Commonwealth v. Birdseye
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge:
We are asked to determine whether prostitution is an offense dangerous to life or limb -within the sweep of both federal and state wiretapping statutes so as to warrant wire tapping for investigations of conduct promoting prostitution. We find, on the record presented on this appeal, that the trial court committed no error in concluding that promoting prostitution does involve danger to life or limb, and that the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act was not violated. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of sentence.
A jury found the Birdseyes guilty…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Commonwealth v. TuladzieckiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. GraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KieselSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Estate of Haiko v. McGinleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Commonwealth v. HakalaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. LarsenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Commonwealth v. BurgosSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.