§ 5721.1. Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidence.
(a) Disclosure in evidence generally.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall disclose the contents of any
wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, in any proceeding
in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth.
(2) Any person who has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral
communication, or evidence derived therefrom, which is properly subject to disclosure
under section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire,
electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence) may also disclose such contents
or evidence in any matter relating to any criminal, quasi-criminal, forfeiture, administrative
enforcement or professional disciplinary proceedings in any court, board or agency
of this Commonwealth or of another state or of the United States or before any state
or Federal grand jury or investigating grand jury. Once such disclosure has been made,
then any person may disclose the contents or evidence in any such proceeding.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), no disclosure in any such proceeding
shall be made so long as any order excluding such contents or evidence pursuant to
the provisions of subsection (b) is in effect.
(b) Motion to exclude.--Any aggrieved person who is a party to any proceeding in any court, board or agency
of this Commonwealth may move to exclude the contents of any wire, electronic or oral
communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on any of the following grounds:
(1) Unless intercepted pursuant to an exception set forth in section 5704 (relating to
exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications), the interception
was made without prior procurement of an order of authorization under section 5712
(relating to issuance of order and effect) or an order of approval under section 5713(a)
(relating to emergency situations) or 5713.1(b) (relating to emergency hostage and
barricade situations).
(2) The order of authorization issued under section 5712 or the order of approval issued
under section 5713(a) or 5713.1(b) was not supported by probable cause with respect
to the matters set forth in section 5710(a)(1) and (2) (relating to grounds for entry
of order).
(3) The order of authorization issued under section 5712 is materially insufficient on
its face.
(4) The interception materially deviated from the requirements of the order of authorization.
(5) With respect to interceptions pursuant to section 5704(2), the consent to the interception
was coerced by the Commonwealth.
(6) Where required pursuant to section 5704(2)(iv), the interception was made without
prior procurement of a court order or without probable cause.
(c) Procedure.--
(1) The motion shall be made in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure governing
such proceedings. The court, board or agency, upon the filing of such motion, shall
make available to the movant or his counsel the intercepted communication and evidence
derived therefrom.
(2) In considering a motion to exclude under subsection (b)(2), both the written application
under section 5710(a) and all matters that were presented to the judge under section
5710(b) shall be admissible.
(3) The movant shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the
grounds for exclusion asserted under subsection (b)(3) and (4).
(4) With respect to exclusion claims under subsection (b)(1), (2) and (5), the respondent
shall bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
(5) With respect to exclusion claims under subsection (b)(6), the movant shall have the
initial burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the interception
took place in his home. Once he meets this burden, the burden shall shift to the respondent
to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the interception was in accordance
with section 5704(2)(iv).
(6) Evidence shall not be deemed to have been derived from communications excludable under
subsection (b) if the respondent can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Commonwealth or the respondent had a basis independent of the excluded communication
for discovering such evidence or that such evidence would have been inevitably discovered
by the Commonwealth or the respondent absent the excluded communication.
(d) Appeal.--In addition to any other right of appeal, the Commonwealth shall have the right to
appeal from an order granting a motion to exclude if the official to whom the order
authorizing the intercept was granted shall certify to the court that the appeal is
not taken for purposes of delay. The appeal shall be taken in accordance with the
provisions of Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure).
(e) Exclusiveness of remedies and sanctions.--The remedies and sanctions described in this subchapter with respect to the interception
of wire, electronic or oral communications are the only judicial remedies and sanctions
for nonconstitutional violations of this subchapter involving such communications.
(Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.)
1998 Amendment. Act 19 added section 5721.1.
Cross References. Section 5721.1 is referred to in section 5749 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · 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 9× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth six different grounds for exclusion.”
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 12× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and amicus curiae, the Attorney General, maintain that the plain language of the applicable statutory exclusionary rule, 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014).
· cites it 3× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a court proceeding, “may move to exclude” from evidence the contents of a wire communication, on the ground that it was intercepted by law enforcement without prior approval, see 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Katona, 191 A.3d 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), (c)(5). 3 See Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Ruder, 62 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 3× “The previous version of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1, which authorizes an aggrieved party to seek suppression of improperly intercepted evidence, did not contain the term "probable cause.”
