Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB520

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/26/25
• Refer: 3/26/25
• Refer: 4/2/25
• Report Pass: 6/25/25
• Engrossed: 6/26/25
• Refer: 6/30/25
• Refer: 11/18/25
• Report Pass: 11/19/25
• Enrolled: 11/19/25
• Chaptered: 11/24/25
• Passed: 11/24/25

Caption

In wiretapping and electronic surveillance, further providing for definitions and repealing provisions relating to public access; in enforcement relating to fish, further providing for powers and duties of waterways conservation officers and deputies; in enforcement relating to game, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers; in recordings by law enforcement officers, further providing for definitions and for audio recording or video recording policies; in Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, further providing for powers and duties of Department of Corrections; and making transfers between the State Gaming Fund and certain restricted accounts.

Summary

SB 520 revises Pennsylvania’s wiretapping and law-enforcement recording laws to expand which public-safety personnel are treated as “law enforcement officers” or otherwise authorized to intercept communications in the course of official duties. The bill adds or clarifies coverage for Pennsylvania State Police, municipal police, Attorney General agents, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, waterways conservation officers, game officers, certain Department of Conservation and Natural Resources officers, parole agents, and certain Department of Corrections Bureau of Investigations and Intelligence officers. It also requires written notice to parolees that communications made in the presence of an agent may be intercepted, and it updates the rules governing audio/video recording policies for agencies that record communications under the wiretap law.

Impact

The bill amends Titles 18, 30, 34, 42, and 61 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. In practice, it broadens the statutory definitions used for wiretapping exceptions and law-enforcement recording policies, repeals a prior public-access provision for certain recordings, and extends related policy requirements to a wider set of agencies and officers. It also directs the Department of Corrections to provide parolees written notice about possible interception by agents and transfers specified amounts from the State Gaming Fund to restricted accounts to help implement the act through the Office of Attorney General and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, with strong committee and floor votes in both chambers and unanimous final passage in the Senate and House. Earlier committee action showed some dissent, but the measure advanced comfortably through the process and was ultimately approved without recorded opposition on final passage. The voting pattern suggests the bill was generally viewed as a technical and operational update to law-enforcement authorities and recording procedures rather than a highly partisan proposal.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to center on privacy and surveillance concerns, especially the expansion of who may intercept communications and the removal of the prior public-access language for certain recordings. The inclusion of parole agents and Department of Corrections personnel, along with notice requirements for parolees, suggests sensitivity to monitoring in correctional settings. Another likely issue is the scope of authority granted to nontraditional law-enforcement personnel, such as conservation and game officers, and whether the bill’s expanded definitions strike the right balance between investigative needs and civil-liberties protections.