Commonwealth v. Katona, D., Pet

200 A.3d 8

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 3, 2019
• Docket: 281 WAL 2018 (Granted)
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 3 ^rd day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner are:

(1) Whether this Court should grant allowance of appeal to determine if the [e]n [b]anc Superior Court decision conflicts with and renders meaningless this Court's definition of the Independent Source Doctrine as set forth in Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323 , 676 A.2d 226 (1996).

(2) Whether, assuming this Court agrees that in Issue [1], the [e]n [b]anc Superior Court clearly misapplied the Independent Source Doctrine and thus failed to address the primary issue in this case, allowance of appeal should be granted to determine: - as a matter of first impression - if Commonwealth v. Brion, 539 Pa. 256 , 652 A.2d 287 (1994) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(iv), require prior judicial approval (i.e. a separate search warrant or order) for each separate entry of either a law enforcement agent or CI who is seeking to record private conversations within a defendant's residence.