Shuttleworth Law P.C.

Shuttleworth Law P.C.

Call 888-529-3486
For a Free Case Evaluation

  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Defense
      • Assault & Domestic Violence
      • Burglary, Robbery & Theft
      • Computer Crimes
      • Criminal Appeals
      • Criminal Investigations
      • Drug Crimes
      • DUI Defense
      • Expungements
      • Gun Crimes Defense
      • Homicide, Manslaughter, & Murder
      • Sex Crimes
      • Violent Crimes Defense
      • White-collar Crimes
    • Personal Injury
      • Bicycle Accidents
      • Car Accidents
      • Construction Accident
      • Medical Malpractice
      • Motorcycle Accidents
      • Pedestrian Accidents
      • Premises Liability
      • Wrongful Death
    • Protection From Abuse (PFA)
      • PFA Defense
      • PFAs for Victims
    • Strike 3 Holdings Defense
  • About Us
    • Brad V. Shuttleworth
    • Recent Case Results
    • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Shuttleworth Law P.C. Client Portal
    • FAQs
  • Contact Us Now
  • Free Case Evaluation: 888-529-3486

Criminal Lawyer Update: Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds the Privacy Protections of the Wiretap Act

Brad V. Shuttleworth, Esq. | Last Updated: January 27, 2026

In the Superior Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Deck, 2008 Pa. Super. 150 (Pa. Super. 2008), the Court strictly construes the provisions of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (“Wiretap Act”), 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5701 et seq. and upholds the privacy protections afforded by the statute for a defendant whose telephone conversation was illegally recorded.

In Deck, an alleged victim of various sex crimes records a conversation with the defendant on a cassette tape in an answering machine. The alleged victim tells him that he is on speaker phone, and he has the conversation from his office while the office door is open. The alleged victim does not obtain the defendant’s consent to record the conversation, as the defendant does not know he is being recorded. The alleged victim makes the recording to prove to her mother and police that the defendant engaged in sexual relations with her.

Prior to trial, the defendant files a motion to preclude introduction of the audio recording into evidence. The trial court suppresses the audio tape, and the Commonwealth appeals to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court affirms the trial court’s suppression of the audio recording in Deck. There is no dispute among the parties in this case that the telephone conversation is a “wire communication” under the Wiretap Act, a type of communication protected under the statute. However, the Commonwealth argues that the recording should not have been suppressed under the statutory exclusionary rule under Section 5721.1(b) of the Wiretap Act because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation with the alleged victim.

The Superior Court does not delve into the defendant’s expectation of privacy, holding that the speaker’s expectation of privacy is irrelevant to whether the evidence should be precluded. The Court comes to this conclusion for two reasons. First, the Wiretap Act does not require an expectation of privacy on the part of the speaker to protect wire communications. Second, the Wiretap Act is modeled after it Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which authorizes states to adopt wiretap statutes that afford more, but not less, protection than federal law.

The Commonwealth then asks the Court to carve out an exception in this case, which is not provided for in the statute. The Court declines to carve out an exception for an alleged sexual assault victim to prove wrongdoing to the authorities because that would ignore the clear statutory language created by the legislature in the comprehensive Wiretap Act. The legislature omitted such language, and the Court does not have the authority to add it.

This case demonstrates a clear violation of the Wiretap Act and the subsequent protection of privacy by the Court. Some may argue that the relevant evidence precluded by the Court in this case unjustly hindered a prosecution. However, the privacy concerns protected by the Wiretap Act in this case are protected, and the holding of this case will help to deter individuals from illegally recording telephone conversations in the future .

The Wiretap Act is a comprehensive statutory scheme created by the legislature. The legislature created the statutory exclusionary rule in the Wiretap Act as part of a statutory scheme to designed to deter illegal interception of wire, electronic or communications. In the world we live in, our privacies rights are constantly being stripped away in the name of law enforcement. When a court protects privacy rights, there may be a few times where someone can not by prosecuted because evidence is obtained unlawfully. However, justice is served in knowing that the upholding of privacy laws such as the Wiretap Act protects everyone from illegal invasions of privacy.

Were You Charged with a Crime in Pennsylvania or New Jersey?

If so, I can help, and I’m not afraid of taking on tough cases, either. Put an innovative and experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side by contacting me at Shuttleworth Law P.C. for a Free Case Evaluation. Call 888-529-3486 or message me here directly to request yours today.

