SUBCHAPTER D
MOBILE TRACKING DEVICES
Sec.
5761. Mobile tracking devices.
Enactment. Subchapter D was added October 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, effective immediately.
§ 5761. Mobile tracking devices.
(a) Authority to issue.--Orders for the installation and use of mobile tracking devices may be issued by a
court of common pleas.
(b) Jurisdiction.--Orders permitted by this section may authorize the use of mobile tracking devices
if the device is installed and monitored within this Commonwealth. The court issuing
the order must have jurisdiction over the offense under investigation.
(c) Standard for issuance of order.--An order authorizing the use of one or more mobile tracking devices may be issued
to an investigative or law enforcement officer by the court of common pleas upon written
application. Each application shall be by written affidavit, signed and sworn to or
affirmed before the court of common pleas. The affidavit shall:
(1) state the name and department, agency or address of the affiant;
(2) identify the vehicles, containers or items to which, in which or on which the mobile
tracking device shall be attached or be placed, and the names of the owners or possessors
of the vehicles, containers or items;
(3) state the jurisdictional area in which the vehicles, containers or items are expected
to be found; and
(4) provide a statement setting forth all facts and circumstances which provide the applicant
with probable cause that criminal activity has been, is or will be in progress and
that the use of a mobile tracking device will yield information relevant to the investigation
of the criminal activity.
(d) Notice.--The court of common pleas shall be notified in writing within 72 hours of the time
the mobile tracking device has been activated in place on or within the vehicles,
containers or items.
(e) Term of authorization.--Authorization by the court of common pleas for the use of the mobile tracking device
may continue for a period of 90 days from the placement of the device. An extension
for an additional 90 days may be granted upon good cause shown.
(f) Removal of device.--Wherever practicable, the mobile tracking device shall be removed after the authorization
period expires. If removal is not practicable, monitoring of the mobile tracking device
shall cease at the expiration of the authorization order.
(g) Movement of device.--Movement of the tracking device within an area protected by a reasonable expectation
of privacy shall not be monitored absent exigent circumstances or an order supported
by probable cause that criminal activity has been, is or will be in progress in the
protected area and that the use of a mobile tracking device in the protected area
will yield information relevant to the investigation of the criminal activity.
(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. (b) and (c)(4).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Burgos, 64 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
Commonwealth v. Burgos, 64 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 3× “On March 25, 2011, an order authorizing the installation and use of a mobile tracking device was entered, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5761. The order authorized the attachment of the device to [Burgos]’s white Dodge Ram pickup truck.”
People v. Weaver, 909 N.E.2d 1195 (NY 2009).
“In Pennsylvania, for example, an applicant must “provide a statement setting forth all facts and circumstances which provide the applicant with a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has been, is or will be in progress and that the use of a mobile tracking device will…”
State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 4× “41 Pennsylvania statutory law addresses the issue of such lawfulness very specifically: 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5761 permits the Court of Common Pleas to issue an order authorizing the use of mobile tracking devices upon a showing of “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has…”
State v. White, 2013 Ohio 5221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“§§ 77–23a–4, 77– 23a–7, 77–23a–15.5; Minn. Stat.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl, 886 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
“” 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5761(c) (2010). In response to Jones , the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to require probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion.”
State v. Sullivan, 2013 Ohio 5276 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“§§ 77–23a–4, 77– 23a–7, 77–23a–15.5; Minn. Stat.”
Com. v. Lewis, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 5761. Appellant maintains that when the Delaware police tracked his vehicle into Pennsylvania and monitored its movements here, § 5761’s requirements, including authorization by a Pennsylvania court of common pleas in the jurisdiction, were triggered.”
Commonwealth v. Bart, 13 Pa. D. & C.4th 670 (1991).
· cites it 4× “Even had the claim been raised, though, it would not have affected the verdict, as it is without merit. Section 5761 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is addressed specifically to “Mobile Tracking Devices.”
Commonwealth v. Pacheco, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2021).
“400, 405 (2012); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5761 (authorizing issuance of order by trial court upon application by written affidavit that, inter alia, provides “a statement setting forth all facts and circumstances which provide the applicant with probable cause that criminal…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5761(b) — 1 case
Com. v. Lewis, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5761. Appellant maintains that when the Delaware police tracked his vehicle into Pennsylvania and monitored its movements here, § 5761’s requirements, including authorization by a Pennsylvania court of common pleas in the jurisdiction, were triggered.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5761(c) — 1 case
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl, 886 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
“” 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5761(c) (2010). In response to Jones , the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to require probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5761(c)(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Bart, 13 Pa. D. & C.4th 670 (1991).
“Even had the claim been raised, though, it would not have affected the verdict, as it is without merit. Section 5761 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is addressed specifically to “Mobile Tracking Devices.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5761(c)(4) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Burgos, 64 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“On March 25, 2011, an order authorizing the installation and use of a mobile tracking device was entered, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5761. The order authorized the attachment of the device to [Burgos]’s white Dodge Ram pickup truck.”
State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010).
“41 Pennsylvania statutory law addresses the issue of such lawfulness very specifically: 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5761 permits the Court of Common Pleas to issue an order authorizing the use of mobile tracking devices upon a showing of “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5761(g) — 2 cases
State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010).
“41 Pennsylvania statutory law addresses the issue of such lawfulness very specifically: 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5761 permits the Court of Common Pleas to issue an order authorizing the use of mobile tracking devices upon a showing of “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has…”
Commonwealth v. Bart, 13 Pa. D. & C.4th 670 (1991).
“Even had the claim been raised, though, it would not have affected the verdict, as it is without merit. Section 5761 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is addressed specifically to “Mobile Tracking Devices.”
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.