Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Dennis Andrew KATONA, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2019-01-03
Citations: 200 A.3d 8
Docket Number: No. 281 WAL 2018
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
Dennis Andrew KATONA, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 200
Pages: 8–8

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
Dennis Andrew KATONA, Petitioner
No. 281 WAL 2018
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
January 3, 2019
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner are:
(1) Whether this Court should grant allowance of appeal to determine if the [e]n [b]anc Superior Court decision conflicts with and renders meaningless this Court's definition of the Independent Source Doctrine as set forth in Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996).
(2) Whether, assuming this Court agrees that in Issue [1], the [e]n [b]anc Superior Court clearly misapplied the Independent Source Doctrine and thus failed to address the primary issue in this case, allowance of appeal should be granted to determine: - as a matter of first impression - if Commonwealth v. Brion, 539 Pa. 256, 652 A.2d 287 (1994) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(iv), require prior judicial approval (i.e. a separate search warrant or order) for each separate entry of either a law enforcement agent or CI who is seeking to record private conversations within a defendant's residence.