Court Opinion

ID: 9705547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:11:18.146213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:34.244225
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority but write separately to further stress that if the June 29, 1994 conversation were an “oral communication” as defined by the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, suppression of the conversation would be required. The Act specifically sets forth simple requirements *528(whether the interception be consensual or nonconsensual) necessary for the approval of the interception of communications. These guidelines were apparently not followed by the Commonwealth in this case, thus necessitating a more taxing inquiry into whether the conversation at issue fell within the definition of an “oral communication.” I echo the majority’s caution to the Commonwealth regarding the failure to obtain prior authorization under the Act; and further admonish the Commonwealth that a prior request and approval, in accordance with the Act, should be made before any interception is permitted to take place.