Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3933 (2026)
Unlawful use of computer (Repealed).
✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
PA-LEGpalegis.us
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 3933. Unlawful use of computer (Repealed).
2002 Repeal. Section 3933 was repealed December 16, 2002 (P.L.1953, No.226), effective in 60 days.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Briggs v. State, 704 A.2d 904 (Md. 1998).
Briggs v. State, 704 A.2d 904 (Md. 1998). “377 (1995); 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 3933 (1994 & Supp.”
State v. Rowell, 895 P.2d 232 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “2d at 690 (quoting 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 3933(a)(1)). Affirming a conviction for a violation of this statute, the Pennsylvania court held that the telephone system, which accessed'a “voice mailbox,” was a computer because it was created by computer software, and messages were…”
Commonwealth v. Sebring, 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 79 (1996). “18 Pa.C.S. §3933. Applying the facts to the charge under (a)(2) of the statute, the Commonwealth has presented a prima facie case showing that the defendant intentionally and without authorization either altered or interfered with a computer program or computer software.”
Com. v. Berry, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “Prothonotary Date: 12/4/2018 ____________________________________________ 10 The appellant in McFadden was convicted of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3933, unlawful use of a computer, which was repealed by 2002, Dec.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3933(a)(1) — 1 case
State v. Rowell, 895 P.2d 232 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “2d at 690 (quoting 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 3933(a)(1)). Affirming a conviction for a violation of this statute, the Pennsylvania court held that the telephone system, which accessed'a “voice mailbox,” was a computer because it was created by computer software, and messages were…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3933(a)(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Sebring, 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 79 (1996). “18 Pa.C.S. §3933. Applying the facts to the charge under (a)(2) of the statute, the Commonwealth has presented a prima facie case showing that the defendant intentionally and without authorization either altered or interfered with a computer program or computer software.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3933(a)(l) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Sebring, 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 79 (1996). “18 Pa.C.S. §3933. Applying the facts to the charge under (a)(2) of the statute, the Commonwealth has presented a prima facie case showing that the defendant intentionally and without authorization either altered or interfered with a computer program or computer software.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.