X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
� 1 This matter is before this Court pursuant to a remand order of our Supreme Court which reversed our earlier decision and directed remand for reconsideration in light of its decision in Commonwealth v. Rekasie, 778 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2001). See Commonwealth v. Darush, 9 W.D. 200, filed January 8, 2002.

� 2 The appeal was brought by the Commonwealth from a pretrial suppression order which directed the suppression of the contents of a recorded one-party consensual telephone conversation made to Appellee’s home and a later call placed to Appellee’s “shop.” This Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. We held that Commonwealth v. Brion 652 A.2d 287 (Pa. 1994) and Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 536 A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. 1987), aff’d, 652 A.2d 294 (Pa. 1994), established that Appellee’s legitimate expectation of privacy was violated when a one-party consensual intercept recorded telephone conversations placed to Appellee in his home. We further found that the recording of a subsequent telephone conversation placed to Appellee at his shop was properly suppressed as “fruit” of the initial seizure. We ruled that absent the issuance of a warrant prior to the recording of such a conversation, the monitoring was prohibited and the trial court properly granted Appellee’s motion to suppress the recorded conversations. Commonwealth v. Darush, 740 A.2d 722 (Pa. Super. 1999). Pursuant to our Supreme Court’s remand order we now reconsider our decision in view of the ruling set forth in Rekasie.

� 3 In Rekasie law enforcement officials engaging in a drug investigation received approval in accordance with 18 Pa.C.S.A. � 5704(2)(ii) to conduct a voluntary intercept of telephone conversations initiated by a call placed by a cooperative informant to the defendant in the defendant’s home. The Supreme Court considered whether “our Commonwealth’s Constitution requires that the Commonwealth obtain a probable cause determination from a neutral judicial authority before it may monitor a telephone conversation between a cooperative informant and another individual.” Id. at 627. The Court found that it first must determine whether the defendant held a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephonic communication. It ruled that because of the nature of telephonic communication any expectation of privacy that the defendant held was not “an expectation that society would recognize as objectively reasonable.” Id. at 631. Accordingly, the Court held that “the Commonwealth was not required to obtain a determination of probable cause by a neutral judicial authority prior to monitoring the telephone conversation between [the defendant] and the confidential informant… .” Id.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

Florida Legal Awards 2022

May 19, 2022
Miami, FL

Daily Business Review honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in Florida.


Learn More

Florida Legal Awards 2022 (FLLA)

May 19, 2022
Miami, FL

Daily Business Review honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in Florida.


Learn More

WIPL.UK 2022

May 18, 2022 - May 19, 2022
London

The original national forum facilitating women-to-women exchange on leadership and current legal issues in the UK.


Learn More

Litigation Associate


A well-respected regional law firm that has represented businesses in Tampa Bay for decades is seeking a commercial litigation associate to ...


Apply Now ›

Trial Attorney - New York


Auto defense firm seeks experienced TRIAL ATTORNEY to do trials,motions, court appearances and depositions. Email resume: [email protected]


Apply Now ›

Medical Malpractice In-House Counsel


An innovative surgery center headquartered in the Tampa Bay area is seeking a Counsel to handle Medical Malpractice as well as general corpo...


Apply Now ›

LAWRENCE LAW LLC

05/16/2022
NJLJ Web

Lawrence Law LLC congratulates Jeralyn Lawrence, Esq. on her upcoming installation as President of the New Jersey State Bar Association


View Announcement ›

RAYNES & LAWN

05/11/2022
TLI Web

RAYNES & LAWN is Proud to Welcome Next Generation to the Firm


View Announcement ›

VAN DER VEEN, O NEILL, HARTSHORN, AND LEVIN

05/11/2022
TLI Web

VAN DER VEEN HARTSHORN & LEVIN Congratulates the Attorney of the Year Finalists named by The Legal Intelligencer


View Announcement ›