Commonwealth v. Spence
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
In this criminal action, the trial court suppressed evidence obtained by electronic interception and also evidence subsequently seized from the defendant’s vehicle. The Common*550wealth appealed. It has certified that the court’s suppression of evidence has substantially handicapped the prosecution.1
In August, 1990, state police were able to enlist the services of Donald Dentici, a confidential informant, to assist in the investigation of illegal drug activities in Armstrong County.2 Pursuant thereto, he agreed to permit the interception and recording of telephone conversations with…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. BrachbillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Commonwealth v. ParrellaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Commonwealth v. AdamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. ClarkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PriskSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. Wingait FarmsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. DarushSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. Brantley, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County2012
- Commonwealth v. PriskSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011