(dissenting).
Today, the majority decrees that the price every man, woman and child must pay to call the police department is the surrender of the caller’s right to telephonic privacy guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Anti-Wire Tap Act.1 The majority declares that by merely dialing the police department’s telephone number, the caller consents to have his conversation intercepted, recorded and replayed to others at the sole discretion of the police. That declaration plainly disregards the express words of the statute and is tantamount to judicial repeal of the Act’s guarantee of privacy.
The Pennsylvania Anti-Wire Tap Act was created to stem the fears articulated by Justice Brandéis almost 50 years ago: “As a means of espionage, writs of assistance *445and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire-tapping.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 476, 48 S.Ct. 564, 571, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928).
More recently, the Task Force on Organized Crime noted: “In a democratic society, privacy of communications is essential if citizens are to think and act constructively.” President’s Committee on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, Task Force Report on Organized Crime ( ).
The Act’s provisions are explicit and direct. Any person intercepting a call without the consent of both parties to the conversation commits a misdemeanor. Any person divulging the content of the call also commits a misdemeanor. “[N]o evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful interception shall be admissable in any [judicial] proceeding.” No words could express a prohibition more emphatically and straightforwardly.
Here, the police department’s interception, recording and disclosure of appellee’s telephone conversation without his permission clearly violated his statutorily guaranteed right of privacy. Commonwealth v. Papszycki, 442 Pa. 234, 275 A.2d 28 (1971). Commonwealth v. Murray, 423 Pa. 37, 223 A.2d 102 (1966). The police played the taped telephone call to the victim’s daughter and grandchildren who identified Gullett’s voice. The contents of the telephone conversation were used against the caller; they were “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful interception.” Despite the Act’s unambiguous mandate forbidding the use of such evidence in judicial proceedings, the magistrate considered the telephone voice identification in determining probable cause. Clearly that use is prohibited and the majority’s refusal to so hold defies both the Act’s prohibition and the caller’s privacy.
The majority attempts to justify defiance of the Act by imposing a coerced consent upon the caller. This *446technique is legally, logically and realistically threadbare. Valid consent requires an “ ‘essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.’ ” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Surely by calling the police or any other government agency one does not freely choose to consent to the interception of his conversation. The majority by imposing a waiver of statutory rights as a condition to access to the police, employs a fiction stripping the caller of the Act’s protection.
The majority’s imposed consent approach creates an exception to the statute’s prohibitions specifically denied the police and all other governmental agencies by the very language of the Act. The Anti-Wire Tap Act explicitly directs that its prohibitions extend to “persons acting or purporting to act for, or in behalf of, any government or subdivision thereof, whether Federal, State or local.” In Commonwealth v. Papszycki, 442 Pa. 234, 275 A.2d 28 (1966), this court unanimously declared:
“Pennsylvania’s anti-wire tapping statute clearly demands that the consent of all parties be given before any device for overhearing or recording is installed or utilized. The statute contains no exceptions even for interceptions by governmental authorities engaged in an attempt to apprehend a criminal.”
Id. at 239,275 A.2d at 30 (footnote omitted).
The majority’s unusual conception of consent here employed not only distorts the clear words of the Act but also destroys the very essence of the statutory guarantee just as completely as if the Legislature had itself repealed the Act. Its interpretation defies the legislative will and is wholly unmindful of this Court’s conclusion in Papszycki, supra, that:
“the Legislature had determined as a matter of state public policy that the right of any caller to the privacy of his conversations is of greater societal value than *447the interest served by permitting eavesdropping or wiretapping. Such a determination, when within constitutional limits, is solely within the discretion of the Legislature.”
Id. at 239, 275 A.2d at 30-31. Despite the definite command of the statute and this Court’s decision in Papszycki, the majority utterly disregards the balance struck by the Legislature and intrudes into an area “[sjolely within the discretion of the Legislature.”
In 1957, the Legislature created in the Anti-Wire Tap Act a bastion of telephonic privacy. In 1971, this Court in Papszycki unanimously enforced the Act’s guarantees. Today the majority departs from our case and statutory law and arbitrarily terminates the Act’s guarantees of telephone privacy. This enormous invasion of guaranteed privacy of telephonic communications compels dissent.
Furthermore, in my view, an issuing magistrate may not consider a suspect’s arrest record. Our Superior Court has consistently reached the same conclusion. Commonwealth v. Davis, 225 Pa.Super. 242, 245, 310 A. 2d 334, 336 (1973); Commonwealth v. Suppa, 223 Pa.Super. 513, 516, 302 A.2d 357, 358-359 (1973) ; Commonwealth v. Dial, 218 Pa.Super. 248, 255, 276 A.2d 314, 318, aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 445 Pa. 251, 285 A.2d 125 (1971).
A police affirmation that the suspect has been arrested in the past is little more than a claim that the accused is believed by the police to have been involved in criminal activity. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 414, 89 S.Ct. 584, 588, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). An arrest record reveals nothing of the probability that the suspect committed the particular crime under investigation. More fundamentally, without a conviction it does not even show that he committed the other crime. In Spinelli, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to *448permit such a bald assertion to support a warrant. 393 U.S. at 414, 89 S.Ct. at 588. Here the facts dictate the same result.
