(Editor’s note: The information in this special series is for educational purposes only and is not intended to address any particular case, nor should any articles be taken as legal advice.  Always consult with an attorney on any legal matter.)

In the last few months, there has been an increase in citizen reports of being secretly recorded. These complaints fall under Pennsylvania’s “wiretap” law, which makes it a felony to secretly record another person or use a tracking device — with very few exceptions.

When evaluating whether the particular recording violates the law, the officers and I look at the various provisions of the wiretap law.

Initially, we look at whether the recording falls under the type of communication that is subject to the wiretap provisions. Conversations by a person are only covered by the act if they are the type of conversations had when the person would reasonably expect that it was not being recorded. The best example of communication that one would expect to not be recorded is communication that occurs in a private residence or office.

There are exceptions for police body-worn cameras, recordings of public meetings or recordings in public areas where the use of a recording device would be expected.

If the communication falls under the type that is covered by the act, we would then look at the section of the law that lists the exceptions. Generally, recording someone is prohibited. The exceptions generally are emergency call centers, jails, school buses or officers, or someone acting at the behest of law enforcement.

Even with these exceptions, certain criteria has to be met. For example, with school buses, the school board must have adopted a policy regarding the use of recording devices and the fact of recording must be posted.

The act similarly prohibits the use of tracking devices with very few exceptions.

The wiretap statute is complex and contains numerous parts including the very definition of communication, exceptions to the general rule against recordings, and the penalties for violation.

The exceptions are very limited and the statute, by its terms, stresses the general prohibition of recording or tracking someone without their knowledge.