§ 5773. Issuance of an order for use of certain devices.
(a) In general.--Upon an application made under section 5772 (relating to application for an order
for use of certain devices), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the
disclosure of mobile communications tracking information, the installation and use
of a pen register, a trap and trace device or a telecommunication identification interception
device within this Commonwealth if the court finds that there is probable cause to
believe that information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation will be obtained
by such installation and use on the targeted telephone. If exigent circumstances exist,
the court may verbally authorize the disclosure of mobile communications tracking
information, the installation and use of a pen register, a trap and trace device or
a telecommunication identification interception device. The written order authorizing
the disclosure must be entered within 72 hours of the court's verbal authorization.
(b) Contents of order.--An order issued under this section shall:
(1) Specify:
(i) That there is probable cause to believe that information relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation will be obtained from the targeted telephone.
(ii) The identity, if known, of the person to whom is leased or in whose name is listed
the targeted telephone, or, in the case of the use of a telecommunication identification
interception device, the identity, if known, of the person or persons using the targeted
telephone.
(iii) The identity, if known, of the person who is the subject of the criminal investigation.
(iv) In the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices only, the physical location
of the targeted telephone.
(v) A statement of the offense to which the information likely to be obtained by the pen
register, trap and trace device or the telecommunication identification interception
device relates.
(2) Direct, upon the request of the applicant, the furnishing of information, facilities
and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the installation of the pen register
under section 5771 (relating to general prohibition on use of certain devices and
exception).
(3) In the case of a telecommunication identification interception device, direct that
all interceptions be recorded and monitored in accordance with section 5714(a)(1)
and (2) and (b) (relating to recording of intercepted communications).
(c) Time period and extensions.--
(1) An order issued under this section shall authorize the installation and use of a pen
register, trap and trace device or a telecommunication identification interception
device for a period not to exceed 60 days.
(2) Extensions of such an order may be granted but only upon an application for an order
under section 5772 and upon the judicial finding required by subsection (a). The period
of each extension shall be for a period not to exceed 30 days.
(d) Nondisclosure of existence of pen register, trap and trace device or a telecommunication
identification interception device.--An order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register, a trap
and trace device or a telecommunication identification interception device shall direct
that:
(1) The order be sealed until otherwise ordered by the court.
(2) The person owning or leasing the targeted telephone, or who has been ordered by the
court to provide assistance to the applicant, not disclose the existence of the pen
register, trap and trace device or telecommunication identification interception device
or the existence of the investigation to the listed subscriber, or to any other person,
unless or until otherwise ordered by the court.
(Feb. 18, 1998, P.L.102, No.19, eff. imd.; Oct. 25, 2012, P.L.1634, No.202, eff. 60
days)
2012 Amendment. Act 202 amended subsecs. (a) and (c).
Cross References. Section 5773 is referred to in sections 5771, 5772, 5774 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 5× “18 Pa. C.S. § 5773 (effective December 8, 2008 to December 23, 2012); , see also Melilli, supra.”
Commonwealth v. Cole, 167 A.3d 49 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773(a). Accordingly, it is clear-that both the real-time tracking of Appellant’s cell phone, as well as the acquisition of the historical records of his cell phone’s transmissions, which provided the basis for establishing a history of the device’s locations,…”
Barasch v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 576 A.2d 79 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Superior Ct. 438, 531 A.2d 498 (1987). Further, the General Assembly has provided protection to telephone numbers through enactment of the Wiretap Act by prohibiting the use of interception devices unless probable cause exists.”
Commonwealth v. Pacheco, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2021).
· cites it 5× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773 (b)(1)(i). Thus, the Commonwealth argues, the statute requires probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found, and that the police identify the targeted phone or phones.”
United States v. Coles, 264 F. Supp. 3d 667 (M.D. Penn. 2017).
“” 18 Pa Cons. Stat. § 5773(a). The state trial court judge who issued the order expressly found that the application satisfied the state’s probable cause requirement.”
Com. v. Pacheco, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 3× “The orders, which were issued pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773, authorized prosecutors to obtain information relating to Pacheco’s cell phone number and the numbers for other cell phone believed to be used by him.”
Com. v. McShane, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773(a). However, under the Wiretap Act, when exigent circumstances exist, “the court may verbally authorize the disclosure of mobile communications tracking information,” with written authorization to follow within 72 hours of the court’s verbal authorization.”
Commonwealth v. Cole, 167 A.3d 49 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773(a). Accordingly, it is clear-that both the real-time tracking of Appellant’s cell phone, as well as the acquisition of the historical records of his cell phone’s transmissions, which provided the basis for establishing a history of the device’s locations,…”
Commonwealth v. Cole, 167 A.3d 49 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773(a). Accordingly, it is clear-that both the real-time tracking of Appellant’s cell phone, as well as the acquisition of the historical records of his cell phone’s transmissions, which provided the basis for establishing a history of the device’s locations,…”
Com. v. Bean, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
“2021), which held that the search of CSLI pursuant to an order under Section 5773 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773, does not violate Carpenter, but he argues that, unlike Section 5743, Section 5773 demands a level of individualized suspicion similar to that required for a…”
Com. v. Tunnell, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“The court may grant the application and issue an order “if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation will be obtained by such installation and use on the targeted telephone.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5773(a) — 9 cases
Commonwealth v. Cole, 167 A.3d 49 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773(a). Accordingly, it is clear-that both the real-time tracking of Appellant’s cell phone, as well as the acquisition of the historical records of his cell phone’s transmissions, which provided the basis for establishing a history of the device’s locations,…”
Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“18 Pa. C.S. § 5773 (effective December 8, 2008 to December 23, 2012); , see also Melilli, supra.”
United States v. Coles, 264 F. Supp. 3d 667 (M.D. Penn. 2017).
“” 18 Pa Cons. Stat. § 5773(a). The state trial court judge who issued the order expressly found that the application satisfied the state’s probable cause requirement.”
Com. v. McShane, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773(a). However, under the Wiretap Act, when exigent circumstances exist, “the court may verbally authorize the disclosure of mobile communications tracking information,” with written authorization to follow within 72 hours of the court’s verbal authorization.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5773(b)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Pacheco, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2021).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773 (b)(1)(i). Thus, the Commonwealth argues, the statute requires probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found, and that the police identify the targeted phone or phones.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5773(b)(1)(i) — 2 cases
Com. v. Pacheco, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
“The orders, which were issued pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773, authorized prosecutors to obtain information relating to Pacheco’s cell phone number and the numbers for other cell phone believed to be used by him.”
Commonwealth v. Pacheco, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2021).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773 (b)(1)(i). Thus, the Commonwealth argues, the statute requires probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found, and that the police identify the targeted phone or phones.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5773(b)(1)(v) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Pacheco, D., Aplt. (Pa. 2021).
“” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5773 (b)(1)(i). Thus, the Commonwealth argues, the statute requires probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found, and that the police identify the targeted phone or phones.”
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.