Rule 113.1. Confidential Information and Confidential Documents. Certification.

Unless public access is otherwise constrained by applicable authority, any attorney, or 

any party if unrepresented, or any affiant who files a document pursuant to these rules 

with the issuing authority or clerk of courts’ office shall comply with the requirements of 

Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial 

System of Pennsylvania (Policy). In accordance with the Policy, the filing shall include a 

certification of compliance with the Policy and, as necessary, a Confidential Information 

Form[, unless otherwise specified by rule or order of court,] or a Confidential 

Document Form.

Comment

 “Applicable authority,” as used in this rule, includes but is not limited to statute, 

procedural rule, or court order. The Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified 

Judicial System of Pennsylvania (Policy) can be found on the website of the Supreme 

Court of Pennsylvania at: https://www.pacourts.us/public-records. The Policy is 

applicable to all filings by the parties or an affiant in any criminal court case.

 Sections 7.0(D) and 8.0(D) of the Policy provide that the certification shall be in 

substantially the following form:

 

I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case Records 

Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania that 

require filing confidential information and documents differently than nonconfidential information and documents.

 Filings may require further precautions, such as placing certain types of 

information in a “Confidential Information Form.” The Confidential Information Form and 

the Confidential Document Form can be found at: https://www.pacourts.us/publicrecords/public-records-forms. [In lieu of the Confidential Information Form, Section 

7.0(C) of the Policy provides for a court to adopt a rule or order permitting the 

filing of a document in two versions, a “Redacted Version” and an “Unredacted 

Version.”]

 In addition to the restrictions above, a filing party should be cognizant of the 

potential impact that inclusion of personal information may have on an individual’s 

privacy rights and security. Therefore, inclusion of such information should be done only 

when necessary or required to effectuate the purpose of the filing. Consideration of the 

use of sealing or protective orders also should be given if inclusion of such information 

is necessary.
2

 While the Public Access Policy is not applicable to orders or other documents 

filed by a court, judges should give consideration to the privacy interests addressed by 

the Policy when drafting an order that might include information considered confidential 

under the Policy.

[Official Note: New Rule 113.1 adopted January 5, 2018, effective January 6, 2018; 

amended June 1, 2018, effective July 1, 2018.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

 Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with the 

Court’s Order at 48 Pa.B. 490 (January 20, 2018). Amendments regarding the 

changes to the Court’s public access policy published with the Court’s Order at 

48 Pa.B. 3575 (June 16, 2018).]
3

Rule 420. Filing of Complaint.

When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the affiant shall institute a criminal 

proceeding in a summary case by filing a complaint with the proper issuing authority.

Comment

 With regard to the ‘‘proper’’ issuing authority as used in these rules, see Rule 

130.

 Complaints filed pursuant to this rule are public records. However, in addition to 

restrictions placed by law and rule on the disclosure of confidential information, the 

filings required by this rule are subject to the Case Records Public Access Policy of the 

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania and may require further precautions, such as 

placing certain types of information in a ‘‘Confidential Information Form.’’[ or providing 

both a redacted and unredacted version of the filing.] See Rule 113.1.

[Official Note: Previous Rule 65 adopted September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 

1974; rescinded July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986, and replaced by present 

Rules 409(B), 414(B), 424, 430(D), 431, and 456. Present Rule 65, adopted July 12, 

1985, effective January 1, 1986. The January 1, 1986 effective dates all are 

extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 420 and Comment revised March 1, 

2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised June 1, 2018, effective July 1, 

2018.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

 Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering 

of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000). 

Amendments regarding the Court’s public access policy published with the 

Court’s Order at 48 Pa.B. 3575 (June 16, 2018).]
4

Rule 513. Requirements for Issuance; Dissemination of Arrest Warrant 

Information.

(A) For purposes of this rule, ‘‘arrest warrant information’’ is defined as the 

criminal complaint in cases in which an arrest warrant is issued, the arrest 

warrant, any affidavit(s) of probable cause, and documents or information 

related to the case.

(B) ISSUANCE OF ARREST WARRANT

 (1) In the discretion of the issuing authority, advanced communication 

technology may be used to submit a complaint and affidavit(s) for 

an arrest warrant and to issue an arrest warrant.

 (2) No arrest warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported 

by one or more affidavits sworn to before the issuing authority in 

person or using advanced communication technology. The issuing 

authority, in determining whether probable cause has been 

established, may not consider any evidence outside the affidavits.

