Skip to content Skip to footer

UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Police Commander and City of Pittsburgh Face Wiretap Lawsuit

Hi CIPAWorld! The Baroness in this article and I have an intriguing submitting that just came in the other day.

This just one will involve alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Digital Surveillance Act, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703, et seq., and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, et seq.

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703, et seq., a individual is responsible of a felony of the 3rd degree if he:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other man or woman to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, digital or oral conversation

(2) deliberately discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other human being the contents of any wire, digital or oral conversation, or proof derived therefrom, being aware of or having rationale to know that the facts was received via the interception of a wire, digital or oral interaction or

(3) deliberately utilizes or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, digital or oral interaction, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having explanation to know, that the info was obtained by way of the interception of a wire, digital or oral interaction.

Seven police officers used by the Metropolis of Pittsburg Bureau of Law enforcement group up to sue Matthew Lackner (Commander) and the Metropolis of Pittsburgh.

Plaintiffs, Colleen Jumba Baker, Brittany Mercer, Matthew O’Brien, Jonathan Sharp, Matthew Zuccher, Christopher Sedlak and Devlyn Valencic Keller allege that starting on September 27, 2003 by way of Oct 4, 2003, Matthew Lacker utilized entire body worn cameras to online video and audio data Plaintiffs alongside with making use of the GPS part of the system worn digital camera to track them.

Sure. To monitor them.

Plaintiffs allege they were being unaware that Lacker was utilizing a body worn digital camera to movie and car them and employing the GPS functionality of the body worn digital camera. Nor did they consent to have their conversations audio recorded by Lacker and/or the Metropolis of Pittsburgh.

Interestingly, Lackner was by now billed with four (4) counts of Unlawful Use of Wire or Oral Conversation pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703(1) in a criminal match.

So now Plaintiffs search for compensatory damages, which include true damages or statutory damages, punitive damages, and fairly attorneys’ costs.

This situation was just submitted so it will be attention-grabbing to see how this case progresses. But this scenario is an vital reminder that many states have their possess privacy rules and to consider these legal guidelines very seriously to avoid lawsuits like this one.

Circumstance No.: Circumstance 2:24-cv-00461