Legal Opinion

Kopko v. Miller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 28, 2006No. 38 MAP 2004PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MAJORITY OPINION

Justice NEWMAN.

In this case, we must determine whether sheriffs are “investigative or law enforcement officers” pursuant to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (Wiretapping Act or Act) 1 and are thus eligible to receive training and certification from the Pennsylvania State Police (State Police) to conduct wiretap investigations. For the reasons that follow, we hold that sheriffs, while performing vital and necessary duties in the Commonwealth, are not “investigative or law enforcement officers” pursuant to the requirements set forth by statute.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ChermanskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. In Re 42 PA. C. S. § 1703Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Commonwealth v. CorleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Commonwealth v. LeetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Commonwealth v. PriceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BaumhammersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Commonwealth v. LoveSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Fletcher v. Pennsylvania Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. FlemingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API