Commonwealth v. Fant, R., Aplt.
66 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- Fant appeals after Superior Court reversed a Clinton County trial court ruling in a Wiretap Act case.
- The issue centers on whether the Wiretap Act’s 5704(14) exception permits intercepting calls involving an inmate.
- The operative facts involve recorded conversations described as 'visit conversations' with an inmate in a county correctional facility.
- The majority resolves the meaning of 'telephone calls' under 5704(14) and applies the exception to the facts found by the suppression court.
- Justice Wecht concurs in part, agreeing with the majority on the statutory meaning but criticizing the Commonwealth’s alternative 'right-for-any-reason' argument.
- The concurrence notes the right-for-any-reason doctrine is not appropriately used to affirm the intermediate appellate court's decision or to uphold the Commonwealth's position.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 5704(14) apply to the visit conversations as described? | Fant argues the exception covers the conversations at issue. | Commonwealth contends the conversations fall outside the telephone call exception. | Yes; the majority adopts the interpretation and applies the exception. |
| Was there an interception under the Wiretap Act? | Fant/State contend interception occurred under the statutory framework. | Commonwealth asserts no interception under the Act. | Interception found under the 5704(14) framework as applied by the majority. |
| May the right-for-any-reason doctrine sustain the Superior Court's decision? | Commonwealth argues the doctrine supports affirming the intermediate appellate result. | Fant rejects broad application; focus should be on the record and preserved issues. | No; the doctrine is not appropriately invoked here, and does not sustain the decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 5 A.3d 212 (Pa. 2010) (right-for-any-reason doctrine; dissenting view cited)
- Commonwealth v. DiNicola, 866 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2005) (concurring view on right-for-any-reason doctrine focus)
- E.J. McAleer & Co., Inc. v. Iceland Prods., Inc., 381 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1977) (dissent citation regarding doctrine scope)
- Commonwealth v. Katze, 658 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1995) (principal cases on appellate review and preserved issues)