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.
§ 5718. Interception of communications relating to other offenses.
When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in court authorized
interceptions of wire, electronic or oral communications in the manner authorized
herein, intercepts wire, electronic or oral communications relating to offenses other
than those specified in the order of authorization, the contents thereof, and evidence
derived therefrom, may be disclosed or used as provided in section 5717(a) (relating
to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications
or derivative evidence). Such contents and evidence may be disclosed in 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
when authorized by a judge who finds on subsequent application that the contents were
otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter. Such application
shall be made as soon as practicable.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.; Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff.
imd.)
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Hashem, 525 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 10× “A criminal complaint was issued against Hashem without prior judicial authority to disclose the contents of the intercepted conversation, as is required by 18 Pa.C.S. § 5718. Both the charges against Hashem and his subsequent conviction, therefore, were tainted by the…”
Commonwealth v. Hashem, 584 A.2d 1378 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Resolution of this case depends upon the proper interpretation of § 5718 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5718. At all times relevant to this case, [1] that section provided: When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in court authorized interceptions of wire or…”
United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3rd Cir. 1997).
· cites it 3× “§§ 2510-2520 (“Title III”); (5) that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the electronically intercepted oral evidence because it was disclosed in violation of 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 5718 and 5717(a); (6) that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the…”
Commonwealth v. Hashem, 534 A.2d 755 (Pa. 1987).
“Petition granted limited to the issue of the construction and application of section 5718 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5718.”
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.