Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

title: "Pennsylvania Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)" meta_description: "Learn Pennsylvania surveillance camera laws, including all-party audio consent rules, home cameras, workplace monitoring, hidden cameras, and penalties."
Overview of Pennsylvania Surveillance Camera Laws
Pennsylvania takes a strict approach to surveillance and recording laws compared to many other states. The Commonwealth draws a clear legal line between video recording and audio recording. While video surveillance is broadly permitted in public and private settings, audio recording falls under one of the most protective wiretapping statutes in the country.
The primary law governing surveillance in Pennsylvania is the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, codified under 18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 57. This statute establishes Pennsylvania as an all-party consent state, meaning that every participant in a conversation must give their consent before any recording of audio can take place.
Understanding these laws is essential whether you are a homeowner installing security cameras, an employer monitoring a workplace, or a parent considering a nanny cam. Violating Pennsylvania surveillance laws can result in felony charges, significant prison time, and civil liability.
Audio Recording: Pennsylvania's All-Party Consent Rule
What the Law Says

Under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5703, it is a felony of the third degree to intentionally intercept, disclose, or use any wire, electronic, or oral communication without authorization. This means that recording a phone call, an in-person conversation, or any other oral communication without the consent of all parties involved is a serious criminal offense.
The statute specifically prohibits three actions:
- Intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication without consent
- Disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted communication to another person
- Using the contents of an illegally intercepted communication
Each of these three acts constitutes a separate felony of the third degree.
What "All-Party Consent" Means in Practice
Pennsylvania's all-party consent requirement applies to any situation where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you want to record a phone call, you must inform the other person and get their agreement. If you want to record a meeting in your office, every participant must know about and agree to the recording.
This rule applies regardless of the recording method. Whether you use a smartphone, a digital recorder, a security camera with a microphone, or any other device capable of capturing audio, the consent requirement is the same.
Exceptions to the Audio Consent Requirement
Section 5704 provides several exceptions to the all-party consent rule:
- All parties consent. If every person in the conversation agrees to be recorded, the recording is legal.
- Law enforcement with judicial authorization. Police may intercept communications with a valid court order.
- Telephone marketing and customer service. Businesses engaged in telephone marketing or customer service may record calls for training and quality control purposes, provided that at least one party consents and the recordings are destroyed within one year.
- Police and emergency dispatch lines. Section 5704(3) lets the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and police departments record telephone calls coming into and going out of their own communications systems.
It is important to note that the business telephone exception is narrow. It applies only to telephone marketing and customer service operations, not to general workplace audio recording.
Two "Exceptions" That Are Not in Section 5704
Two ideas are commonly listed as Section 5704 exceptions but do not appear in that statute, and the difference matters for anyone deciding whether they may record.
The first is emergency recording. Authority to intercept a communication in a situation involving organized crime or danger to life comes from 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5713, not Section 5704, and it is not available to the public. It permits interception only by an investigative or law enforcement officer, on the informal application of the Attorney General, a designated deputy attorney general, a district attorney, or an assistant district attorney, and only after a judge orally approves it, with a written application to follow within 48 hours. A homeowner or employee facing an emergency cannot rely on this provision to record.
The second is the idea that public conversations are exempt. The result is roughly right, but the reason is definitional rather than an exception. 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5702 defines an "oral communication" as one uttered by a person "possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." A conversation held where no such expectation is justified is not an oral communication under the Act at all, so the consent rule never attaches. That is a narrower and less predictable shield than a written exception would be, and whether a given expectation was justified is decided case by case.
Home Surveillance Cameras in Pennsylvania
Video-Only Home Cameras Are Generally Legal
Pennsylvania homeowners may install video surveillance cameras on their own property without violating state law. Video-only recording does not trigger the all-party consent requirements of the Wiretap Act because that statute applies specifically to the interception of oral, wire, or electronic communications.
You may place cameras at entry points, in driveways, around the perimeter of your property, and in common areas inside your home. The key restriction is that cameras must not be placed in locations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms and guest bedrooms where overnight visitors may be staying.
Audio-Enabled Home Cameras
Many modern security cameras, including popular doorbell cameras and indoor smart cameras, come equipped with microphones that record audio along with video. In Pennsylvania, the audio recording feature creates significant legal risk.
