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.
§ 5715. Sealing of applications, orders and supporting papers.
Applications made, final reports, and orders granted pursuant to this subchapter and
supporting papers and monitor's records shall be sealed by the court and shall be
held in custody as the court shall direct and shall not be destroyed except on order
of the court and in any event shall be kept for ten years. They may be disclosed only
upon a showing of good cause before a court of competent jurisdiction except that
any investigative or law enforcement officer may disclose such applications, orders
and supporting papers and monitor's records to investigative or law enforcement officers
of this or another state, any of its political subdivisions, or of the United States
to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the
official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure. In addition to
any remedies and penalties provided by this subchapter, any violation of the provisions
of this section may be punished as contempt of the court.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.; Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff.
imd.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “As for Appellant's contention that he was entitled to the sealed documents, the Commonwealth responds that no application was made to unseal under *763 18 Pa.C.S. § 5715. 15 Id. at 13-14. The trial court reasons that it was sufficient for the Commonwealth to have provided…”
Boettger v. Loverro, 555 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5715 and 5725(c). Unfortunately, the attachment of the transcript to the District Attorney's answer to the discovery motion corrupts the straightforward disposition of this case.”
Boettger v. Loverro, 502 A.2d 1310 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986).
“The disclosure by the clerk of court of the transcript of appellee’s wiretapped conversations was in violation of the Act, for the transcript was required by the Act to be sealed, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5715, and had it been sealed, appellant would have had no right to see it,…”
Com. v. Shreffler, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “As for Appellant’s contention that he was entitled to the sealed documents, the Commonwealth responds that no application was made to unseal under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5715. Id. at 13-14.15 The trial court reasons that it was sufficient for the Commonwealth to have provided Appellant…”
J. Baney v. M. Fisher (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).
“18 Pa. C.S. §5715 (emphasis added). Additionally, Section 5714(b) states, in relevant part: 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…”
A. Buxton v. OAG (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).
“9 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5715, 5717. Section 5715 of the Wiretap Act mandates that wiretap applications, final reports, orders, supporting papers, and monitor’s records must be sealed by the court.”
Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025).
“]” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5715. As can be seen, the Wiretap Act and its provisions are limited exclusively to the law enforcement community — courts, district attorneys and assistant district attorneys, and investigating police officers.”
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.