was aware he needed a warrant or he would not have asked Lancaster Police to prepare one. Furthermore, Detective Glucksman did obtain a court order from Pennsylvania to monitor the GPS tracker placed on codefendant Baker’s car. Sadly, it appears nothing less than laziness prevented a warrant from being obtained for access to [Ajppellant’s records and live ping tracking. Without a proper warrant, all evidence should have been suppressed. Appellant’s Brief at 32-33 (internal citations to the reproduced record omitted). Under the pre-amended version of the Wiretap Act, therefore, a historical record of cell phone transmissions was, by its very nature, not likely to be recognized as a “contemporaneous acquisition” of a wire, electronic, or oral communication. See Proetto, 771 A.2d at 829 (<HOLDING>). However, the Wiretap Act was later amended
holding that accusers 911 call initial statement to police upon their arrival at the crime scene and statements made to police a short time later were testimonial holding that under state law the police commissioners are not authorized to remove police officers at will but for good and sufficient cause and after due hearing emphasis added holding that text messages forwarded to a police officer after their initial transmission were not intercepted by police but instead later disclosed to police and therefore not contemporaneously acquired as prohibited by the wiretap act holding that there was ample room for the jury to find a snug fit between the defendants acts and the enterprise a city police department since the defendants illegal activities were clearly helped along by the authority vested in him as a police officer and by the reactions  which a police officer uniquely has the ability to engender in others by virtue of his position holding police officer is a public official