Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez

Citations

  • 548 A.2d 1211
  • 519 Pa. 415
  • 1988 Pa. LEXIS 249

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that one-party consensual wiretapping, as authorized by section 5704(2)(ii), does not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
  • construing Pa. Const. Art. 1, sec. 8 in accordance with Fourth Amendment precedent
  • construing Pa. Const. Art. 1, sec. 8 in accordance with Fourth Amendment precedent
  • upholding interceptions of oral communications made pursuant to § 5704(2)(ii) of the Wiretap Act in the face of challenges under Article I, Section 8, by citing Blystone but without specifically discussing the issue of interceptions made in a private residence
  • upholding interceptions of oral communications made pursuant to § 5704(2)(ii) of the Wiretap Act in the face of challenges under Article I, Section 8, by citing Blystone but without specifically discussing the issue of interceptions made in a private residence
  • one-party consensual electronic interception of communications regarding a drug transaction did not violate Article I, § 8

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Stout

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.