If your home security camera captures conversations between visitors, delivery workers, or anyone else without their knowledge and consent, you could be violating the Wiretap Act. To stay within the law, you have several options:
- Disable audio recording on your security cameras entirely
- Post clear signage notifying visitors that audio and video recording is in progress, which can serve as implied consent
- Use cameras without microphones for outdoor and common area surveillance
Doorbell Cameras and Package Delivery
Doorbell cameras like Ring and Nest present a particular challenge in Pennsylvania. These devices typically record both audio and video when someone approaches your door. Because delivery workers, mail carriers, and visitors may not expect to be audio recorded, the safest practice is to either disable the audio function or post a visible sign near the doorbell stating that audio and video recording is in effect.
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
Employer Rights to Video Monitoring
Pennsylvania employers may install video surveillance cameras in the workplace, but there are important limitations. Cameras are permitted in common areas such as:
- Lobbies and reception areas
- Hallways and stairwells
- Parking lots and loading docks
- Sales floors and production areas
- Warehouse and storage areas
Employers must not install cameras in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, break rooms designated for personal use, and lactation rooms.
Audio Recording at Work
Because Pennsylvania requires all-party consent for audio recording, employers generally cannot record workplace conversations without the knowledge and consent of every person being recorded. Installing cameras with active microphones in work areas where private conversations take place can violate the Wiretap Act.
If an employer wishes to record audio in the workplace, the safest approach is to obtain written consent from all employees and post conspicuous notices throughout the facility. Even then, employers should consult legal counsel to confirm compliance with both state and federal law.
Employee Notification
While Pennsylvania does not have a specific statute requiring employers to notify employees of video-only surveillance, best practices and potential claims under common law privacy torts make notification advisable. Many employers include surveillance disclosure in employee handbooks, onboarding materials, or conspicuously posted signs throughout the workplace.
Businesses that interact with the public should also post visible signage notifying customers and visitors that video surveillance is in use on the premises.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism
Pennsylvania's Invasion of Privacy Statute
18 Pa.C.S. Section 7507.1 specifically addresses the use of hidden cameras for voyeuristic purposes. Under this statute, a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if they knowingly do any of the following for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person:
- View, photograph, videotape, or otherwise record another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is fully or partially nude in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy
- **Record intimate body parts** of another person without consent, whether or not those body parts are covered by clothing, when the person does not intend those parts to be visible by normal public observation
- Transfer or transmit any image obtained through these illegal means by phone, email, the internet, or any other method
What Counts as a Private Place
The statute defines a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy as a location where a reasonable person would believe they could undress without being observed, photographed, or filmed by another person. This includes:
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Bedrooms and changing rooms
- Hotel rooms
- Fitting rooms in retail stores
- Any enclosed area where a person reasonably expects visual privacy
Penalties for Voyeurism
The penalties under Section 7507.1 depend on the number of violations:
| Offense Level | Classification | Maximum Prison Time | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single violation | Third-degree misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,500 |
| Multiple violations | Second-degree misdemeanor | 2 years | $5,000 |
The statute also provides an extended statute of limitations. Prosecutors must file charges within two years of the offense, or within three years of the date the victim first discovers the offense if it was not known at the time it occurred.
Exceptions
The invasion of privacy statute does not apply to law enforcement officers conducting lawful criminal investigations or to corrections personnel conducting security operations within prisons and jails.
Nanny Cams in Pennsylvania
Legal Status of Nanny Cams
The legality of nanny cams in Pennsylvania was clarified by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the landmark case of Commonwealth v. Mason (2021). The court held that a recording from a nanny cam placed in the children's bedroom did not violate the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, because the nanny had no justifiable expectation that her oral communications would not be intercepted while caring for the children there.
The Commonwealth v. Mason Decision
In this case, a parent installed hidden cameras in children's bedrooms after his three-year-old reported being hit by the nanny. The nanny, Beth Ann Mason, was charged with aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of children. She moved to suppress the recordings, arguing they violated the Wiretap Act.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the recordings were admissible. Justice Max Baer wrote that nanny cams are so widespread that they have become a recognized category of surveillance device. The court found that no reasonable nanny should assume they are not being recorded while performing their duties in a family home. Mason did not possess a justifiable expectation that her oral communications would not be subject to interception by a recording device located in the children's bedrooms.
Practical Guidelines for Nanny Cams
Despite the Mason ruling, parents using nanny cams in Pennsylvania should follow these best practices:
- Disclose the camera to your caregiver. While the Mason decision suggests disclosure is not legally required, informing your nanny or babysitter builds trust and removes any legal ambiguity.