Properly analyzed, an arrest record is nothing more than a hearsay declaration that an unnamed police officer at some time in the past suspected the accused of another crime. True, magistrates may consider hearsay in proceedings for a warrant. However, the Constitution requires that probable cause “be determined by a 'neutral and detached magistrate,’ and not by 'the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ ” Spinelli, supra, at 415, 89 S.Ct. at 588-589.
Thus we require that the affiant inform the magistrate of some of the underlying circumstances upon which the informant bases his conclusion and the reasons why the affiant believes the informant to be reliable. Commonwealth v. Conner, 452 Pa. 333, 337, 305 A.2d 341, 343 (1973). See Spinelli, supra, U.S. at 413, 89 S.Ct. at 587; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964).2
In this case, the police submitted none of this information. The magistrate was thus unable to establish independently that probable cause existed. Absent such information, it cannot be said that probable cause was determined by a neutral and detached magistrate as required by the Constitution. Spinelli, supra, at 415, 89 S. Ct. 588-589.
Even if it were assumed that an arrest record may be considered in establishing probable cause, it would at least require that the magistrate be informed when the arrest occurred. Certainly an arrest years prior to the *449warrant request has no probative weight. The affiant here failed to disclose whether the arrest had taken place twenty years, twenty months or twenty days before the offense. Therefore, it could not form the basis for the issuance of a warrant. Commonwealth v. Eazer, 455 Pa. 320, 312 A.2d 398 (1973).3 See Commonwealth v. Manduchi, 222 Pa.Super. 562, 453 Pa. 488, 493-494, 309 A.2d 358, 361-562, 295 A.2d 150 (1972); see also Secretary of Revenue v. John’s Vending Corp., 362 (1973);4 McIntosh v. Pittsburgh Rys., 432 Pa. 123, 247 A.2d 467 (1968).
The only factual assertions tending to establish probable cause were that appellee knew the deceased, that he was absent from his home at the time of the crime, and that he exclaimed the victim’s name when told of the murder. All this is constitutionally insufficient to show *450probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. I dissent and would affirm the suppression court.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this dissent.. “No person shall intercept a communication by telephone or telegraph without permission of the parties to such communication. No person shall install or employ any device for overhearing or recording communications passing through a telephone or telegraph line with intent to intercept a communication in violation of this act. No person shall divulge or use the contents or purport of a communication intercepted in violation of this act. Whoever wilfully violates or aids, abets or procures a violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year, or by fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5000), or both, and shall be liable to any person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted or divulged for treble the amount of any damage resulting from.such unlawful interception, divulgence or use, but in no event less than one hundred dollars ($100) and a reasonable attorney’s fee. The term ‘person’ includes natural persons, business associations, partnerships, corporations, or other legal entities, and persons acting or purporting to act for, or in behalf of, any government or subdivision thereof, whether Federal, State or local. The term ‘divulge’ includes divulgence to a fellow employe or official in government or private enterprise or in a judicial, administrative, legislative or other proceeding. Except as proof in a suit or prosecution for a violation of this act, no evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful interception shall be admissible in any such proceeding. Nothing in this act shall be interpreted to apply to acts done by personnel of any telephone or telegraph carrier in the performance of their duties in connection with the construction, maintenance or operation of a telephone or telegraph system.”
Act of July 16, 1957, P.L. 956, § 1, 18 P.S. § 3742 (Supp.1973).
. The views of the Chief Justice in United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 2081, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), provide no authority for the majority’s position. First, this is not a case where the reputation of the suspect was personally known to the affiant. Second, the relevant part of the Chief Justice’s opinion announcing the result in Harris was joined by only two other justices. Four justices dissented.
. In Eazer, police officers relied on evidence of criminal conduct gathered 61 days prior to their warrant request to show probable cause. We held that probable cause had not been established.
“[A] two-month-old criminal act is too remote in time and certainty to provide the requisite existing probable cause necessary for the issuance of a search warrant.”
455 Pa. at 325, 312 A.2d at 400.
. In John’s Vending Corp., Mr Justice Nix speaking for the Court said:
“[T]he fact that these crimes occurred almost twenty years ago renders them of little value in predicting future conduct of their perpetrator. Cf. McIntosh v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 432 Pa. 123, 247 A.2d 467 (1968). A provision of the nature of Section 403(2) at best only suggests that a person who has committed certain acts in the past would be more likely to betray the trust that this license entails than a citizen with no such past history. Such reasoning, while not infallible, has a logical basis in experience. But that basis exists only where those events occurred so recently that the particular character trait of the individual involved can reasonably be assumed to have remained unchanged. Where, as here, nearly twenty years has expired since the convictions and the record reveals that the individual has held this position of responsibility for twelve years without any allegation of impropriety, it is ludicrous to contend that those prior acts provide any basis to evaluate his present character.”
Secretary of Revenue v. John’s Vending Corp., 453 Pa. at 493-494, 309 A.2d at 361-362.