Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Birdseye

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 18, 1996No. 57 and 58 W.D. Appeal Docket 1994PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

The Appellants were found to have violated 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 911(b)(3) (Corrupt Organizations), 5902(b)(7) (Promoting Prostitution), 5903(a)(2) (Obscene Materials), 5703(1) (Interception of Wire Communications), and 5705(1) (Possession of Intercepting Devices). The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Appellants’ communications were intercepted in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), such that the evidence gathered from the wiretaps should have been suppressed.

The wiretaps at issue here were authorized by a judge of the Superior Court in April of 1986 pursuant to the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DotySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. FlashburgSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. United States v. Millstone Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  4. United States v. Millstone Enterprises, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1988

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Kopko v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Commonwealth v. SpanglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. DeckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Commonwealth v. BurgosSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. State v. OtteSupreme Court of Florida · 2004

8 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