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.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2026 5 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. Taylorgreen2 sentences2016Pennsylvania adopted the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2001); see also In re J.E., 937 A.2d 421, 425 (Pa. 2007) (stating that the protective sweep search is limited to “ensure the safety of arresting officers”). 2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, "the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case." ( Id. ) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A "protective sweep" is generally defined as "a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denie | 4 | 5 |
Maryland v. Buiegreen2 sentences2023“A protective sweep is ‘a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.’” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (Pa. 2001) (quoting Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990)). 2023Buie, 494 U.S. at 334 ; Potts, 73 A.3d at 1282 ; see also Order, 1/28/21, at 6. | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Pottsgreen2 sentences2023Buie, 494 U.S. at 334 ; Potts, 73 A.3d at 1282 ; see also Order, 1/28/21, at 6. 2016See Potts, 73 A.3d at 1281-82 ; Crouse, 729 A.2d at 598 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Caplegreen1 sentence2024In support of this argument, the Commonwealth cited to Commonwealth v. Davido, 106 A.3d 611 (Pa. 2014) and Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Harrellgreen1 sentence2019“A protective sweep is a quick and limited search of [the] premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” Commonwealth v. Harrell, 65 A.3d 420, 435 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 101 A.3d 785 (Pa. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2016See Johnson, 921 A.2d at 1223 ; McEnany, 667 A.2d at 1148 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of J.E.green1 sentence2016Pennsylvania adopted the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2001); see also In re J.E., 937 A.2d 421, 425 (Pa. 2007) (stating that the protective sweep search is limited to “ensure the safety of arresting officers”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huntington National Bank v. Minnesota Hotel Co.
green
2 sentences2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, “the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case.” (Id.) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A “protective sweep” is generally defined as “a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denied, 2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, "the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case." ( Id. ) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A "protective sweep" is generally defined as "a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denie | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Menor v. Finance Factors, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, “the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case.” (Id.) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A “protective sweep” is generally defined as “a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denied, 2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, "the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case." ( Id. ) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A "protective sweep" is generally defined as "a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denie | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Carrabba v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, “the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case.” (Id.) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A “protective sweep” is generally defined as “a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denied, 2006The majority has also concluded that because the probation officers in the instant case were not actually arresting another individual at the time they were frisking Appellant, "the protective sweep doctrine is not applicable to this case." ( Id. ) I respectfully assert that these conclusions are rooted in mistakes of both law and fact. ¶ 9 A "protective sweep" is generally defined as "a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 149 , 771 A.2d 1261, 1267 (2001), cert. denie | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Witman
green
1 sentence2026“However, the protective sweep doctrine has been applied prior to an arrest being effectuated where exigent circumstances exist.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 2000)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In the Interest of L.J.
green
1 sentence2026“However, the protective sweep doctrine has been applied prior to an arrest being effectuated where exigent circumstances exist.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 2000)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Michigan v. Long
green
1 sentence2024We conclude that the proper ground for denying suppression is under the protective sweep doctrine articulated in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), and followed by this Court in Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 289 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2023). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Com. v. Muhammad, R.
green
1 sentence2024We conclude that the proper ground for denying suppression is under the protective sweep doctrine articulated in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), and followed by this Court in Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 289 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2023). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Davido, T., Aplt
green
1 sentence2024In support of this argument, the Commonwealth cited to Commonwealth v. Davido, 106 A.3d 611 (Pa. 2014) and Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 2015). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. McEnany
green
1 sentence2016See Johnson, 921 A.2d at 1223 ; McEnany, 667 A.2d at 1148 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Crouse
green
1 sentence2016See Potts, 73 A.3d at 1281-82 ; Crouse, 729 A.2d at 598 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McGeehan v. Wainwright
green
1 sentence1982NOTES [1] Gary Small was the appellee's friend, former live-in mate and possible accomplice. [2] See U.S. v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir., 1977); McGeehan v. Wainwright, 526 F.2d 397 (5th Cir., 1976); U.S. v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir., 1975) for an approval of the protective search for persons inside a residence even where the arrest is made outside the residence. [1] Standards, and other aspects of the protective sweep doctrine, are discussed in Kelder and Statman, The Protective Sweep Doctrine; Recurrent questions regarding the propriety of searches conducted contemporaneously with | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Harold Smith
green
1 sentence1982NOTES [1] Gary Small was the appellee's friend, former live-in mate and possible accomplice. [2] See U.S. v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir., 1977); McGeehan v. Wainwright, 526 F.2d 397 (5th Cir., 1976); U.S. v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir., 1975) for an approval of the protective search for persons inside a residence even where the arrest is made outside the residence. [1] Standards, and other aspects of the protective sweep doctrine, are discussed in Kelder and Statman, The Protective Sweep Doctrine; Recurrent questions regarding the propriety of searches conducted contemporaneously with | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Gary Bowdach, Cross-Appellee
green
1 sentence1982NOTES [1] Gary Small was the appellee's friend, former live-in mate and possible accomplice. [2] See U.S. v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir., 1977); McGeehan v. Wainwright, 526 F.2d 397 (5th Cir., 1976); U.S. v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir., 1975) for an approval of the protective search for persons inside a residence even where the arrest is made outside the residence. [1] Standards, and other aspects of the protective sweep doctrine, are discussed in Kelder and Statman, The Protective Sweep Doctrine; Recurrent questions regarding the propriety of searches conducted contemporaneously with | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.