AND NOW, this 19 ^th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

i. Where an inmate defendant seeks to suppress recordings of his jail visit communications in a criminal proceeding, must the Commonwealth demonstrate that the inmate had actual knowledge that he was being recorded to satisfy the "prior consent" requirement of the two-party consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("Wiretap Act"), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(4)?

ii. If actual knowledge is required by the statute, did the Superior Court err in concluding that Byrd had actual knowledge that he was being recorded?