With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: 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
C: 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
D: 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
D.