green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
20.0 score
“the collective knowledge doctrine unquestionably authorizes police officers to act upon information or instructions from their fellow officers.”
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Baldwin, T.
the collective knowledge doctrine unquestionably authorizes police officers to act upon information or instructions from their fellow officers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitesand Research v. Sehn, P.
Co., 102 F.Supp.3d at 732 (quoting Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 312 (Pa. Super. 2015)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Saunders, T.
Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328, 330-331 (Pa. Super. 2016), affirmed, 169 A.3d 1024 (Pa. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. 2015)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Yong
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
The Superior Court, in a published, majority opinion authored by now-Justice Wecht, began its analysis of this issue by outlining its standard of review in suppression matters, i,e., that appellate review is limited to determining whether the record supports the factual findings of the trial court and whether the legal'conclusions drawn therefrom are correct See Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 304 (Pa. Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Harris, S.
Moreover, a “defendant may be liable for the overt acts committed in furtherance of [a] conspiracy regardless of which co-conspirator committed the act.” Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 312 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal granted on other grounds, 137 A.3d 573 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jasionowski, D.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted), appeal granted on other grounds, __ A.3d __ [606 EAL 2015] (Pa. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McCollum, J.
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here the conduct of the parties indicates that they were acting in concert with a corrupt purpose, the existence of a criminal conspiracy may properly be inferred.” Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 312 (Pa. Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Feierstein, E.
Finally, the trier of fact[,] while passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part[,] or none of the evidence. -6- J-A03027-16 Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Bragg
Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa.Super.2015) (citation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Milazzo, R.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Young, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shields, M.
Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 829, 835-36 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, B.
Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. -8- J-S52037-15 2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Hines, L.
See Appellant’s Brief at 30 (relying on Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2015), to argue that the collective knowledge doctrine applies only where there is evidence of explicit communication between the officer with knowledge to support probable cause to arrest (here, Detective Paul) and the arresting officer (here, Sergeant Jolley)).1 Preliminarily, our review of the record demonstrates that Appellant did not raise, before the suppression/trial court, his argument that Sergeant Jolley lacked probable cause to arrest him because the officer did not, himself, know about Appellan…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Peterson, R.
See Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299 , 312 n.9 (Pa. Super. 2015). “[A] weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post-sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to sentencing.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Johnson, S.
See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004) (stating that direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement is rare and that such an agreement may be proven through circumstantial evidence); see also Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 312 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that "where the conduct of the parties indicates that they were acting in concert with a corrupt purpose, the existence of a criminal conspiracy may be properly inferred.").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Interest of: G.Y., Appeal of: G.Y., a Minor
See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004) (providing that direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement is rare and that such an agreement may be proven through circumstantial evidence); see also Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 312 (Pa. Super. 2015) (providing that “where the conduct of the parties indicates that they were acting in concert with a corrupt purpose, the existence of a criminal conspiracy may be properly inferred.”) Here, the circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, established that G.Y. agreed with the remainder of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Williams, S.
Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 789 (Pa. 2009) (citations omitted) (emphases added); see also Commonwealth v. Yong, 120 A.3d 299, 311 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reiterating this Court will not review sufficiency claim based on diminished record.).
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
Khiri ARTER, Petitioner
v.
Khiri ARTER, Petitioner
11 MAL 2015 (Granted).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 28, 2015.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is as follows:
Whether the Superior Court erred in upholding the Revocation Court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Petitioner’s privacy rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?