§ 5717. Investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications
or derivative evidence.
(a) Law enforcement personnel.--Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, under subsection (a.1), (b), (b.1)
or (c), has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication,
or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents or evidence to another investigative
or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the
proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.
(a.1) Use of information.--Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this
subchapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral
communication or evidence derived therefrom may use such contents or evidence to the
extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of his official duties.
(b) Evidence.--Any person who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of
the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom,
may disclose such contents or evidence to an investigative or law enforcement officer
and may disclose such contents or evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation
in any criminal proceeding in any court of this Commonwealth or of another state or
of the United States or before any state or Federal grand jury or investigating grand
jury.
(b.1) Criminal cases.--Any person who by means authorized by section 5704(17) (relating to exceptions to
prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications) has obtained knowledge
of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived
therefrom, may in addition to disclosures made under subsection (b) disclose such
contents or evidence, on the condition that such disclosure is made for the purpose
of providing exculpatory evidence in an open or closed criminal case.
(c) Otherwise authorized personnel.--
(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), any person who, by any means authorized by
the laws of another state or the Federal Government, has obtained knowledge of the
contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived from any
wire, electronic or oral communication, may disclose the contents or evidence to an
investigative or law enforcement officer and may disclose the contents or evidence
where otherwise admissible while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any
proceeding in any court of this Commonwealth.
(2) The contents of a nonconsensual interception authorized by the laws of the Federal
Government or another state shall not be admissible unless the interception was authorized
by a court upon a finding of probable cause that the target of the surveillance is
engaged or will engage in a violation of the criminal laws of the Federal Government
or any state.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.; Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.;
Oct. 25, 2012, P.L.1634, No.202, eff. 60 days)
2012 Amendment. Act 202 amended subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b.1) and (c).
Cross References. Section 5717 is referred to in sections 5704, 5714, 5718, 5721.1, 5749 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).
Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).
· cites it 8× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717 (pertaining to, inter alia, the investigative disclosure or use of the contents of wire, electronic, or oral communications).”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984).
· cites it 8× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5717. Unauthorized disclosure or use of intercepted telephone conversations is punishable criminally as a felony, 18 Pa.”
Mustafa v. State, 591 A.2d 481 (Md. 1991).
· cites it 2× “" 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5717 (c) (1983). We recognize that Maryland may not ordinarily proscribe conduct occurring outside its boundaries.”
Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 536 A.2d 354 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b) ("Any person who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire or oral communication [may divulge or testify as to those contents]" (emphasis added)), and in State v.”
Birdseye v. Driscoll, 534 A.2d 548 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Officer Gentile contends that summary judgment should be granted in his favor because if there was a disclosure at all, it was done pursuant to his duties as a law enforcement officer.”
Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 690 A.2d 222 (Pa. 1997).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b). [7] We agree with Commonwealth Court that the purpose of the act is to protect privacy.”
Boettger v. Loverro, 555 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Inadvertently, but in violation of the disclosure section of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b), the District Attorney attached a copy of the transcript to his answer and filed it with the clerk of courts.”
Boettger v. Miklich, 599 A.2d 713 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 4× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(a), as amended. Appellants contend that either the IRS and PDR investigators are "investigative or law enforcement officers" for purposes of Section 5717(a) or that disclosure to such investigators is "appropriate to the proper performance of the official…”
Boettger v. Loverro, 587 A.2d 712 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 2× “"Inadvertently, but in violation of the disclosure section of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b), the District Attorney attached a copy of the transcript to his answer and filed it with the clerk of courts.”
Commonwealth v. Taraschi, 475 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1984).
“” The Pennsylvania “Wiretapping and Electronics Surveillance Control Act” provides at 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(c): (c) Otherwise authorized personnel.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5717(a) — 5 cases
Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717 (pertaining to, inter alia, the investigative disclosure or use of the contents of wire, electronic, or oral communications).”
Boettger v. Miklich, 599 A.2d 713 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(a), as amended. Appellants contend that either the IRS and PDR investigators are "investigative or law enforcement officers" for purposes of Section 5717(a) or that disclosure to such investigators is "appropriate to the proper performance of the official…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5717(b) — 7 cases
Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 536 A.2d 354 (Pa. 1987).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b) ("Any person who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire or oral communication [may divulge or testify as to those contents]" (emphasis added)), and in State v.”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5717. Unauthorized disclosure or use of intercepted telephone conversations is punishable criminally as a felony, 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 690 A.2d 222 (Pa. 1997).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b). [7] We agree with Commonwealth Court that the purpose of the act is to protect privacy.”
Boettger v. Loverro, 555 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1989).
“Inadvertently, but in violation of the disclosure section of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b), the District Attorney attached a copy of the transcript to his answer and filed it with the clerk of courts.”
Boettger v. Loverro, 587 A.2d 712 (Pa. 1991).
“"Inadvertently, but in violation of the disclosure section of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(b), the District Attorney attached a copy of the transcript to his answer and filed it with the clerk of courts.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5717(c) — 4 cases
Mustafa v. State, 591 A.2d 481 (Md. 1991).
“" 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5717 (c) (1983). We recognize that Maryland may not ordinarily proscribe conduct occurring outside its boundaries.”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5717. Unauthorized disclosure or use of intercepted telephone conversations is punishable criminally as a felony, 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Taraschi, 475 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1984).
“” The Pennsylvania “Wiretapping and Electronics Surveillance Control Act” provides at 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(c): (c) Otherwise authorized personnel.”
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.