Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jeffrey S. CRUTTENDEN, Respondent. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner. Stephen V. Lanier, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2011-06-16
Citations: 21 A.3d 680
Docket Number: 
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jeffrey S. CRUTTENBEN, Respondent. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner. Stephen V. Lanier, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 21
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Jeffrey S. CRUTTENBEN, Respondent. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner. Stephen V. Lanier, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
June 16, 2011.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal i: GRANTED. The issue, as presented by Petitioner, is:
Does a police officer violate the Wiretap Act by pretending to be an accomplice and communicating directly with a suspect by text messaging?