Title: Welch, Aplt v. Palka, et al (Per Curiam Order)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 9 MAP 2009
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: November 18, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT JAMES WELCH, Appellant v. EDWARD PALKA, INDIVIDUALLY; AND AS A KINGSTON, LUZERNE CO. POLICE OFFICER; AND RICHARD KOTCHIK, INDIVIDUALLY; AND AS A KINGSTON, LUZERNE CO. POLICE OFFICER; AND MARIO SCOTTI, INDIVIDUALLY; AND AS AN AVOCA, LUZERNE CO. POLICE OFFICER; AND ROBERT EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY; AND AS AN AVOCA, LUZERNE CO. POLICE OFFICER; AND JOHN DOE, INDIVIDUALLY; AND AS A PLYMOUTH, LUZERNE CO. POLICE OFFICER, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 9 MAP 2009 Appeal from the Memorandum and Order of the Commonwealth Court dated November 24, 2008 at No. 274 MD 2008 ORDER PER CURIAM DECIDED: November 18, 2009 AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2009, the order of the Commonwealth Court of November 24, 2008, in the above matter, is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Specifically, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED to the extent that it dismisses with prejudice all relief requested by Appellant, James Welch, that deviates from the relief specifically provided for by 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726(a), which vests jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Court. However, contrary to the conclusion of the Commonwealth Court, it appearing that Appellant has specifically alleged violations of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 5741, and, absent full and sufficient legal analysis of these and related provisions by the Commonwealth Court establishing otherwise, it appearing that Appellant has alleged sufficient facts that may meet the criteria for establishing violations of these sections, the Commonwealth Court incorrectly concluded that it is clear and free from all doubt that Appellant has failed to plead a viable cause of action pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726. Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED IN PART, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings on Appellant’s 18 Pa.C.S. § 5726 claim. In those further proceedings, Appellant’s allegations may be tested, pursuant to any well-pled motion, by appropriate legal analysis of the applicable sections of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, taking into consideration, among other things, the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 5741 and the legislative definitions set forth at 18 Pa.C.S. § 5702, and any factual record established before the Commonwealth Court. Chief Justice Castille files a Concurring and Dissenting Statement, in which Mr. Justice Eakin joins. Madame Justice Todd dissents, and would affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.