Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5726 (2026)

Action for removal from office or employment.

✓ 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

§ 5726. Action for removal from office or employment.

(a) Cause of action.--Any aggrieved person shall have the right to bring an action in Commonwealth Court against any investigative or law enforcement officer, public official or public employee seeking the officer's, official's or employee's removal from office or employment on the grounds that the officer, official or employee has intentionally violated the provisions of this chapter. If the court shall conclude that such officer, official or employee has in fact intentionally violated the provisions of this chapter, the court shall order the dismissal or removal from office of said officer, official or employee.

(b) Defense.--It is a defense to an action brought pursuant to subsection (a) that the actor acted in good faith reliance on a court order or the provisions of this chapter.

(July 10, 1981, P.L.228, No.73, eff. 60 days)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013). · cites it 4× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5726. In 2005, Monroe County Detective Eric Kerchner and First Assistant District Attorney Michael Mancuso (Appellees) were investigating and prosecuting Dennis Slay-ton for theft and drug-related offenses, as well as his paramour Jill Goldstein in connection with…”

McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, McCul-ligan requests that this Court 1) order a hearing to verify his allegations that Respondents violated the Wiretap Act and concealed their violations; 2) order the removal of Respondents from their respective offices and employment pursuant to Section 5726…”

Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998). · cites it 2× “[3] 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726(a) provides: Cause of action.”

Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “2009) In 2009, pursuant to Section 5726 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726, Plaintiff filed a petition for review in this Court’s original jurisdiction seeking dismissal or removal of Bucks County Detectives Carroll and Michael Mosiniak, and former Assistant District Attorney…”

Keppley v. Sch. Dist. of Twin Valley, 866 A.2d 1165 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005). “18 Pa.C.S. § 5726. To summarize, if anyone actually intercepts a person’s oral communication, the person may file a civil action seeking damages.”

Leventry Ex Rel. Commonwealth v. Tulowitzki, 804 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). “t, in another action brought in this court’s original jurisdiction, Leventry filed a petition for removal of public officers seeking to have two members of the drug task force, Rod Miller, Chief Cambria County Detective, and Ron Portash, Assistant County Detective, removed from…”

Welch v. Palka, 983 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2009). · cites it 8× “sis of these and related provisions by the Commonwealth Court establishing otherwise, it appearing that Appellant has alleged sufficient facts that may meet the criteria for establishing violations of these sections, the Commonwealth *210 Court incorrectly concluded that it is…”

Leventry v. Miller, 796 A.2d 427 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). “Section 5726 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726 (emphasis added). 1 Leventry, in his pro se petition, sets forth the following relevant averments.”

J. Baney v. M. Fisher (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, where the legislature specifically afforded jurisdiction to this Court in Sections 5726 and 5728 of the [Act], 18 Pa. C.S. §§5726 and 5728 [(conferring (Footnote continued on next page…) 7 applicable statute of limitations for all of Inmate’s claims in the interest…”

J. Winig v. The Off. of the D.A. of Philadelphia (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). · cites it 2× “18 Pa. C.S. § 5726. Section 5726(a) provides that [a]ny aggrieved person shall have the right to bring an action in Commonwealth Court against any investigative or law enforcement officer, public official or public employee seeking the officer’s, official’s or employee’s removal…”

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025). · cites it 2× “For example, Section 5726(a) of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5726(a), provides a cause of action against law enforcement officers, allowing an aggrieved party to bring a suit seeking the removal of the officer for an intentional violation of the Act.”

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025). “18 Pa.C.S. § 5726(a). However, under the Majority’s interpretation of the Wiretap Act, these provisions would be rendered mere surplusage and would lead to absurd results if high public official immunity exists in the Act, given that the immunity protects public officials who…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5726(a) — 8 cases

Karoly v. Mancuso, 65 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013). “18 Pa.C.S. § 5726. In 2005, Monroe County Detective Eric Kerchner and First Assistant District Attorney Michael Mancuso (Appellees) were investigating and prosecuting Dennis Slay-ton for theft and drug-related offenses, as well as his paramour Jill Goldstein in connection with…”

Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998). “[3] 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726(a) provides: Cause of action.”

McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “Accordingly, McCul-ligan requests that this Court 1) order a hearing to verify his allegations that Respondents violated the Wiretap Act and concealed their violations; 2) order the removal of Respondents from their respective offices and employment pursuant to Section 5726…”

Welch v. Palka, 983 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2009). “sis of these and related provisions by the Commonwealth Court establishing otherwise, it appearing that Appellant has alleged sufficient facts that may meet the criteria for establishing violations of these sections, the Commonwealth *210 Court incorrectly concluded that it is…”

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025). “For example, Section 5726(a) of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5726(a), provides a cause of action against law enforcement officers, allowing an aggrieved party to bring a suit seeking the removal of the officer for an intentional violation of the Act.”

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5726(b) — 1 case

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.