Commonwealth v. Spence, 625 Pa. 84

On March 4, 2008 a student (the arrestee) agreed to act as a confidential informant for Trooper Miscannon after being arrested for illegal possession of prescription drugs.
The arrestee identified his supplier (Appellee, “Wes”), handed his cell phone to the trooper who dialed Wes’s number, then returned the phone to the arrestee.
At the trooper’s direction the arrestee activated the phone’s speaker and made two calls arranging an immediate drug transaction; the troopers arrested Appellee at the meeting place and seized controlled substances.
Appellee was charged with possession offenses; he moved to suppress all evidence arguing the trooper’s listening violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the Wiretap Act).
Trial court granted suppression; the Superior Court affirmed, reasoning the phone was a “device” as to the trooper (not furnished to him) and thus the trooper’s listening was an unlawful interception.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the trooper’s listening via the informant’s speakerphone violated the Wiretap Act.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether Trooper Miscannon’s eavesdropping on the informant’s speakerphone constituted an unlawful "interception" under the Wiretap Act	The phone is excluded from the Act’s definition of "device" when furnished to the subscriber; the trooper’s conduct did not convert the phone into a prohibited device or make his listening an interception	The trooper listened without the parties’ effective consent; the Wiretap Act’s device exception does not apply where an officer dials and directs an informant while eavesdropping	The Supreme Court reversed: a telephone furnished to a subscriber is exempt from the Act’s definition of "device," so the trooper did not violate the Wiretap Act by listening via the informant’s speakerphone.

Commonwealth v. Wright, 14 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2011) (statutory interpretation standard and de novo review)
Commonwealth v. Cruttenden, 976 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 2009) (contrasting Superior Court view on officer-as-user in electronic communications)
Commonwealth v. Cruttenden, 58 A.3d 95 (Pa. 2012) (Supreme Court reversal of Cruttenden on related issues)
Commonwealth v. Brachbill, 555 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1989) (earlier interpretation of interception before statutory definitional changes)