McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police
123 A.3d 1136
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Robert C. McCulligan (pro se) alleged that Pennsylvania State Police troopers and Montgomery County detectives intercepted and disseminated his oral communications (Oct. 2003–Jan. 2004) in violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the Wiretap Act).
- McCulligan sought: (1) a hearing to verify alleged Wiretap Act violations and concealment; (2) removal of the officers under 18 Pa. C.S. § 5726; and (3) statutory and punitive damages, fees, and costs under 18 Pa. C.S. § 5725.
- Respondents filed preliminary objections arguing (a) McCulligan failed to plead facts with the specificity required by Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(a); (b) the Section 5725 damage claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (c) the Commonwealth Court lacks original jurisdiction over the damages claim and certain defendants.
- The Court treated the objections as demurrers: accepting well-pled facts as true but rejecting legal conclusions and conclusory allegations.
- The Court found McCulligan’s Section 5725 claim barred by the two-year statute of limitations (42 Pa. C.S. § 5524(7)) because McCulligan knew of the alleged interceptions by December 2004.
- The Court also held McCulligan failed to plead the removal claim (Section 5726) with the particularity required by Rule 1019(a) and that amendment would be futile; the petition was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction over Section 5725 damages claim | McCulligan argued his removal claim (Section 5726) vested the Court with ancillary jurisdiction over damages | Respondents argued Section 5725 contains no jurisdictional language and Section 5726’s exclusive jurisdictional grant does not extend to damages | Court: No ancillary jurisdiction; omission of jurisdictional language significant; but disposition on statute of limitations made transfer unnecessary |
| Whether Section 5725 damages claim is time‑barred | McCulligan did not dispute timing; argued merits | Respondents: Two‑year statute of limitations (42 Pa. C.S. § 5524(7)) applies and accrued when McCulligan learned of interceptions (Dec. 2004) | Court: Claim barred by two‑year limitations period; dismissed |
| Whether petition pleads removal claim (Section 5726) with required specificity | McCulligan alleged intentional Wiretap Act violations and concealed dissemination, requesting removal | Respondents: Pleadings are conclusory, lack facts (who, when, how, what was disclosed, recipients); fail Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) | Court: Pleading insufficient; fails to allege material facts; dismissal with prejudice because amendment would be futile |
| Whether an agency (PSP) or non‑Commonwealth officers can be sued under Wiretap Act removal/damages provisions | McCulligan included PSP and troopers and county detectives as defendants | Respondents argued remedies are against individuals; county detectives are not Commonwealth officers so the Court lacks jurisdiction over damages claim | Court: Did not fully decide PSP agency point (unnecessary), noted statutory remedies target individuals; jurisdictional limits reinforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Boettger v. Miklich, 481 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (distinguishing Section 5726’s express Commonwealth Court jurisdiction from Section 5725’s omission of such language)
- Birdseye v. Driscoll, 534 A.2d 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (noting difference between damages claims under Section 5725 and removal claims under Section 5726)
- Bristow v. Clevenger, 80 F. Supp. 2d 421 (W.D. Pa. 2000) (applying two‑year statute of limitations to Wiretap Act damages claim and tying accrual to plaintiff’s discovery)
- Welch v. Palka, 983 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2009) (discussing Section 5726 removal cause as an extraordinary remedy intended for egregious intentional privacy violations)