§ 5710. Grounds for entry of order.
(a) Application.--Upon consideration of an application, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested
or as modified, authorizing the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications
anywhere within the Commonwealth, if the judge determines on the basis of the facts
submitted by the applicant that there is probable cause for belief that all the following
conditions exist:
(1) the person whose communications are to be intercepted is committing, has or had committed
or is about to commit an offense as provided in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing
interception of wire, electronic or oral communications);
(2) particular communications concerning such offense may be obtained through such interception;
(3) normal investigative procedures with respect to such offense have been tried and have
failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous
to employ;
(4) the facility from which, or the place where, the wire, electronic or oral communications
are to be intercepted, is, has been, or is about to be used, in connection with the
commission of such offense, or is leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used
by, such person;
(5) the investigative or law enforcement officers or agency to be authorized to intercept
the wire, electronic or oral communications are qualified by training and experience
to execute the interception sought, and are certified under section 5724 (relating
to training); and
(6) in the case of an application, other than a renewal or extension, for an order to
intercept a communication of a person or on a facility which was the subject of a
previous order authorizing interception, the application is based upon new evidence
or information different from and in addition to the evidence or information offered
to support the prior order, regardless of whether such evidence was derived from prior
interceptions or from other sources.
(b) Corroborative evidence.--As part of the consideration of an application in which there is no corroborative
evidence offered, the judge may inquire in camera as to the identity of any informants
or any other additional information concerning the basis upon which the investigative
or law enforcement officer or agency has applied for the order of authorization which
the judge finds relevant in order to determine if there is probable cause pursuant
to this section.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.)
Cross References. Section 5710 is referred to in sections 5712, 5721.1 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Ruder, 62 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 3× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(l-6). One such condition is that probable cause exists to believe that “particular communications concerning [an offense described in section 5708] may be obtained through such interception.”
Commonwealth v. Hashem, 584 A.2d 1378 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5710. It also provides for the suppression of evidence of private conversations obtained through a tap if the requirements annunciated by the legislature are not met.”
Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 546 A.2d 6 (Pa. 1988).
· cites it 4× “termines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that there is probable cause for belief that all the following conditions exist: (1) the person whose communication is to be intercepted is committing, has or had committed or is about to commit [specified offenses];…”
Commonwealth v. Birdseye, 637 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994).
“2d at 882 ; see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710. In “reviewing the adequacy of the application to support the issuance of an order of authorization, we will interpret the *179 application in a common sense manner, not overly technical, with due deference to the findings of the issuing…”
Commonwealth v. Doty, 498 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1985).
“A condition precedent to the issuance of an order authorizing an intercept is a determination by a judge of the Superior Court that “normal investigative procedures with respect to such offense have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if…”
Kopko v. Miller, 842 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(3); Doty . This provision is “designed to guarantee’ that wiretapping will not be resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques are adequate to expose the crime.”
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 696 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(3). Here, that determination was made and the application granted.”
Commonwealth v. Leta, 500 A.2d 85 (Pa. 1985).
“Each application was made and each order was issued in compliance with the mandate of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(6) that new information, different and in addition to previous information, be presented to authorize a new order for the same target or facility.”
Commonwealth v. Pridgen, 965 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
“Here, the Commonwealth acknowledges that no prior judicial approval was obtained for the use of a body wire on the Cl, that there was no emergency situation, and that it did not comply with the one-party consent provision contained within 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5704(2)(ii). 2…”
Com. v. Kuder, W. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 3× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(1–6). One such condition is that probable cause exists to believe that “particular communications concerning [an offense described in section 5708] may be obtained through such interception.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5710(a) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Ruder, 62 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(l-6). One such condition is that probable cause exists to believe that “particular communications concerning [an offense described in section 5708] may be obtained through such interception.”
Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 546 A.2d 6 (Pa. 1988).
“termines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that there is probable cause for belief that all the following conditions exist: (1) the person whose communication is to be intercepted is committing, has or had committed or is about to commit [specified offenses];…”
Com. v. Kuder, W. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(1–6). One such condition is that probable cause exists to believe that “particular communications concerning [an offense described in section 5708] may be obtained through such interception.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5710(a)(1) — 2 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5710(a)(2) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Ruder, 62 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(l-6). One such condition is that probable cause exists to believe that “particular communications concerning [an offense described in section 5708] may be obtained through such interception.”
Com. v. Kuder, W. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(1–6). One such condition is that probable cause exists to believe that “particular communications concerning [an offense described in section 5708] may be obtained through such interception.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5710(a)(3) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Doty, 498 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1985).
“A condition precedent to the issuance of an order authorizing an intercept is a determination by a judge of the Superior Court that “normal investigative procedures with respect to such offense have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if…”
Kopko v. Miller, 842 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(3); Doty . This provision is “designed to guarantee’ that wiretapping will not be resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques are adequate to expose the crime.”
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 696 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(3). Here, that determination was made and the application granted.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5710(a)(6) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 546 A.2d 6 (Pa. 1988).
“termines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that there is probable cause for belief that all the following conditions exist: (1) the person whose communication is to be intercepted is committing, has or had committed or is about to commit [specified offenses];…”
Commonwealth v. Leta, 500 A.2d 85 (Pa. 1985).
“Each application was made and each order was issued in compliance with the mandate of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5710(a)(6) that new information, different and in addition to previous information, be presented to authorize a new order for the same target or facility.”
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.