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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2026 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. McCarthygreen2 sentences2020See McCarthy, 820 A.2d at 760 . 2020See McCarthy, 820 A.2d at 760 . | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Natividad, R., Aplt.green2 sentences2020Appellant maintains: (1) he was in a hospital room; (2) he was questioned by two police officers in uniform9 who had already formed the belief his wound was self-inflicted; (3) he was subjected to “a ruse clearly designed to pressure [him] into incriminating himself,” Appellant’s Brief at 10, 14, (4) the “custodial nature of the encounter was strengthened by” Officer Moffatt’s directive — rather than a request — to perform a gunshot residue test, id. at 13-14; and (5) no reasonable person in his situation would feel he was free to leave or refuse the gunshot residue test. 2020Appellant maintains: (1) he was in a hospital room; (2) he was questioned by two police officers in uniform9 who had already formed the belief his wound was self-inflicted; (3) he was subjected to “a ruse clearly designed to pressure [him] into incriminating himself,” Appellant’s Brief at 10, 14, (4) the “custodial nature of the encounter was strengthened by” Officer Moffatt’s directive — rather than a request — to perform a gunshot residue test, id. at 13-14; and (5) no reasonable person in his situation would feel he was free to leave or refuse the gunshot residue test. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Wrecksgreen1 sentence2026In response, Kuhn confessed to police that he had shot his wife in the midst of an argument.3 Consequently, police arrested Kuhn and the Commonwealth charged him with criminal attempt (criminal homicide), aggravated assault, ____________________________________________ required to examine the record, present issues, and request permission to withdraw, there are also significant differences, as explained infra. See Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 721-22 (Pa. Super. 2007). 3 During the evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to the underlying PCRA petition, plea counsel testified that in an | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Harper, D.green1 sentence2025See id. at 1234, 1239. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2019See e.g., Commonwealth v. Johnson, 180 A.3d 474, 478 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 205 A.3d 315 (Pa. 2019) (holding that the appellant’s attempts to enhance his argument by asserting that the Commonwealth failed to present any corroborating evidence to support a victim's in-court identification testimony did not establish that the identity evidence was insufficient). | 1 | 1 |
Rambert v. Dep't of Corr.green1 sentence2019Appellant points to absences in the evidence presented (the lack of a recovered weapon and lack of a gunshot residue test), but this Court must review the sufficiency of “all evidence actually received.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2019See e.g., Commonwealth v. Johnson, 180 A.3d 474, 478 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 205 A.3d 315 (Pa. 2019) (holding that the appellant’s attempts to enhance his argument by asserting that the Commonwealth failed to present any corroborating evidence to support a victim's in-court identification testimony did not establish that the identity evidence was insufficient). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2019See id. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b 2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kygergreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b 2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen1 sentence2016See Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. at 2177 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beasleygreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b 2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parsonsgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. Cal. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016We must next assess “the degree to which [the gunshot residue test] is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Riley, 134 S.Ct. at 2484 (internal quotations and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b 2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. State
green
1 sentence2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Riley
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b 2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dharminder Vir Sen v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2016See, e.g., Jones v. State, 213 Md.App. 483 , 74 A.3d 802, 813 (2013) (“we conclude that the [gunshot residue] evidence was properly collected in the course of a reasonable search incident to [the defendant’s] lawful arrest, for which no warrant was required”); Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wy.2013) (“in light of the minimal intrusion paused by the swab for gunshot residue and the easy destructibility of such evidence, ad *802 ministration of the gunshot residue test was a valid search incident to arrest”): People v. Allen, 376 Ill.App.3d 511 , 314 Ill.Dec. 934 , 875 N.E.2d 1221, 1228 (2007) ("[b | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Westwood
green
2 sentences2016As such, we will not discuss the temporal limits to the exception. 8 .Within Pennsylvania case law, the earliest reference to a gunshot residue test that this Court Was able to discover was in the 1936 Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion Commonwealth v. Westwood, 324 Pa. 289 , 188 A. 304 (1936). 2016As such, we will not discuss the temporal limits to the exception. 8 .Within Pennsylvania case law, the earliest reference to a gunshot residue test that this Court Was able to discover was in the 1936 Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion Commonwealth v. Westwood, 324 Pa. 289 , 188 A. 304 (1936). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.