- Keep cameras out of private areas. Never place cameras in bathrooms, guest rooms used by live-in caregivers, or other areas where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Consider disabling audio. While the Mason ruling addressed both audio and video, the safest approach under the Wiretap Act is to use video-only nanny cams.
- Include camera disclosure in your employment agreement. A written acknowledgment from the caregiver creates clear documentation of consent.
Video-Only vs. Audio-Enabled Nanny Cams
The distinction between video-only and audio-enabled nanny cams is critical in Pennsylvania. While the Mason decision provided some protection for audio recordings in the nanny cam context, the Wiretap Act's all-party consent requirement has not been repealed. Using a video-only nanny cam is the safest approach to avoid any potential Wiretap Act liability.
If you choose to use an audio-enabled nanny cam, providing written notice to the caregiver is strongly recommended. This notice should clearly state that both audio and video are being recorded, the locations of the cameras, and the purpose of the recording.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
Cameras Pointed at a Neighbor's Property
One of the most common surveillance disputes in Pennsylvania involves security cameras that capture a neighbor's property. Under Pennsylvania law, recording activity that is visible from your own property or from a public area is generally legal. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for activities conducted in plain view.
However, there are important limits. If a camera is intentionally aimed at a neighbor's windows, backyard, or other private areas in a way that goes beyond incidental capture, the affected neighbor may have legal recourse through several avenues:
- Invasion of privacy claims under common law tort principles
- Harassment charges under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709 if the surveillance is part of a pattern of conduct intended to harass, annoy, or alarm
- Stalking charges under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709.1 if the surveillance creates a reasonable fear of bodily injury or causes substantial emotional distress
- Injunctive relief through a civil court order requiring the camera to be repositioned
Audio Recording of Neighbors
If your security camera records audio from your neighbor's property, including conversations in their yard, phone calls on their porch, or discussions through open windows, you may be violating the Wiretap Act. The all-party consent requirement applies even when the recording is incidental to legitimate security monitoring.
The safest approach for outdoor cameras near property boundaries is to disable audio recording entirely or ensure microphones are not sensitive enough to capture conversations on neighboring properties.
HOA and Local Rules
Beyond state law, homeowners should check their homeowners' association (HOA) bylaws and local municipal ordinances before installing security cameras. Some HOAs restrict camera placement, require approval before installation, or prohibit cameras from facing common areas or neighboring units. Local zoning ordinances may also impose restrictions on the size, placement, or number of exterior cameras.
Penalties for Violating Pennsylvania Surveillance Laws
Criminal Penalties
Pennsylvania imposes serious criminal penalties for surveillance law violations:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal wiretapping/audio recording (18 Pa.C.S. Section 5703) | Third-degree felony | 7 years | $15,000 |
| Possession of interception devices (18 Pa.C.S. Section 5705) | Third-degree felony | 7 years | $15,000 |
| Invasion of privacy, single violation (18 Pa.C.S. Section 7507.1) | Third-degree misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,500 |
| Invasion of privacy, multiple violations (18 Pa.C.S. Section 7507.1) | Second-degree misdemeanor | 2 years | $5,000 |
| Stalking, first offense (18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709.1) | First-degree misdemeanor | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Stalking, second or subsequent offense (18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709.1) | Third-degree felony | 7 years | $15,000 |
Civil Liability
In addition to criminal penalties, individuals who violate Pennsylvania's surveillance laws may face civil lawsuits. Victims of illegal surveillance can sue for:
- Actual damages resulting from the privacy violation
- Punitive damages if the conduct was willful or reckless
- Attorney's fees and court costs
- Injunctive relief requiring the removal or repositioning of surveillance equipment
Pennsylvania courts have recognized the common law tort of invasion of privacy, which can apply even in situations where no specific criminal statute has been violated.
Evidence Suppression
Recordings obtained in violation of the Wiretap Act are generally inadmissible as evidence in Pennsylvania courts. Under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5721.1, the contents of a wire, electronic, or oral communication may not be disclosed in any proceeding in any court, board, or agency of this Commonwealth, apart from the communications the statute makes properly subject to disclosure. That reach is narrower than the federal suppression rule: it covers Commonwealth courts, boards, and agencies rather than every conceivable tribunal.
Exclusion is also not automatic. Section 5721.1(b) requires an aggrieved party to file a motion to exclude the recording, on one of six enumerated grounds such as an interception made without lawful authorization or one that materially departed from the terms of a court order. Section 5721.1(c) then allocates the burden of proof between the parties, and Section 5721.1(e) makes the remedies in this subchapter the only judicial remedies for nonconstitutional violations. Commonwealth v. Mason itself was litigated this way, as a motion to suppress that the Commonwealth ultimately defeated.
