Commonwealth v. Cline
177 A.3d 922
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Patrick Cline recorded a closed-door custody conference in the Lehigh County Courthouse on his cell phone, despite signs prohibiting cell-phone use and a master’s instruction that recording was not permitted.
- The conference room required swipe-card access and was guarded by a deputy; only parties, the master, and security attend these sessions.
- Cline admitted recording and later posted the recording on Facebook; the master and deputy testified no permission was given and the room was not recorded or wired.
- A jury convicted Cline under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act for intercepting and disclosing an oral communication.
- The trial court sentenced Cline to 11½ to 23 months’ imprisonment plus three years’ probation; post-sentence motions were denied and Cline appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether Commonwealth proved mens rea for Wiretap Act | Commonwealth: must prove Cline intentionally intercepted/disclosed protected oral communications | Cline: he did not know recording/posting was illegal (signs said "no cell phones" only) | Court: conviction upheld; knowledge of law not required—Commonwealth needed to prove intentional interception/disclosure, which was shown |
| Whether the custody conference constituted a protected "oral communication" | Commonwealth: participants had reasonable expectation of privacy in closed master conference | Cline: implicitly argued communications were public/not private | Court: did not decide sua sponte; noted record support for reasonable expectation of privacy and Commonwealth’s proffer |
| Due process: recording/publishing violated right to public proceedings | Cline: disclosure violated due process because judge later used information and proceedings are public | Cline: same | Court: waived—issue not preserved in trial court, so cannot be raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998) (test for whether speaker had a reasonable expectation of privacy for an oral communication)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 980 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2009) (issues not raised in trial court are waived on appeal)