Pennsylvania House Bill HB2299

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/26
• Refer: 3/18/26

Caption

In wiretapping and electronic surveillance, further providing for definitions; and, in recordings by law enforcement officers, further providing for definitions.

Summary

HB2299 amends Pennsylvania’s wiretapping and electronic surveillance laws and related law-enforcement recording provisions by expanding the statutory definition of “oral communication” and clarifying who counts as a “law enforcement officer” for those purposes. Under the bill, a communication made in the presence of certain on-duty, identifiable law enforcement personnel using an approved interception device would no longer be treated as an “oral communication” protected by the chapter’s interception restrictions. The bill also expressly includes officers defined under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9911 within the Title 42 definition of “law enforcement officer.” The measure lists a broad range of officials who may fall within the relevant law-enforcement category, including state police, municipal police, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, waterways conservation officers, game commission officers, certain Department of Conservation and Natural Resources officers, Department of Corrections investigators with police commissions, and other officers defined elsewhere in the statutes. It also includes a specific limitation for Department of Corrections personnel: they may not intercept communications from inside a corrections employee’s residence without consent or prior court approval. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB2299 would modify Titles 18 and 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by narrowing the scope of protected “oral communication” in situations involving approved law-enforcement interception devices and by broadening/clarifying the statutory definition of “law enforcement officer” for recordings by law enforcement officers. The practical effect is to strengthen the ability of specified officers and agencies to record or intercept communications in the course of official duties, while preserving a residence-based privacy safeguard for Department of Corrections employees. Affected parties include law enforcement agencies, corrections personnel, and individuals whose communications occur in the presence of covered officers.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available record suggests a technical, law-enforcement-focused measure rather than a highly politicized one. The bill’s structure indicates support for clarifying investigative authority and aligning definitions across statutes. No formal opposition, amendments, or vote outcomes are provided in the available materials, so broader sentiment cannot be measured from the record beyond the bill’s apparent administrative and enforcement-oriented purpose.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the privacy impact of expanding the circumstances in which communications are excluded from the definition of protected “oral communication,” which could be viewed as increasing law-enforcement surveillance authority. Another likely issue is the breadth of the officer categories covered, especially the inclusion of multiple specialized agencies and corrections investigators. The bill partially addresses privacy concerns by carving out a specific restriction on interceptions from inside a Department of Corrections employee’s residence without consent or court approval, suggesting that residential privacy for corrections staff is a notable concern.