 (3) Immediately prior to submitting a complaint and affidavit to an 

issuing authority using advanced communication technology, the 

affiant must personally communicate with the issuing authority in 

person, by telephone, or by any device which allows for 

simultaneous audio-visual communication. During the 

communication, the issuing authority shall verify the identity of the 

affiant, and orally administer an oath to the affiant. In any 

telephonic communication, if the issuing authority has a concern 

regarding the identity of the affiant, the issuing authority may 

require the affiant to communicate by a device allowing for two-way 

simultaneous audio-visual communication or may require the affiant 

to appear in person.

 (4) At any hearing on a motion challenging an arrest warrant, no 

evidence shall be admissible to establish probable cause for the 

arrest warrant other than the affidavits provided for in paragraph 

(B)(2).

(C) DELAY IN DISSEMINATION OF ARREST WARRANT INFORMATION

The affiant or the attorney for the Commonwealth may request that the 

availability of the arrest warrant information for inspection and 

dissemination be delayed. The arrest warrant affidavit shall include the 
5

facts and circumstances that are alleged to establish good cause for delay 

in inspection and dissemination.

 (1) Upon a finding of good cause, the issuing authority shall grant the 

request and order that the availability of the arrest warrant 

information for inspection and dissemination be delayed for a 

period of 72 hours or until receipt of notice by the issuing authority 

that the warrant has been executed, whichever occurs first. The 72-

hour period of delay may be preceded by an initial delay period of 

not more than 24 hours, when additional time is required to 

complete the administrative processing of the arrest warrant 

information before the arrest warrant is issued. The issuing 

authority shall complete the administrative processing of the arrest 

warrant information prior to the expiration of the initial 24-hour 

period.

 (2) Upon the issuance of the warrant, the 72-hour period of delay 

provided in paragraph (C)(1) begins.

 (3) In those counties in which the attorney for the Commonwealth 

requires that complaints and arrest warrant affidavits be approved 

prior to filing as provided in Rule 507, only the attorney for the 

Commonwealth may request a delay in the inspection and 

dissemination of the arrest warrant information.

Comment

 This rule was amended in 2013 to add provisions concerning the delay in 

inspection and dissemination of arrest warrant information. Paragraph (A) provides a 

definition of the term ‘‘arrest warrant information’’ that is used throughout the rule. 

Paragraph (B) retains the existing requirements for the issuance of arrest warrants. 

Paragraph (C) establishes the procedures for a temporary delay in the inspection and 

dissemination of arrest warrant information prior to the execution of the warrant.

 ISSUANCE OF ARREST WARRANTS

 Paragraph (B)(1) recognizes that an issuing authority either may issue an arrest 

warrant using advanced communication technology or order that the law enforcement 

officer appear in person to apply for an arrest warrant.

 This rule does not preclude oral testimony before the issuing authority, but it 

requires that such testimony be reduced to an affidavit prior to issuance of a warrant. All 

affidavits in support of an application for an arrest warrant must be sworn to before the 
6

issuing authority prior to the issuance of the warrant. The language ‘‘sworn to before the 

issuing authority’’ contemplates, when advanced communication technology is used, 

that the affiant would not be in the physical presence of the issuing 

authority. See paragraph (B)(3).

 All affidavits and applications filed pursuant to this rule are public records. 

However, in addition to restrictions placed by law and rule on the disclosure of 

confidential information, the filings required by this rule are subject to the Case Records 

Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania and may require 

further precautions, such as placing certain types of information in a ‘‘Confidential 

Information Form.’’[ or providing both a redacted and unredacted version of the 

filing.] See Rule 113.1.

 This rule carries over to the arrest warrant the requirement that the evidence 

presented to the issuing authority be reduced to writing and sworn to, and that only the 

writing is subsequently admissible to establish that there was probable cause. In these 

respects, the procedure is similar to that applicable to search warrants. See Rule 203. 

For a discussion of the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of an arrest 

warrant, see Commonwealth v. Flowers, 369 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1976).

 The affidavit requirements of this rule are not intended to apply when an arrest 

warrant is to be issued for noncompliance with a citation, with a summons, or with a 

court order.

 An affiant seeking the issuance of an arrest warrant, when permitted by the 

issuing authority, may use advanced communication technology as defined in Rule 103.

