Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. James T. BYRD, a/k/a Al-Tariq Sharif Ali Byrd, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2018-09-19
Citations: 194 A.3d 561
Docket Number: No. 179 WAL 2018
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
James T. BYRD, a/k/a Al-Tariq Sharif Ali Byrd, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 194
Pages: 561–561

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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?