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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2024 3 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. Thompsongreen2 sentences2024“The very foundation of the Gates totality test is the recognition that all relevant factors go into the probable cause mix.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 935 (Pa. 2009). 2024“The very foundation of the Gates totality test is the recognition that all relevant factors go into the probable cause mix.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 935 (Pa. 2009) “If the issuing officer is presented with evidence of criminal activity at some prior time, this will not support a finding of probable cause as of the date the warrant issues, unless it is also shown that the activity continued up to or about that time.” Commonwealth v. Tolbert, 424 A.2d 1342, 1344 (Pa. 1981) (citation omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Tolbertgreen1 sentence2024“The very foundation of the Gates totality test is the recognition that all relevant factors go into the probable cause mix.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 935 (Pa. 2009) “If the issuing officer is presented with evidence of criminal activity at some prior time, this will not support a finding of probable cause as of the date the warrant issues, unless it is also shown that the activity continued up to or about that time.” Commonwealth v. Tolbert, 424 A.2d 1342, 1344 (Pa. 1981) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Young, B.green1 sentence2024With respect to the contents of a warrant, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution require that warrants “describe with particularity the items sought[.]” Commonwealth v. Young, 287 A.3d 907, 919 (Pa. Super. 2022). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 935 (Pa. 2009) (holding that a police officer’s experience may be regarded as a relevant factor, and reasoning that “[t]he very foundation of the Gates totality test is the recognition that all relevant factors go into the probable cause mix.”) (emphasis added); see also Jones, supra at 654 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||