Commonwealth v. Cruttenden
58 A.3d 95
| Pa. | 2012Background
- In March 2007, state troopers stopped a vehicle with Arizona plates for speeding on I-80 in Clearfield County and found 35 pounds of marijuana, meth-amphetamines, drug paraphernalia, a .45 caliber handgun, and a tracfone during a consensual search.
- Michael Amodeo admitted using the tracfone to text Lanier to exchange marijuana for $19,000.
- Trooper Houk obtained permission to use the tracfone and, posing as Amodeo, texted Lanier to confirm identity and ongoing communication.
- Lanier designated a Holiday Inn parking lot as a rendezvous for the drug deal, signaling readiness to complete the transaction.
- Police arrested Lanier; they recovered $20,000 from Lanier and obtained a search warrant for the vehicle, which yielded a tracfone bearing the number used to text-message Amodeo.
- Cruttenden and Lanier were charged with criminal offenses; suppression motions alleging unlawful interception were denied, leading to appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Wiretap Act was violated by text-message communications where an officer pretended to be an accomplice. | Lanier contends interception occurred because the officer impersonated another party. | Commonwealth contends the officer was a direct party to the communication, so no interception occurred. | No interception under the Wiretap Act. |
| Whether Proetto applies to this case to prohibit suppression of the text messages. | Lanier relies on Proetto’s reasoning that a direct party is not subject to interception. | Cruttenden distinguishes Proetto; argues Proetto is inapplicable here. | Proetto dispositive; no interception under Proetto rationale. |
| Whether misrepresentation of identity by the officer affects the application of the Wiretap Act. | Lanier’s claim that identity misrepresentation matters to interception. | Identity misrepresentation is irrelevant if the officer is a direct party. | Misrepresentation irrelevant; direct-party status governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Proetto, 575 Pa. 511, 837 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 2003) (case upholding no interception when detective is direct party to chat with offender in Proetto)
- Commonwealth v. Cruttenden, 976 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 2009) (distinguishes Proetto, leading to appellate discussion in Cruttenden)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 186 Pa. Super. 89, 140 A.2d 347 (Pa. Super. 1958) (predecessor holding: police answering calls during raids not interception)
- Commonwealth v. DiSilvio, 232 Pa. Super. 386, 335 A.2d 785 (Pa. Super. 1975) (precedent that callers freely elected to talk to officers; officers as parties)