# Commonwealth v. Murray

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 6, 1966 · 423 Pa. 37

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766551

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Murray, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 6, 1966
- **Citations:** 423 Pa. 37; 223 A.2d 102; 1966 Pa. LEXIS 436
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eagen
- **Judges:** Eagen, Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eaeen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766551

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “if detectives and private intermeddlers may, without legal responsibility, peer through 7 keyholes, eavesdrop at the table, listen at the transom and over the telephone, and crawl under the bed, then all constitutional guarantees become [a] meaningless aggregatio…

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I do not construe the Act of July 16, 1957, P. L. 956, §1, 15 P.S. §2443, to be aimed at the use of an ordinary extension telephone. It may well be that eavesdropping of every nature should be proscribed by statute but I am not persuaded that the legislation involved so intended. However, it is clear to me that the recording or wiretapping device used in the instant case was in violation of the statute and that the testimony of the witness Morris was sufficiently predicated upon *54 and tainted by this illegal activity to be inseparable therefrom.
I therefore concur in the grant of a new trial.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766551. Public record. Not legal advice.