Case ID: a3d_194/html/0561-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. James T. BYRD, a/k/a Al-Tariq Sharif Ali Byrd, Petitioner
    No. 179 WAL 2018
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    September 19, 2018
    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:

i. 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)?
ii. 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?