This means that even if an illegal recording captures evidence of a crime, that evidence may be thrown out once someone moves to exclude it. This is a critical consideration for anyone thinking about using surveillance to document wrongdoing.
Sources and References
- Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 57
- Pennsylvania Interception Prohibition, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5703
- Exceptions to Interception Prohibition, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5704
- Pennsylvania Invasion of Privacy, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 7507.1
- Pennsylvania Stalking Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709.1 5a. Definitions, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5702 5b. Emergency Situations, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5713 5c. Evidentiary Disclosure of Contents of Intercepted Communication, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5721.1 5d. Pennsylvania Harassment Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709
- Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines, 18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 11
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 69 MAP 2019 (Pa. 2021)
Related Pennsylvania Camera and Privacy Laws
- Pennsylvania Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Pennsylvania Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Pennsylvania Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Pennsylvania.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my neighbor with a security camera in Pennsylvania?
You can record video of areas visible from your own property, but you should not aim cameras directly at a neighbor's private spaces like windows or enclosed backyards. Audio recording of your neighbor's conversations without their consent violates Pennsylvania's all-party consent wiretapping law and is a third-degree felony.
Is it legal to use a nanny cam in Pennsylvania?
Generally yes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Mason (2021) that a nanny cam recording did not violate the Wiretap Act even though it was placed in the children's bedroom, because the caregiver had no justifiable expectation of privacy while performing childcare duties there. Cameras should still never be placed in bathrooms or the caregiver's own private living quarters, and disclosing the camera to your caregiver is strongly recommended.
Do I need to tell someone I am recording them in Pennsylvania?
For audio recording, yes. Pennsylvania is an all-party consent state, meaning all participants must consent to audio recording. For video-only recording, no specific notification is required by statute, but posting visible signage is a best practice that helps establish implied consent.
What is the penalty for illegal wiretapping in Pennsylvania?
Illegal wiretapping under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5703 is a third-degree felony in Pennsylvania. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. Victims may also file civil lawsuits for damages.
Can my employer put cameras in the workplace in Pennsylvania?
Employers may install video cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, hallways, and production floors. Cameras are prohibited in areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy, including restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas. Audio recording requires the consent of all employees being recorded.
Updates
Corrected the evidence-suppression section to reflect that 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5721.1 bars disclosure in Commonwealth courts, boards and agencies only and requires a motion to exclude, removed two exceptions wrongly attributed to Section 5704 (emergency interception is a law enforcement power under Section 5713, and the public-conversation point comes from the Section 5702 definition), and replaced a 2010 archived harassment citation with the current official statute.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Fixed a self-contradiction in the Commonwealth v. Mason (2021) nanny-cam discussion: the article limited the holding to 'common areas of a home' while its own case narrative places the recording device in the children's bedroom. Now consistently describes the ruling as covering that bedroom recording because the caregiver had no justifiable expectation of privacy while performing childcare duties there.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 38 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Pennsylvania Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026)
§ 7507.1Invasion of privacyIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (d), a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, knowingly does any of the following: (1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (2) Photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records or personally views the intimate parts, whether or not covered by clothing, of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and which intimate parts that person does not intend to be visible by normal public observation. (3) Transfers or transmits an image obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In Com. v. Dinell, Z. (2022), the Superior Court read section 7507.1(a)(1) as requiring four elements, including that the defendant acted for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, and vacated a guilty plea where the defendant denied any sexual purpose and was told no such element existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2017, 164 A.3d 1189)“…18 Pa.C.S. §6312(d) (relating to sexual abuse of children); 18 Pa.C.S. §7507.1 (relating to invasion of privacy); 18 U…”
- Com. v. Dinell, Z. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2022, 270 A.3d 530)✓A care home worker pled guilty to 14 counts of invasion of privacy for phone photos of nude residents, but said nothing sexual was involved. The court held section 7507.1(a)(1) requires a sexual purpose as an element and let him withdraw the plea.
