 17 ).

2024Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts may consider, inter alia, “evidence of a significant difference in size or strength between the defendant and the victim, any restraint on the defendant preventing him[, or her,] from escalating the attack, the defendant's use of a weapon or other implement to aid his[, or her,] attack, and his[, or her,] statements before, during, or after the [attack] which might indicate his[, or her,] intent to inflict injury.” Id., citing Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. 2006).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Matthew, 558 Pa. 47, 494 , 909 A.2d 1254, 1258 (Pa. 2006) (reaffirming the totality of the circumstances test); Commonwealth v Alexander, 383 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. 1978) ("[c]riminal intent may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence").

2025Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203, 213 (Pa. 2001). [Appellant] cites Commonwealth v. Savage, 566 A.2d 272, 278 (Pa. Super. 1989), which states: “The factors most commonly considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis of the single vs. multiple conspiracies issue [] are: (1) the number of overt acts in common; (2) the overlap in personnel; (3) the time period during which the alleged acts took place; (4) the similarity in methods of operation; (5) the locations in which the alleged acts took place; (6) the extent to which the purported conspiracies share a common objective, (7) and

1995The conspirators, for instance, would have gained nothing, nor furthered their plan, if they dismem *419 bered the body only to leave it in the home of one of the conspirators. 3 In Commonwealth v. Savage we embraced the following multifactor test for distinguishing multiple conspiracies from single conspiracies. 388 Pa.Super. 561 , 566 A.2d 272 (1989). [W]e ... find the multifactor totality of the circumstances analysis embraced by the majority of federal circuit courts for distinguishing single from multiple conspiracies to be a generally appropriate approach____ The factors most commonly co

2019Finally, “[i]n determining whether probable cause exists, we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Commonwealth v. Delvalle, 74 A.3d 1081, 1085 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2017Finally, “[i]n determining whether probable cause exists, we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Commonwealth v. Delvalle, 74 A.3d 1081, 1085 (Pa.Super. 2013).

2016Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609, 615-616 (Pa.Super. 2013).

2015Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609, 615-616 (Pa.Super. 2013).

2023The totality-of-the-circumstances test [ultimately centers] on whether the suspect has in some way been restrained by physical force or show of coercive authority. [See Strickler, 757 A.2d at 890 ].

2018In analyzing whether an interaction has escalated from a mere encounter to an investigative detention, we conduct an objective examination of the totality of the circumstances using the following standard: The totality-of-the-circumstances test is ultimately centered on whether the suspect has in some way been restrained by physical force or show of coercive authority. [Commonwealth v.] Strickler, [ 563 Pa. 47 , 757 A.2d 884 ,] 890 [(2000)].

2025Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances test, “the task of an issuing authority is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all of 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.” Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532, 537 (Pa. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). -5- J-A21001-25 Here, Burnett’s claim that the search warrant lacked probable caus

2020Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances test, the task of an issuing authority is “simply to make a practical, common- sense decision whether, given all of 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.” Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532, 537 (Pa. 2001) (citation and internal quotation omitted).

2026To that end, the Court highlighted the “danger of per se rules, pursuant to which the totality of the circumstances inquiry — the whole picture — is subordinated to the identification of one, single fact.” Id. at 939 ; see also id. at 947 .

2026To that end, the Court highlighted the “danger of per se rules, pursuant to which the totality of the circumstances inquiry — the whole picture — is subordinated to the identification of one, single fact.” Id. at 939 ; see also id. at 947 .

2021In considering [J-2-2021] - 30 an affidavit of probable cause, the issuing authority “must apply the totality of the circumstances test which requires it to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . 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.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1031 (Pa. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2020Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1031-1032 (Pa. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 922 (2013). [T]he question of whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant must be answered according to the totality of the circumstances test articulated in Commonwealth v. Gray, [] 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985), and its Pennsylvania progeny, which incorporates the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 [] (1983).

2022Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582, 589 (Pa. 1999).

2015Finally, “as the law makes clear, a trial court may consider a wide array of relevant evidence [under the totality of the circumstances test] in order to determine the validity of a claim and plea agreement including, but not limited to, transcripts from other proceedings, off-the-record communications with counsel, and written plea agreements.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 732 A.2d 582, 589 (Pa. 1999).

1997See Gates, supra. “The totality of the circumstances test was adopted to do away with rigid, precise determinations of probable cause.” Jones, 542 Pa. at 424-26 , 668 A.2d at 117 .

1997See Gates, supra. “The totality of the circumstances test was adopted to do away with rigid, precise determinations of probable cause.” Jones, 542 Pa. at 424-26 , 668 A.2d at 117 .

2017However, in Commonwealth v. Perez, 845 A.2d 779 (Pa. 2004), our Supreme Court determined that the per se rule was not appropriate, and reverted to a totality of the circumstances test, which we apply in this case.

2009Additionally, the Commonwealth asserts DavenpoH’s six-hour rule has since been abandoned in favor of the totality of the circumstances test set forth in Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360 , 845 A.2d 779 (2004).

2020In making this determination, “we apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Williams, 2 A.3d at 616 .

2015“In determining whether probable cause exists, [courts] apply a totality of the circumstances test.” Williams, 2 A.3d at 611.

2017In determining whether probable cause exists, we apply a totality of the circumstances test. -5- J-S30042-17 Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299, 306 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation, brackets, and emphasis omitted). “[I]nformation received from confidential informants may properly form the basis of a probable cause determination.” Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. 1999).

2015Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299, 306 (Pa. Super. 2011) (parallel citation omitted), appeal denied, 49 A.3d 442 (Pa. 2012). ____________________________________________ 4 Consistent with the Supreme Court’s mandate that courts employ a totality of the circumstances analysis in determining whether a citizen is in custody, we stress that this is not an exhaustive list.

2011In Commonwealth v. Williams, 504 Pa. 511, 521 , 475 A.2d 1283, 1288 (Pa. 1984), the totality of the circumstances analysis was adopted “to all questions involving the waiver of rights and the voluntariness of confessions made by juveniles.

2011In Commonwealth v. Williams, 504 Pa. 511, 521 , 475 A.2d 1283, 1288 (Pa. 1984), the totality of the circumstances analysis was adopted “to all questions involving the waiver of rights and the voluntariness of confessions made by juveniles.

2019The following factors "should be considered under a totality of the circumstances test to. determine whether a statement was freely and voluntarily made: the duration and means of interrogation, including whether questioning was repeated, prolonged, or accompanied by physical- abuse or threats thereof; the length of the accused's detention prior to the confession; whether the accused was advised of his or her constitutional rights; the attitude exhibited by the police during the interrogation; the accused's physical and psychological state, including whether he or she was injured, ill, drugged

2019Id. (citations omitted).

2025“Where the victim does not suffer serious bodily injury, the charge of aggravated assault can be supported only if the evidence supports a finding of an attempt to cause such injury.” Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980, 985 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citation omitted). -5- J-A24032-24 To determine whether a defendant possessed the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury, our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978), created a totality of the circumstances test that we apply on a case-by-case basis.

2019As our Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980, 984 (Pa. 2013), this Court should apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether a defendant acted with the requisite intent.