200 A.3d 97
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Charyn Hamelly filed private criminal complaints alleging that her daughter Anna Santangelo, Anna’s husband Michael Santangelo, and their attorney Cherry Lynne Poteet conspired to disclose recordings of conversations with Hamelly made without her consent, in violation of the Wiretap Act (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703).
- The Santangelos had previously given the recordings to Pennsylvania State Police, who filed criminal complaints against Hamelly and her husband; the Santangelos also sued Hamelly and her husband in civil court, where the civil complaint quoted statements from the recordings.
- The District Attorney’s Office disapproved Hamelly’s private complaints; ADA P. Brian Farrone provided reasons for disapproval: for Mrs. Santangelo, a policy-based victim-related prosecution rationale; for Mr. Santangelo and Poteet, lack of probable cause to prosecute under § 5703 or related conspiracy provisions.
- Hamelly petitioned the trial court for review under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506; the trial court affirmed the DA’s disapproval as to Poteet, concluding insufficient probable cause that Poteet advised or conspired to make the recordings and concluding the Wiretap Act’s exceptions (notably § 5704(17)) could apply to the Santangelo recordings.
- On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed de novo the legal question of probable cause as to Poteet (DA’s disapproval was based on legal insufficiency), and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Hamelly’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hamelly’s complaint states probable cause that Poteet advised or conspired to record Hamelly (Wiretap Act § 5703 and conspiracy § 903) | Hamelly: complaint and civil filings show Poteet advised/conspired with Mrs. Santangelo to make secret recordings and later disclosed their contents in the civil complaint | DA/Poteet: evidence (civil deposition) shows Mrs. Santangelo acted independently; insufficient factual averments to establish probable cause against Poteet | Court: affirmed—insufficient probable cause that Poteet advised or conspired to make recordings |
| Whether disclosure of the recordings in the civil complaint violated § 5703 (i.e., unlawful disclosure/use) | Hamelly: filing disclosed contents obtained by interception, violating Wiretap Act | DA/Poteet: exceptions apply—victim exception § 5704(17) covers interceptions where victim reasonably suspects commission of a crime of violence and expects to obtain evidence | Court: affirmed—no probable cause to prosecute for disclosure because § 5704(17) could justify the recordings and disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for private criminal complaints and deference when disapproval is policy-based)
- In re Private Criminal Complaint of Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc) (district attorney discretion and standard of review)
- In re Private Criminal Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2000) (prosecutor must investigate properly drafted complaints)
- Commonwealth v. Muroski, 506 A.2d 1312 (Pa. Super. 1986) (allegations unsupported by factual averments need no further investigation)
- In re Miles, 170 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2017) (prosecutor not required to pursue charges he deems meritless after investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Deck, 954 A.2d 603 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Wiretap Act prohibits interception/disclosure but recognizes statutory exceptions)