From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Katona

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Jan 3, 2019
200 A.3d 8 (Pa. 2019)

Opinion

No. 281 WAL 2018

01-03-2019

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Dennis Andrew KATONA, Petitioner


ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner are:

(1) Whether this Court should grant allowance of appeal to determine if the [e]n [b]anc Superior Court decision conflicts with and renders meaningless this Court's definition of the Independent Source Doctrine as set forth in Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996).
(2) Whether, assuming this Court agrees that in Issue [1], the [e]n [b]anc Superior Court clearly misapplied the Independent Source Doctrine and thus failed to address the primary issue in this case, allowance of appeal should be granted to determine: — as a matter of first impression — if Commonwealth v. Brion, 539 Pa. 256, 652 A.2d 287 (1994) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(iv), require prior judicial approval (i.e. a separate search warrant or order) for each separate entry of either a law enforcement agent or CI who is seeking to record private conversations within a defendant's residence.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Katona

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Jan 3, 2019
200 A.3d 8 (Pa. 2019)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Katona

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent v. DENNIS ANDREW KATONA…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 3, 2019

Citations

200 A.3d 8 (Pa. 2019)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Katona

We granted discretionary review to consider two issues: (1) whether the en banc Superior Court's decision…