 When advanced communication technology is used, the issuing authority is 

required by this rule to (1) determine that the evidence contained in the affidavit(s) 

establishes probable cause, and (2) verify the identity of the affiant.

 Verification methods include, but are not limited to, a ‘‘call back’’ system, in which 

the issuing authority would call the law enforcement agency or police department that 

the affiant indicates is the entity seeking the warrant; a ‘‘signature comparison’’ system 

whereby the issuing authority would keep a list of the signatures of the law enforcement 

officers whose departments have advanced communication technology systems in 

place, and compare the signature on the transmitted information with the signature on 

the list; or an established password system.

 Under Rule 540, the defendant receives a copy of the warrant and supporting 

affidavit at the time of the preliminary arraignment.
7

 See Rule 556.11 for the procedures for the issuance of an arrest warrant by the 

supervising judge of an indicting grand jury following indictment of an individual not 

previously arrested.

 DELAY IN DISSEMINATION OF ARREST WARRANT INFORMATION

 Paragraph (C) was added in 2013 to address the potential dangers to law 

enforcement and the general public and the risk of flight when arrest warrant information 

is disseminated prior to the execution of the arrest warrant. The paragraph provides that 

the affiant or the attorney for the Commonwealth may request, for good cause shown, 

the delay in the inspection and dissemination of the arrest warrant information for 72 

hours or until receipt of notice by the issuing authority that the warrant has been 

executed, whichever occurs first. Upon a finding of good cause, the issuing authority 

must delay the inspection and dissemination.

 The request for delay in inspection and dissemination is intended to provide a 

very limited delay in public access to arrest warrant information in those cases in which 

there is concern that pre-execution disclosure of the existence of the arrest warrant will 

endanger those serving the warrant or will impel the subject of the warrant to flee. This 

request is intended to be an expedited procedure with the request submitted to an 

issuing authority.

 A request for the delay in dissemination of arrest warrant information made in 

accordance with this rule is not subject to the requirements of Rule 576.

 Once the issuing authority receives notice that the arrest warrant is executed, or 

when 72 hours have elapsed from the issuance of the warrant and the warrant has not 

been executed, whichever occurs first, the information must be available for inspection 

or dissemination unless the information is sealed pursuant to Rule 513.1.

 The provision in paragraph (C)(2) that provides up to 24 hours in the delay of 

dissemination and inspection prior to the issuance of the arrest warrant recognizes that, 

in some cases, there may be administrative processing of the arrest warrant request 

that results in a delay between when the request for the 72-hour period of delay 

permitted in paragraph (C)(1) is approved and when the warrant is issued. In no case 

may this additional period of delay exceed 24 hours and the issuing authority must issue 

the arrest warrant within the 24-hour period.

 When determining whether good cause exists to delay inspection and 

dissemination of the arrest warrant information, the issuing authority must consider 

whether the presumption of openness is rebutted by other interests that include, but are 

not limited to, whether revealing the information would allow or enable flight or 

resistance, the need to protect the safety of police officers executing the warrant, the 
8

necessity of preserving the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations, and the 

availability of reasonable alternative means to protect the interest threatened by 

disclosure.

 Nothing in this rule is intended to limit the dissemination of arrest warrant 

information to court personnel as needed to perform their duties. Nothing in this rule is 

intended to limit the dissemination of arrest warrant information to or by law 

enforcement as needed to perform their duties.

 Pursuant to paragraph (C)(3), in those counties in which the district attorney’s 

approval is required only for certain, specified offenses or grades of offenses, the 

approval of the district attorney is required for a request to delay inspection and 

dissemination only for cases involving those specified offenses.

[Official Note: Rule 119 adopted April 26, 1979, effective as to arrest warrants 

issued on or after July 1, 1979; Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective 

January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 513 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 

1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended December 

23, 2013, effective March 1, 2014; amended November 9, 2017, effective January 1, 

2018; Comment revised June 1, 2018, effective July 1, 2018; Comment revised 

November 27, 2018, effective March 1, 2019.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

 Report explaining the August 9, 1994 Comment revisions published at 22 

Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 

Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994). Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 

reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 

30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000). Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 

amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with 

the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002). Final Report explaining the 

December 23, 2013 amendments providing procedures for delay in dissemination 

and sealing of arrest warrant information published with the Court’s Order at 44 

Pa.B. 243 (January 11, 2014). Final Report explaining the November 9, 2017 

amendments regarding electronic technology for swearing affidavits published 

with the Court’s Order at 47 Pa.B. 7180 (November 25, 2017). Comment revision 

regarding the Court’s public access policy published with the Court’s Order at 48 

Pa.B. 3575 (June 16, 2018). Final Report explaining the November 27, 2018 

revision to the Comment cross-referencing post-indictment arrest warrant 

procedures in Rule 556.11 published with the Court’s Order at 48 Pa.B. 7632 

(December 15, 2018).]
9

Rule 578. Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief.

