Commonwealth v. Diego

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “it is, at best, a dubious proposition that the authors of the 4 1978 [WESCA]” intended an exception to apply to technology “not invented until the late 5 1980’s”
• individual lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy over communications when she “knew, or should have known, that the conversation was recorded”
• “The Spence decision did not in any way broaden the telephone exception to the definition of what constitutes an “electronic, mechanical, or other device” under the Wiretap Act.” (citing Com. v. Spence, 91 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2014)
• where the recipient of a text message relayed 2 the message to the police, court concluded that there was no interception because the recipient 3 “control[ed] the destiny of the content of that message once it [was] received.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).