Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2/22/2011

Commonwealth v. Holmes

Citations

14 A.3d 89
609 Pa. 1
2011 Pa. LEXIS 384

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the \semantic difference\ between the probable cause standard and the \articulable and reasonable grounds\ are, when balancing the underlying interests, a \distinction without a difference\
noting that a court must give weight to the inferences that a police officer may draw through training and experience
stating that a police officer may conduct a vehicle stop if there is reasonable suspicion that a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code has occurred
explaining that the prior version of Section 6308(b) required an officer to have “articulable and reasonable grounds” which courts interpreted as meaning probable cause, whereas the current version of Section 6308(b) expressly requires only “reasonable grounds”
determining the standard of reasonable suspicion was sufficient to stop a vehicle to investigate a front windshield obstruction
“In assessing the totality of the circumstances, courts must [] afford due weight to the specific, reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in light of the officer’s experience”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Melvin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 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.