VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated more fully above, Pennsylvania law controls analysis of the electronic eavesdropping because Pennsylvania law enforcement was involved in the surveillance and Pennsylvania has the greater interest in the outcome. Pennsylvania electronic eavesdrop procedure was not followed and therefore the tapes and or transcripts of the electronic eavesdrops should be suppressed. However, if this Court ultimately concludes that California law controls, suppression is still warranted because Grant Roy’s consent was not voluntary and the communication was intended to be confidential. The defendants request preclusion of any evidence, references to or argument regarding all fruits of the intercept.
For the reasons stated more fully above, Pennsylvania law controls analysis of the electronic eavesdropping because Pennsylvania law enforcement was involved in the surveillance and Pennsylvania has the greater interest in the outcome. Pennsylvania electronic eavesdrop procedure was not followed and therefore the tapes and or transcripts of the electronic eavesdrops should be suppressed. However, if this Court ultimately concludes that California law controls, suppression is still warranted because Grant Roy’s consent was not voluntary and the communication was intended to be confidential. The defendants request preclusion of any evidence, references to or argument regarding all fruits of the intercept.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelly L. Centini, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
John Pike, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
Steven Menn, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra
Michael B. Senape, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra
Shelly L. Centini, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
John Pike, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
Steven Menn, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra
Michael B. Senape, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra
