Pa. Cons. Stat. » 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. (CRIMES AND OFFENSES) / Chapter 57
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721 (2026)

  Suppression of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidence (Repealed).

✓ current as of May 2026
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5721.  Suppression of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidence (Repealed).

 

1998 Repeal.  Section 5721 was repealed February 18, 1998 (P.L.102, No.19), effective immediately.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1984–2018 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 6× “[4] While acknowledging that the Wiretap Act limited the suppression of evidence for non-constitutional violations to certain enumerated grounds, the court nonetheless referenced Section 5721 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721, as imposing certain restrictions upon the…”
Commonwealth v. Brachbill, 555 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 3× “[3] 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721. See infra note 9. [3] 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014). “at 566 (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721 (repealed)); but see Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “at 1248 ; see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721 historical and statutory notes.”
Commonwealth v. Katze, 658 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1995). · cites it 3× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721. However, we also held that the violation in question “irremediably tainted” Hashem’s conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Hashem, 584 A.2d 1378 (Pa. 1991). · cites it 2× “in accordance with the requirements of § 5712.”
Commonwealth v. Kean, 556 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “2d 564, 566 (1986) (interpreting 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5721 (Purdon 1983)).”
Commonwealth v. Gordon, 528 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1987). “Gordon argues on appeal that the contents of the conversation should have been suppressed under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721, because Officer Cory, who listened in on the transmissions, *542 was not legally certified to conduct…”
Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 515 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5721. *76 The Commonwealth concedes that Swinehart "may" have been subject to criminal proceedings and a civil action for damages for recording the conversations.”
People v. Otto, 831 P.2d 1178 (Cal. 1992). “( 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721 [“Except as proof in a suit or prosecution for a violation of this act, no evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful interception shall be admissible in any such proceeding .”
Commonwealth v. Frattarola, 485 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 2× “Catania seems to have recognized this, since he has never contended, either in this court or the court below, that the criminal complaint should be sealed, even though one of his petitions filed in the court below claimed that the complaint was also based on the tapes.”
Commonwealth v. Doty, 498 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1985). “*405 It is unnecessary that we determine whether a total failure to file a final report constitutes a violation of 18 Pa.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721(B) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Benner, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 332 (1995).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721(a) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Spence, 631 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3rd Cir. 1997).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721(a)(1) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Katze, 658 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1995). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721. However, we also held that the violation in question “irremediably tainted” Hashem’s conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Clark, 533 A.2d 1376 (Pa. 1987).
Commonwealth v. Spence, 631 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721(a)(3) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234 (Pa. 2002). “[4] While acknowledging that the Wiretap Act limited the suppression of evidence for non-constitutional violations to certain enumerated grounds, the court nonetheless referenced Section 5721 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721, as imposing certain restrictions upon the…”
Commonwealth v. Doty, 498 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1985). “*405 It is unnecessary that we determine whether a total failure to file a final report constitutes a violation of 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 540 A.2d 933 (Pa. 1988).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5721(b)(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Benner, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 332 (1995).
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.