- Commonwealth, Aplt v. Kingston, S. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2016, 636 Pa. 438)“…olations” of a particular criminal offense. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a.1) (listing circumstances under which…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Pennsylvania Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026)
§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 126 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania AI Meeting Recording Laws: All-Party Consent and Felony Penalties (2026)
§ 5705Possession, sale, distribution, manufacture or advertisement of electronic, mechanical or other devices and telecommunication identification interception devicesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in section 5706 (relating to exceptions to prohibitions in possession, sale, distribution, manufacture or advertisement of electronic, mechanical or other devices), a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he does any of the following: (1) Intentionally possesses an electronic, mechanical or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication. (2) Intentionally sells, transfers or distributes an electronic, mechanical or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication. (3) Intentionally manufactures or assembles an electronic, mechanical or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Ward (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County 2007, 3 Pa. D. & C.5th 268)“…(1)), possession of device for intercepting communications (18 Pa.C.S. §5705(1)), and possession of instruments of a…”
- Commonwealth v. Birdseye (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1994, 432 Pa. Super. 167)“…Pa.C.S. § 5703(1); and, possession of intercepting devices, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5705(1). Post-trial motions were filed and d…”
- Commonwealth v. Smith (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2016, 2016 Pa. Super. 43)“…13 - J-A34028-15 18 Pa.C.S. § 5705(1). He argues, “[i]f the Act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2709.1StalkingIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of stalking when the person either: (1) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person; or (2) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person. (b) Venue.-- (1) An offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the communication or communications were made or at the place where the communication or communications were received. (2) Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Bortz (2006) held a prior contempt conviction for violating a PFA order raises a first stalking conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. 2709.1 to a third-degree felony. Commonwealth v. Faison (2023) treated persistent messages sent after the victim asked to be left alone as evidence of the (a)(1) course of conduct.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Com. v. Faison, W. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2023, 297 A.3d 810)✓Faison had two prior convictions for threatening to kill the same woman he was convicted of stalking. The court held terroristic threats, though unlisted in 18 Pa.C.S. 2709.1(c)(2), qualify as a prior crime of violence, so third-degree felony grading was legal.
- Ake v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, State Board of Accountancy (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2009, 974 A.2d 514)“…cted in Pennsylvania of the more serious crime of stalking, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1, a first offense under that section is…”
- Commonwealth v. Bortz (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2006, 589 Pa. 431)✓Bortz kept phoning and visiting an ex-girlfriend and was convicted three times of contempt for violating her PFA order. The court held a prior contempt conviction for violating a PFA order grades a first stalking offense as a third-degree felony under 18 Pa.C.S. 2709.1.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights, Pennsylvania GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 2709HarassmentIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: (1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; (2) follows the other person in or about a public place or places; (3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose; (4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures; (5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner; (6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or (7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 432 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Urrutia (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1995, 439 Pa. Super. 227)“…admissible where appellant has been charged with stalking. 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 2709(b). We find the evidence of related pri…”
- E.K. v. J.R.A. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2020, 237 A.3d 509)“…ng the plaintiff and other designated persons as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2709 (relating to harassment) and 2709.1 (re…”
- Commonwealth v. Ostrosky (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2006, 589 Pa. 437)“…5503(a)(1-4); and two counts of harassment and stalking, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709. Regarding the Commonwealth's allegatio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5721.1Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidenceIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Disclosure in evidence generally.-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall disclose the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, in any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth. (2) Any person who has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, which is properly subject to disclosure under section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence) may also disclose such contents or evidence in any matter relating to any criminal, quasi-criminal, forfeiture, administrative enforcement or professional disciplinary proceedings in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth or of another state or of the United States or before any state or Federal grand jury or investigating grand jury. Once such disclosure has been made, then any person may disclose the contents or evidence in any such proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)“…e contents of any wire communication in a court proceeding. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a c…”
- Commonwealth v. Ruder (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2013, 62 A.3d 1038)“…sionary rule that extends to non-constitutional violations. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(b); Commonwealth v. Spangler, 570 P…”
- Commonwealth v. Spangler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2002, 570 Pa. 226)“…procurement of a court order, or without probable cause. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Laws on Recording Doctors and Medical Appointments (2026), Pennsylvania Security Camera and Surveillance Laws: Home and Business Rules (2026), Pennsylvania Video Recording Laws: Filming, Surveillance, and Consent Rules (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5703 - Interception, disclosure or use of communications(law.justia.com)
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5704 - Exceptions to prohibition of interception(law.justia.com)
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 7507.1 - Invasion of privacy(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709.1 - Stalking(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 11 - Authorized Disposition of Offenders (Sentencing)(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 69 MAP 2019 (Pa. Supreme Court 2021)(law.justia.com)
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5721.1 - Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication(legis.state.pa.us)
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5713 - Emergency situations(legis.state.pa.us)
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5702 - Definitions(legis.state.pa.us)
- 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2709 - Harassment(legis.state.pa.us)