Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Hampton

Citations

  • 204 A.3d 452

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that an investigative detention may continue “only so long as is necessary to confirm or dispel [an officer’s] suspicion”
  • ruling the interaction was not a mere encounter where, although the officer “did not activate her emergency lights or siren, she nevertheless restrained [the defendant]’s freedom of movement by means of physical force when she blocked his exit” (cleaned up)
  • interaction was investigative detention where officer’s vehicle blocked defendant from moving his vehicle
  • “If however, a police presence becomes too intrusive, the interaction must be deemed an - 10 - J-A15004-22 investigative detention or seizure. An investigative detention, by implication, carries an official compulsion to stop and respond.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowes, Kunselman, Olson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.