§ 5714. Recording of intercepted communications.
(a) Recording and monitoring.--Any wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted in accordance with this subchapter
shall, if practicable, be recorded by tape or other comparable method. The recording
shall be done in such a way as will protect it from editing or other alteration. Whenever
an interception is being monitored, the monitor shall be an investigative or law enforcement
officer certified under section 5724 (relating to training), and where practicable,
keep a signed, written record which shall include the following:
(1) The date and hours of surveillance.
(2) The time and duration of each intercepted communication.
(3) The participant, if known, in each intercepted conversation.
(4) A summary of the content of each intercepted communication.
(b) Sealing of recordings.--Immediately upon the expiration of the order or extensions or renewals thereof, all
monitor's records, tapes and other recordings shall be transferred to the judge issuing
the order and sealed under his direction. Custody of the tapes, or other recordings
shall be maintained wherever the court directs. They shall not be destroyed except
upon an order of the court and in any event shall be kept for ten years. Duplicate
tapes, or other recordings may be made for disclosure or use pursuant to section 5717
(relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral
communications or derivative evidence). The presence of the seal provided by this
section, or a satisfactory explanation for its absence, shall be a prerequisite for
the disclosure of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence
derived therefrom, under section 5717(b).
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.; Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff.
imd.)
Cross References. Section 5714 is referred to in sections 5704, 5713, 5749, 5773 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 8× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(b). In contrast, the dissent emphasized that the one-party consent provision in Section 5704(2)(ii), which designates the authorizing prosecutor as the custodian of the recorded evidence, does not contain a time frame for the transfer of the recordings.”
Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(a). 16 . Public Law 90-351, Title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, Stats.”
Boettger v. Loverro, 555 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 2× “" 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714 (emphasis added). Since the statute neither prohibits nor sanctions the mere possession of transcripts, but only their disclosure, the very possession of the notes from the transcript by Appellee and/or its reporter did not constitute a violation until such…”
Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(b) (sealing of records).”
Boettger v. Loverro, 587 A.2d 712 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 2× “[9] 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714 states: § 5714. Recording of intercepted communications (a) Recording and monitoring.”
Commonwealth v. Fetter, 770 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
“In response to appellant’s contention that the police officer should not have made copies, we note that the Wiretap Act generally allows investigators to make working copies of tapes for the proper performance of their duties, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5714(b) and 5717; therefore, a…”
Commonwealth v. Whiting, 668 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Quiles, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714. Cf. Commonwealth v. Frank, 357 Pa.”
United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3rd Cir. 1997).
“The district court found that the tapes were sealed as soon as practical after the intervening weekend and denied the motion to suppress. Federal and Pennsylvania law require the sealing of recordings “[i]mmediately” upon the expiration of the surveillance order or any…”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 542 A.2d 185 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “§5702(2)(ii), 3 and therefore, that the special agents were subject to the recording and record keeping re *627 quirements of 18 Pa. C. S. §5714(a). 4 Smith further asserts that, the special agents failed to comply with these requirements, thereby rendering the interception an…”
Com. v. Guarrasi, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(a), a further requirement regarding one-party consensual interceptions is that the law enforcement officer must be certified under the act pursuant to Section 572488 and should maintain a written record regarding the dates and hours of surveillance,…”
Commonwealth v. Shuman, 80 Pa. D. & C.4th 457 (2007).
· cites it 2× “See 18 Pa.C.S. §5714(b); Commonwealth v. Spangler, 570 Pa.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5714(a) — 5 cases
Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(a). 16 . Public Law 90-351, Title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, Stats.”
Commonwealth v. Whiting, 668 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
“Quiles, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714. Cf. Commonwealth v. Frank, 357 Pa.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 542 A.2d 185 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).
“§5702(2)(ii), 3 and therefore, that the special agents were subject to the recording and record keeping re *627 quirements of 18 Pa. C. S. §5714(a). 4 Smith further asserts that, the special agents failed to comply with these requirements, thereby rendering the interception an…”
Com. v. Guarrasi, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(a), a further requirement regarding one-party consensual interceptions is that the law enforcement officer must be certified under the act pursuant to Section 572488 and should maintain a written record regarding the dates and hours of surveillance,…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5714(b) — 6 cases
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(b). In contrast, the dissent emphasized that the one-party consent provision in Section 5704(2)(ii), which designates the authorizing prosecutor as the custodian of the recorded evidence, does not contain a time frame for the transfer of the recordings.”
Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(b) (sealing of records).”
Commonwealth v. Fetter, 770 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
“In response to appellant’s contention that the police officer should not have made copies, we note that the Wiretap Act generally allows investigators to make working copies of tapes for the proper performance of their duties, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5714(b) and 5717; therefore, a…”
United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3rd Cir. 1997).
“The district court found that the tapes were sealed as soon as practical after the intervening weekend and denied the motion to suppress. Federal and Pennsylvania law require the sealing of recordings “[i]mmediately” upon the expiration of the surveillance order or any…”
Commonwealth v. Shuman, 80 Pa. D. & C.4th 457 (2007).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §5714(b); Commonwealth v. Spangler, 570 Pa.”
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.