Court Opinion

ID: 9707534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:14:56.65832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:34.813599
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
Because the expectation of privacy in one’s office is akin to the highly protected expectation of privacy in the home, Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that there be a prior determination of probable cause by a neutral judicial authority before electronic surveillance is conducted in an individual’s office. However, because the court order entered in this case provided the necessary constitutional protection, the intercepted communications were properly admitted.
In Commonwealth v. Brion, 589 Pa. 256, 652 A.2d 287 (1994), we held that an individual can reasonably expect that his right to privacy will not be violated in his home through the use of any electronic surveillance. We held that “[w]ith respect to oral communications occurring within one’s home, interception pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(2)(ii) can only be deemed constitutional under Article I, Section 8 if there has been a prior determination of probable cause by a neutral, judicial authority.” Id. at 261, 652 A.2d 287. The majority avoids the application of Brion by merely asserting that an office does not invoke the same heightened expectation of privacy as one’s home. This conclusion is erroneous.
As noted by the majority, “[u]pon closing the door of one’s home to the outside world, a person may legitimately expect the highest degree of privacy known to our society.” Commonwealth v. Shaw, 476 Pa. 543, 550, 383 A.2d 496, 499 (1978). *17This notion of personal liberty is so engrafted upon the jurisprudence of this Commonwealth that it is most often stated without elaboration. Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures existed in Pennsylvania more than a decade before the adoption of the federal Constitution, and fifteen years prior to the promulgation of the Fourth Amendment. Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 63, 470 A.2d 457 (1983). “The survival of the language now employed in Article I, Section 8 through over 200 years of profound change in other areas demonstrates that the paramount concern for privacy first adopted as part of our organic law in 1776 continues to enjoy the mandate of the people of the Commonwealth.” Id. at 65, 470 A.2d at 467.
To hold that such expectation against government intrusion does not exist in one’s office is untenable. It is unquestionable that citizens expect that agents of the Commonwealth will not intrude upon the private utterances spoken within the confines of a personal office. In both a home and an office, an individual spends significant amounts of time, retains personal documents and effects, and engages in conversations of the utmost confidential nature.1 More importantly, in each there is an expectation that the activity occurring therein is shielded from the eyes and ears of the outside world. The fact that one does not lay his head to rest under the same roof as he conducts his business does not render his expectation of privacy in an office any less. Moreover, merely because Appellant was engaging in illegal activity does not render his *18subjective expectation of privacy unreasonable. The Appellant in Brion retained his heightened expectation of privacy in his home when he sold marijuana to an informant there. Obviously, the right to engage in illegal conduct is not protected. What is to be fiercely protected, however, is the right to be free from government intrusion. That right is guaranteed by Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Furthermore, when discussing the expectation of privacy, our Court has repeatedly referred to one’s office as falling into the same category as one’s home. See Commonwealth v. Labron, 543 Pa. 86, 95, 669 A.2d 917, 921 (1995) (“one’s expectation of privacy -with respect to an automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office”); See also Commonwealth v. Holzer, 480 Pa. 93, 103, 389 A.2d 101, 106 (1978); Commonwealth v. Brundidge, 533 Pa. 167, 173 n. 3, 620 A.2d 1115, 1118 n. 3 (1993) (“Fourth Amendment protection extends to a hotel room, paid for and occupied, in much the same way as it does to a citizen’s home or office.”); Commonwealth v. Oglialoro, 525 Pa. 250, 258, 579 A.2d 1288, 1292 (1990), quoting, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (‘What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment Protection.”); Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 459, 530 A.2d 74, 76 (1987); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 103, 288 A.2d 727, 734 (1972) (“[w]e have long recognized a distinction between the warrantless search of an automobile and that of a home or office”).
I do not suggest that a citizen’s office can never be subject to electronic surveillance. Rather, I submit that in order to do so, the Commonwealth must comply with the constitutional protection against unreasonable government intrusions. The requirement of a neutral determination of probable cause to intercept communications in an individual’s office is not too onerous a burden to place upon the Commonwealth, considering the protection accorded a citizen’s right to privacy.
Having determined that Appellant possesses a heightened expectation of privacy in his office, the next step is to examine *19whether the court order authorizing the surveillance provided the necessary constitutional protection. Here, the common pleas court, upon a finding of probable cause, authorized the use of electronic surveillance equipment to intercept and record one-party conversations occurring inside Appellant’s office for a period not to exceed ten days.
We stated in Brion that, “[i]n light of the General Assembly’s preference expressed elsewhere in the Act that probable cause determinations regarding other electronic surveillance be made by a judge of the Superior Court, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5708-5723, for consistency we believe that such procedures should be applied in fulfilling this probable cause/warrant requirement.” 539 Pa. at 261-62, 652 A.2d at 289 (emphasis added). Under the circumstances of the instant case, I do not believe the fact that the authorization was made by a common pleas court judge warrants suppression of the intercepted communications. What the Constitution requires is the finding of probable cause by a neutral judicial authority; which judicial authority makes that determination is a product of case law interpreting a statutory provision. Further, by seeking authorization to electronically intercept Appellant’s conversations from the common pleas court, the Commonwealth was abiding by the law applicable at the time, which required a determination from a judicial officer. Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 370 Pa.Super. 179, 536 A.2d 354 (1987).2
In summary, I find that Appellant possesses a heightened expectation of privacy in his office which should be afforded the same constitutional protection that applies to privacy expectations in the home. However, since the order authorizing the electronic surveillance satisfied this constitutional mandate, the intercepted communications were properly admitted.
FLAHERTY, C.J., and NIGRO, J., join this Concurring Opinion.

. The discussions taking place in the medical office in the instant case are excellent examples of communications that are believed to be private. Communications between physicians and patients are statutorily protected, although such privilege was admittedly waived here by the patient/informant. The fact that such communications are of a confidential nature supports the view that a heightened expectation of privacy exists. As stated by the majority, "[t]he purpose of the physician-patient privilege is to create a confidential atmosphere in which the patient will be encouraged to disclose all possible information bearing on his or her illness so that the physician may render effective treatment.” Op. at 1257-58, citing In re June 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, 490 Pa. 143, 415 A.2d 73, 77 (1980). This confidential atmosphere exists in many other types of offices where business deals are made and financial transactions are conducted.

. The Commonwealth’s application to electronically intercept Appellant’s conversations was filed in common pleas court more than five years before we decided Brion.