Court Opinion

ID: 9752790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:35:02.122356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:22.378547
License: Public Domain

SILVESTRI, Senior Judge,
concurring and dissenting. I concur with the majority as to the six year statute of limitations being the limitation period in effect at the time of the events giving rise to this action; I also concur with the majority that officers of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States Government and Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (PDR) are not investigators within the definition of “Investigative or law enforcement officer” as defined in section 5702 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act1 (Act); I also concur with the majority that Robert E. Miklich’s disclosure to the IRS and PDR agents of the information obtained by way of a wiretap pursuant to section 5704(2)(ii)2 of the Act was not “appropriate to the proper performance” of Miklich’s “official duties” under section 5717(a)3 of the Act.
The foregoing holding4 by the majority, which is derived from the plain, clear, unambiguous language of sections *1535702, 5704(2)(ii), 5708, 5717(a) of the Act, not only militates, under the facts5 of this case, against a “good faith” defense, but eliminates such a defense.
I dissent and would affirm the trial court.

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5702.

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(2)(ii).

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(a).

. Excepting the statute of limitations issue.

. I accept the majority’s statement of the facts.