Larrison v. Larrison, 750 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. Karen argues that this law prevents the trial court from admitting the recording of her conversation with Timothy’s sister into evidence during the court proceeding.”
Commonwealth v. Pridgen, 965 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 4× “¶ 5 On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review: Whether the suppression court erred by excluding (as the term “exclude” is contemplated by 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5721.1(b)) “... any and all evidence pertaining to the wiretap and the taped conversation .”
Com. v. Shreffler, S., No. 1375 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2018).
· cites it 5× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth - 15 - J-S32029-18 & J-S32030-18 six different grounds for exclusion.”
Com. v. Myers, M., No. 3121 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 26, 2018).
· cites it 3× “12 18 Pa.C.S § 5721.1(b), (c), (e). Here, Appellant ____________________________________________ 12 See also Pa.”
Com. v. Katona, D., No. 1995 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 14, 2018).
· cites it 3× “See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v.”
Com. v. Patrick, J., III, No. 1631 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2019).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a)(2). However, [a]ny aggrieved person who is a party to any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth may move to exclude the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on .”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(a): 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a court proceeding, “may move to exclude” from evidence the contents of a wire communication, on the ground that it was intercepted by law enforcement without prior approval, see 18 Pa.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(a)(1): 2 cases
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(a)(2): 1 case
Com. v. Patrick, J., III, No. 1631 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2019).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a)(2). However, [a]ny aggrieved person who is a party to any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth may move to exclude the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on .”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(b): 12 cases
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a court proceeding, “may move to exclude” from evidence the contents of a wire communication, on the ground that it was intercepted by law enforcement without prior approval, see 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Ruder, 62 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“The previous version of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1, which authorizes an aggrieved party to seek suppression of improperly intercepted evidence, did not contain the term "probable cause.”
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and amicus curiae, the Attorney General, maintain that the plain language of the applicable statutory exclusionary rule, 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Pridgen, 965 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
“¶ 5 On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review: Whether the suppression court erred by excluding (as the term “exclude” is contemplated by 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5721.1(b)) “... any and all evidence pertaining to the wiretap and the taped conversation .”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(b)(1): 6 cases
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and amicus curiae, the Attorney General, maintain that the plain language of the applicable statutory exclusionary rule, 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth six different grounds for exclusion.”
Com. v. Shreffler, S., No. 1375 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth - 15 - J-S32029-18 & J-S32030-18 six different grounds for exclusion.”
Com. v. Patrick, J., III, No. 1631 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2019).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a)(2). However, [a]ny aggrieved person who is a party to any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth may move to exclude the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on .”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(b)(2): 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth six different grounds for exclusion.”
Com. v. Shreffler, S., No. 1375 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth - 15 - J-S32029-18 & J-S32030-18 six different grounds for exclusion.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(b)(3): 1 case
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(b)(5): 1 case
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth six different grounds for exclusion.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(b)(6): 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Katona, 191 A.3d 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), (c)(5). 3 See Commonwealth v.”
Com. v. Katona, D., No. 1995 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 14, 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(c)(1): 1 case
Com. v. Myers, M., No. 3121 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 26, 2018).
“12 18 Pa.C.S § 5721.1(b), (c), (e). Here, Appellant ____________________________________________ 12 See also Pa.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(c)(3): 1 case
Com. v. Shreffler, S., No. 1375 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth - 15 - J-S32029-18 & J-S32030-18 six different grounds for exclusion.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(c)(4): 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. That section sets forth six different grounds for exclusion.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(c)(6): 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Katona, 191 A.3d 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), (c)(5). 3 See Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Pridgen, 965 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
“¶ 5 On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review: Whether the suppression court erred by excluding (as the term “exclude” is contemplated by 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5721.1(b)) “... any and all evidence pertaining to the wiretap and the taped conversation .”
Com. v. Katona, D., No. 1995 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 14, 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), ____________________________________________ 2 See Commonwealth v.”
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721.1(e): 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and amicus curiae, the Attorney General, maintain that the plain language of the applicable statutory exclusionary rule, 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Katona, 191 A.3d 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5721.1(b)(6), (c)(5). 3 See Commonwealth v.”
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.