Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): McCaffery. The issue in this discretionary appeal is whether a police officer violates the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (“Wiretap Act” or “Act”), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701, et seq., when he communicates directly with a suspect via cell phone text messages while pretending to be the suspect’s accomplice. Because an officer who directly communicates with another person by text-messaging is not eavesdropping or listening in on a conversation, but is himself engaging in the communication, and because for purposes of the Wiretap Act, it is irrelevant that an officer intentionally misrepresents his identity to the person with whom he communicates, we hold that no violation of the Wiretap Act occurred here pursuant to Commonwealth v. Proetto, 771 A.2d 823 (Pa.Super.2001) (<HOLDING>). The Superior Court in the case sub judice 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule announced excluding the results of a wiretap because of improper minimization should not be applied retroactively because to reopen cases even on a limited basis for detailed hearings on the reasonableness of the interception of each phone call during each wiretap would overwhelm the courts (B) holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation (C) holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal (D) holding that where an officer posing as an underage female communicates with a suspected sexual offender in a chat room on the internet no violation of the wiretap act occurs because the officer is a direct party to the communication and thus there has been no interception of a communication (E) holding that if an officer smells the odor of marijuana in circumstances where the officer can localize its source to a person the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is committing the crime of possession of marijuana and thus has authority to arrest him without a warrant in a public place
Output (English): holding that if an officer smells the odor of marijuana in circumstances where the officer can localize its source to a person the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is committing the crime of possession of marijuana and thus has authority to arrest him without a warrant in a public place