Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet

194 A.3d 561

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 19, 2018·No. 179 WAL 2018 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 19 ^th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

i. Where an inmate defendant seeks to suppress recordings of his jail visit communications in a criminal proceeding, must the Commonwealth demonstrate that the inmate had actual knowledge that he was being recorded to satisfy the "prior consent" requirement of the two-party consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("Wiretap Act"), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(4)?

ii. If actual knowledge is required by the statute, did the Superior Court err in concluding that Byrd had actual knowledge that he was being recorded?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 19 ^th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

i. Where an inmate defendant seeks to suppress recordings of his jail visit communications in a criminal proceeding, must the Commonwealth demonstrate that the inmate had actual knowledge that he was being recorded to satisfy the "prior consent" requirement of the two-party consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("Wiretap Act"), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(4)?

ii. If actual knowledge is required by the statute, did the Superior Court err in concluding that Byrd had actual knowledge that he was being recorded?

Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet, 194 A.3d 561 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

194 A.3d 561 (Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related