Commonwealth v. Fetter

790 A.2d 988

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Fetter. Read the opinion of the Court — 570 Pa. 494 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 31, 2002·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, but LIMITED to the following issue:

1. Whether the Commonwealth failed to comply with the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(iv), 5709(3)(vii), and 5710(a)(3) of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the “Act”) and if the Commonwealth failed to comply with the Act, whether such failure should result in the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Act.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, but LIMITED to the following issue:

1. Whether the Commonwealth failed to comply with the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(iv), 5709(3)(vii), and 5710(a)(3) of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the “Act”) and if the Commonwealth failed to comply with the Act, whether such failure should result in the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Act.

Commonwealth v. Fetter, 790 A.2d 988 (Pa. 2002).

Pincite

790 A.2d 988 (Commonwealth v. Fetter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

§ 5704

Pennsylvania § 5704(2)(iv)

Opinion

Related