Unless otherwise required in the interests of justice, all pretrial requests for relief shall 

be included in one omnibus motion.

Comment

 Types of relief appropriate for the omnibus pretrial motions include the following 

requests:

(1) for continuance;

(2) for severance and joinder or consolidation;

(3) for suppression of evidence;

(4) for psychiatric examination;

(5) to quash or dismiss an information;

(6) for change of venue or venire;

(7) to disqualify a judge;

(8) for appointment of investigator;

(9) for pretrial conference;

(10) challenging the array of an indicting grand jury;

(11) for transfer from criminal proceedings to juvenile proceedings pursuant to 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6322; and

(12) proposing or opposing the admissibility of scientific or expert evidence.

 The omnibus pretrial motion rule is not intended to limit other types of motions, 

oral or written, made pretrial or during trial, including those traditionally called motions in 

limine, which may affect the admissibility of evidence or the resolution of other matters. 

The earliest feasible submissions and rulings on such motions are encouraged.

 See Pa.R.E. 702 and 703 regarding the admissibility of scientific or expert 

testimony. Pa.R.E. 702 codifies Pennsylvania’s adherence to the test to determine the 

admissibility of expert evidence first established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 

(D.C. Cir. 1923) and adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. 
10

Topa, 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977). Given the potential complexity when the admissibility 

of such evidence is challenged, such challenges should be raised in advance of trial as 

part of the omnibus pretrial motion if possible. However, nothing in this rule precludes 

such challenges from being raised in a motion in limine when circumstances necessitate 

it.

 All motions filed pursuant to this rule are public records. However, in addition to 

restrictions placed by law and rule on the disclosure of confidential information, the 

motions are subject to the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial 

System of Pennsylvania and may require further precautions, such as placing certain 

types of information in a “Confidential Information Form.”[ or providing both a 

redacted and unredacted version of the filing.] See Rule 113.1.

 See Rule 113.1 regarding the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified 

Judicial System of Pennsylvania and the requirements regarding filings and documents 

that contain confidential information.

 See Rule 556.4 for challenges to the array of an indicting grand jury and for 

motions to dismiss an information filed after a grand jury indicts a defendant.

[Official Note: Formerly Rule 304, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 

1965; amended and renumbered Rule 306 June 29, 1977 and November 22, 1977, 

effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after 

January 1, 1978; amended October 21, 1983, effective January 1, 1984; Comment 

revised October 25, 1990, effective January 1, 1991; Comment revised August 12, 

1993, effective September 1, 1993; renumbered Rule 578 and Comment revised 

March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised June 21, 2012, effective in 

180 days; Comment revised July 31, 2012, effective November 1, 2012; Comment 

revised September 21, 2017, effective January 1, 2018; Comment revised January 

5, 2018, effective January 6, 2018; Comment revised June 1, 2018, effective July 1, 

2018.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

 Report explaining the October 25, 1990 Rule 306 Comment revision 

published at 20 Pa.B. 1696 (March 24, 1990). Report explaining the August 12, 

1993 Comment revision published at 22 Pa.B. 3826 (July 25, 1992). Final Report 

explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules 

published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000). Final Report 

explaining the June 21, 2012, revision of the Comment referencing indicting 

grand jury rules published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 4153 (July 7, 2012). 

Final Report explaining the July 31, 2012 Comment revision adding motions for 

transfer published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 5340 (August 18, 2012). 
11

Final Report explaining the September 21, 2017 Comment revision regarding 

pretrial challenges to the admissibility of expert evidence published with the 

Court’s Order at 47 Pa.B. 6173 (October 7, 2017). Final Report explaining the 

January 5, 2018 Comment revisions regarding the Court’s public access policy 

published with the Court’s Order at 48 Pa.B. 490 (January 20, 2018). Comment 

revisions regarding the Court’s public access policy published with the Court’s 

Order at 48 Pa.B. 3575 (June 16, 2018).]