§ 5743. Requirements for governmental access.
(a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.--Investigative or law enforcement officers may require the disclosure by a provider
of communication service of the contents of a communication which is in electronic
storage in a communication system for:
(1) One hundred eighty days or less only pursuant to a warrant issued under the Pennsylvania
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(2) More than 180 days by the means available under subsection (b).
(b) Contents of communications in a remote computing service.--
(1) Investigative or law enforcement officers may require a provider of remote computing
service to disclose the contents of any communication to which this paragraph is made
applicable by paragraph (2):
(i) without required notice to the subscriber or customer if the investigative or law
enforcement officer obtains a warrant issued under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure; or
(ii) with prior notice from the investigative or law enforcement officer to the subscriber
or customer if the investigative or law enforcement officer:
(A) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a statute or a grand jury subpoena;
or
(B) obtains a court order for the disclosure under subsection (d);
except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 5745 (relating to delayed
notice).
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to a communication which is held or maintained
on that service:
(i) On behalf of and received by means of electronic transmission from, or created by
means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission
from, a subscriber or customer of the remote computing service.
(ii) Solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to the
subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of
any such communication for the purpose of providing any services other than storage
or computer processing.
(c) Records concerning electronic communication service or remote computing service.--
(1) (Deleted by amendment).
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose
a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of the service,
not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a) or (b), to
an investigative or law enforcement officer only when the investigative or law enforcement
officer:
(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a statute or a grand jury subpoena;
(ii) obtains a warrant issued under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure;
(iii) obtains a court order for the disclosure under subsection (d); or
(iv) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to the disclosure.
(3) An investigative or law enforcement officer receiving records or information under
paragraph (2) is not required to provide notice to the customer or subscriber.
(d) Requirements for court order.--A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) shall be issued only if the
investigative or law enforcement officer shows that there are specific and articulable
facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are
relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. A court issuing an order
pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash
or modify the order if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous
in nature or compliance with the order would otherwise cause an undue burden on the
provider.
(e) No cause of action against a provider disclosing information under this subchapter.--No cause of action shall lie against any provider of wire or electronic communication
service, its officers, employees, agents or other specified persons for providing
information, facilities or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order,
warrant, subpoena or certification under this subchapter.
(Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.; Oct. 9, 2008, P.L.1403, No.111, eff. imd.;
Oct. 25, 2012, P.L.1634, No.202, eff. 60 days)
2012 Amendment. Act 202 amended subsecs. (a) and (b).
2008 Amendment. Act 111 deleted subsec. (c)(1).
1998 Amendment. Act 19 amended subsecs. (d) and (e).
Cross References. Section 5743 is referred to in sections 5712, 5712.1, 5741, 5742, 5743.1, 5744, 5745,
5746, 5747 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case:
Com. v. Kurtz, J., 294 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
Com. v. Kurtz, J., 294 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 4× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(d). - 26 - J-S10032-22 the Wiretap Act, was not based upon probable cause and lacked any specificity as to the individual involved, the place to be searched, or what items were to be seized.”
State v. Gary Lunsford (075691), 141 A.3d 270 (N.J. 2016).
· cites it 2× “1989) (pen register), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743 (2016) (billing records); but see Hunt, supra, 91 N.”
Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(d). The affidavit attached to the application for disclosure reiterated the facts set out in the previous affidavits accompanying the warrant applications.”
Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “modify the order if the infor *958 mation or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with the order would otherwise cause an undue burden on the provider.”
United States v. Wilson, 216 F. Supp. 3d 566 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
“Wilson argues there was insufficient probable cause for that warrant to issue.”
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
· cites it 5× “” The reasoning from Beauford, though written to address a different section of the Act, is equally applicable to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743, which provides: (a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.”
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
· cites it 5× “” The reasoning from Beauford, though written to address a different section of the Act, is equally applicable to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743, which provides: (a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.”
Com. v. Buckley, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(c)(2). Here, there is no dispute that Corporal Goodyear obtained a court order pursuant to subsection (d).”
Com. v. Bean, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “It was established at the PCRA hearings that the GIS analyst based his analysis on cell phone records obtained by the Pennsylvania State Police from Appellant’s cell phone service provider; the provider disclosed these records after receiving a March 21, 2014 court order issued…”
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
· cites it 2× “8 The requirement of a search warrant supported by 6 While neither Appellant John Kurtz nor the Commonwealth discuss a statutory warrant requirement for the search of electronic information, Amici Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania District…”
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
· cites it 2× “8 The requirement of a search warrant supported by 6 While neither Appellant John Kurtz nor the Commonwealth discuss a statutory warrant requirement for the search of electronic information, Amici Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania District…”
Com. v. Wesley, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“--A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) shall be issued only if the investigative or law enforcement officer shows that there are specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743(a) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
“” The reasoning from Beauford, though written to address a different section of the Act, is equally applicable to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743, which provides: (a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.”
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
“” The reasoning from Beauford, though written to address a different section of the Act, is equally applicable to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743, which provides: (a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743(a)(1) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
“” The reasoning from Beauford, though written to address a different section of the Act, is equally applicable to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743, which provides: (a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.”
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, J., Aplt. (Pa. 2025).
“” The reasoning from Beauford, though written to address a different section of the Act, is equally applicable to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743, which provides: (a) Contents of communications in electronic storage.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743(c)(2) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“modify the order if the infor *958 mation or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with the order would otherwise cause an undue burden on the provider.”
Com. v. Buckley, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(c)(2). Here, there is no dispute that Corporal Goodyear obtained a court order pursuant to subsection (d).”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743(c)(2)(ii) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743(c)(2)(iii) — 1 case
Com. v. Wesley, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“--A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) shall be issued only if the investigative or law enforcement officer shows that there are specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5743(d) — 4 cases
Com. v. Kurtz, J., 294 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(d). - 26 - J-S10032-22 the Wiretap Act, was not based upon probable cause and lacked any specificity as to the individual involved, the place to be searched, or what items were to be seized.”
Commonwealth v. Orie, 88 A.3d 983 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(d). The affidavit attached to the application for disclosure reiterated the facts set out in the previous affidavits accompanying the warrant applications.”
Com. v. Buckley, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5743(c)(2). Here, there is no dispute that Corporal Goodyear obtained a court order pursuant to subsection (d).”
Com. v. Bean, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“It was established at the PCRA hearings that the GIS analyst based his analysis on cell phone records obtained by the Pennsylvania State Police from Appellant’s cell phone service provider; the provider disclosed these records after receiving a March 21, 2014 court order issued…”
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.