Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet, 194 A.3d 561

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

1. Where an inmate defendant seeks to suppress recordings of his jail visit communications in a criminal proceeding, must the Commonwealth demonstrate that the inmate had actual knowledge that he was being recorded to satisfy the “prior consent” requirement of the two-party consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“Wiretap Act”), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(4)?
2. If actual knowledge is required by the statute, did the Superior Court err in concluding that Byrd had actual knowledge that he was being recorded?

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Sep 19, 2018

Citations: 194 A.3d 561; 179 WAL 2018 (Granted)

Docket Number: 179 WAL 2018 (Granted)

Court Abbreviation: Pa.