(MCKEAN COUNTY, Pennsylvania; March 12, 2024):  The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reversed a ruling by a McKean County Judge that had suppressed evidence in a drug case in McKean County.  District Attorney Stephanie Vettenburg-Shaffer appealed the initial ruling and argued the case in front of the Superior Court in recent months.  By Order dated March 7, 2024, the Superior Court reversed the Judge’s ruling.

Detective Kolin Strawcutter of the McKean County Drug Task Force filed charges against Michael Lissmore in 2022. Charges include Delivery of a Controlled Substance.  The defense filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained by use of a recording device, commonly referred to as a “wire.” 

The McKean County Judge ruled in favor of the defense and the DA appealed.  The crux of the appeal is whether the Wiretap Act allows a person, acting with law enforcement, to agree to record over a period of time conversations involving suspected criminal activity or whether they can only agree to record one conversation at a time.

The District Attorney argued in the appeal that one party to a conversation can consent to recordings that are to occur during a set period of time during a criminal investigation– which occurred in this case. 

The District Attorney argued that the Judge made a mistake in finding that a person cannot consent to recordings over a period of time.The Superior Court agreed with the District Attorney’s Office.  The Superior Court noted that, while the Judge initially found that the procedure used by the Detectives and the District Attorney satisfied the requirements of the Wiretap Act, it, nonetheless, granted the defense motion to suppress evidence. 

The Superior Court, in reversing the Judge’s ruling, ruled that the steps followed in the case satisfied the requirements under the Wiretap Act and the bases for suppression the Judge relied on in suppressing the evidence was not required under the Act.  In essence, the Act does not require a person to consent to record a specific conversation but, rather, they can agree to record conversations as part of a criminal investigation over a period of time.  The Court summarized, “There is no statutory requirement that consent be authorized prior to every conversation.” 

District Attorney Vettenburg-Shaffer responded to the Superior Court opinion:  “Wiretap evidence is critical in major drug investigations and use of them is considered the norm in McKean County if not nearly a requirement under the exacting standards of our Detectives.   Many of the Detectives with the McKean County Drug Task Force have attended special training to become wiretap-certified, meaning they are permitted to obtain evidence with a recording device.  In Pennsylvania, it is generally illegal to record another person without their knowledge.  One exception to this is when done by the Police or a person acting with the Police and after they have met with the prosecutor so the prosecutor can ensure that the person is consenting to record conversations of suspected criminal activity.  These safeguards are in place to ensure that law enforcement is able to obtain evidence by use of a recording device while ensuring oversight by the prosecutor.”   

“My office has strict standards for use of recording devices in cases and I am pleased that the Superior Court agreed with these standards and the protocols we have in place,” noted DA Shaffer.