§ 5720. Service of copy of order and application before disclosure of intercepted communication
in trial, hearing or proceeding.
The contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted in accordance
with the provisions of this subchapter, or evidence derived therefrom, shall not be
disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other adversary proceeding before any court of
the Commonwealth unless, not less than ten days before the trial, hearing or proceeding
the parties to the action have been served with a copy of the order, the accompanying
application and the final report under which the interception was authorized or, in
the case of an interception under section 5704 (relating to exceptions to prohibition
of interception and disclosure of communications), notice of the fact and nature of
the interception. The service of inventory, order, application, and final report required
by this section may be waived by the court only where it finds that the service is
not feasible and that the parties will not be prejudiced by the failure to make the
service.
(Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.; Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.)
Suspension by Court Rule. Section 5720 was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure No. 800(14),
amended February 12, 2010, insofar as it is inconsistent with Rule 340(B)(6) relating
to pre-adjudicatory discovery and inspection.
Section 5720 was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure No. 1101(5),
adopted March 1, 2000, insofar as it is inconsistent with Rule No. 573 only insofar
as section 5720 may delay disclosure to a defendant seeking discovery under Rule No.
573(B)(1)(g).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “On January 12, 2017, Appellant filed a letter brief, which argued, among other things, that the Commonwealth failed to comply with the statutory disclosure requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5720. 7 Appellant's Ltr. Br.”
Commonwealth v. Doty, 498 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5720 establish that the contents of intercepted communications shall not be disclosed in any court of the Commonwealth “unless not less than ten days before the trial, hearing or proceeding the parties to the action have been served with a copy of…”
Commonwealth v. McNeil, 808 A.2d 950 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5720, is suspended as inconsistent with Rule 573 only insofar as the section may delay disclosure to a defendant seeking discovery under Rule 573(B)(1)(g) .”
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 516 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Appellee argues that the continuances were a result of its inability to comply with the disclosure provisions of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5720 3 , which requires that certain documents be supplied to all parties prior to any hearing.”
Com. v. Shreffler, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 5× “In relevant part, the trial court quoted 18 Pa.C.S. § 5720 and stated that the Commonwealth notified Appellant of the existence of wiretapped conversations and provided Appellant with copies of the recorded conversations.”
Com. v. Leach, V. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 5× “Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to raise an objection to [Appellant’s] prison phone call pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5720? 2. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the prison tape when the parties to the conversation had not be identified? Appellant’s…”
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.