Criminal Defense

Categories

  • Civil Rights (3)
  • Criminal Defense (183)
    • Appeals (1)
    • Arrests (5)
    • Assault (2)
    • Burglary (2)
    • Child Abuse (1)
    • Computer Crimes (7)
    • Conspiracy (2)
    • Contempt (3)
    • Corruption (2)
    • Criminal Law Courts (21)
    • Domestic Violence (4)
    • Drug Charges (5)
    • DUI (5)
    • Evidence (4)
    • Expungements & Pardons (3)
    • Felonies (7)
    • Forgery (3)
    • Gun Charges (19)
    • Homicide (7)
    • Insurance Fraud (3)
    • Manslaughter (4)
    • Misdemeanors (2)
    • Murder (1)
    • Pleas (1)
    • Police Conduct (9)
    • Prisons & Jails (11)
    • Probation and Parole (4)
    • Property Crime (1)
    • Rape (1)
    • Robbery (4)
    • Search & Seizure (31)
    • Sentencing (18)
    • Sex Crimes (6)
    • Traffic Stops (5)
    • Violent Crime (4)
    • Warrants (4)
    • Weapons (5)
    • White-Collar Crimes (2)
    • Wire Fraud (1)
  • Federal Indictments (1)
  • General Legal News (17)
  • Law Firm News (8)
  • Legislation (6)
  • Personal Injury (5)
    • Car Accidents (1)
    • Fault (1)
    • Pedestrian Accidents (1)
    • Statute of Limitations (1)
    • Wrongful Death (1)
  • Protection From Abuse (PFA) (7)
    • PFA Defense (5)
  • Restraining Order (1)
  • Statutes of LImitation (1)
  • Strike 3 Holdings (9)
  • Uncategorized (2)

Placeholder. Do not Delete.

google
Darren Isomoto 1 month ago
Mr. Shuttleworth is extremely experienced, and his calm, approachable demeanor immediately puts clients at ease. He is very communicative and thorough, and he explains everything clearly, which made the entire process much easier to understand.
...
google
Michael M 2 months ago
Brad was awesome! Very communicative. Expert counsel
...
google
Damon Galdo 3 months ago
Very professional. Brad was very kind and went out of his way to help out with matters not specific to my case. 5 stars across the board!
...
google
nicholas 3 months ago
It was awesome working with Brad, he was very trustworthy, communication was excellent and very easy person to work with. I would 1000% recommend to anyone. Thanks Brad and his team for their help.
...
google
Matt Phelps 3 months ago
Brad was always available to answer questions and always ensured they were answered in their entirety. I had spoken to other attorneys who just wanted to throw a large $$$ retainer without explaining exactly what they could deliver. Brad looked over the issue I brought to him, assessed the situation, and clearly explained what he could deliver. Brad ensured every aspect of the case was reviewed to ensure the best outcome was achieved. When meeting with Brad, he ensured his focus was on you and made you feel like his only client was you. Hands down, I highly recommend Brad!
...
google
Dave 3 months ago
Brad and his firm helped me quickly, fast response! Making it a smooth process. Took the time with me to go over details, even on a Sunday. I could tell he was on the phone at home, hearing his family in the background. left me with a good feeling i made right choice! can't recommend enough!
...
google
Melissa Rivera 3 months ago
Brad is very professional and honest, his staff is incredibly knowledgeable and helpful as well. From the moment we spoke I knew he was the lawyer to handle our case.
...
google
Melissa Montes 3 months ago
Brad was my fiancé’s attorney, he was truly exceptional from start to finish. He was incredibly attentive, knowledgeable, and well-mannered throughout the entire process. He consistently kept us informed, was reliable every step of the way, and ultimately got our case dismissed. His professionalism and dedication made a stressful situation so much easier. I highly recommend him to anyone in need of a defense attorney—his service is outstanding and absolutely deserves five stars. Thank you Brad!! Vinny and Melissa
...
google
Melissa Rivera 3 months ago
Brad was My fiancé’s attorney he was truly exceptional from start to finish. He was incredibly attentive, knowledgeable, and well-mannered throughout the entire process. He consistently kept us informed, was reliable every step of the way, and ultimately got our case dismissed. His professionalism and dedication made a stressful situation so much easier. I highly recommend him to anyone in need of a defense attorney—his service is outstanding and absolutely deserves five stars. Thanks Brad - Vinny and Melissa
...

Shuttleworth Law, P.C.
New Jersey Office:
1040 Mantua Pike
Wenonah NJ 08090
856-681-0185

Pennsylvania Office:
By appointment only

Call 888-529-3486
Available 24/7 for emergencies

Business Hours
Monday – Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
TikTok
X (Formerly Twitter)

This website is for informational purposes only. Information presented isn’t legal advice and doesn’t form attorney-client relationships. Past results aren’t indicative of future results as all cases are unique. Laws affect each situation differently.

Copyright © 2005-2025 Brad V. Shuttleworth, Esq., Shuttleworth Law P.C. | Privacy Policy