PA Father Jailed After Secretly Recording Custody Conference

Posted in General on July 23, 2025

Many people watch TV and see people secretly recording meetings or discussions and assume that doing so is legal.  In Pennsylvania, that is not the law, and ignorance of the law is no defense.

In Commonwealth v. Cline, 2017 PA Super 417, the Cline had been convicted of violating the Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. The Wiretap Act generally prohibits people in Pennsylvania from recording another person without their consent. In this case, Client attended a custody conference at the Lehigh County Courthouse with his ex-wife and a custody master. The room was secure, required keycard access, and was not open to the public. Roughly 20 minutes into the proceeding, Cline revealed that he had been secretly recording the conversation using his cell phone. He fled the courthouse and later uploaded the audio to Facebook.

Cline was charged under Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 5703), which makes it a third-degree felony to intentionally intercept or disclose oral communications without consent. At trial, witnesses confirmed that no one had granted Cline permission to record, and that privacy was expected during such closed-door hearings. Cline admitted to recording the conference but argued that he didn’t know it was illegal, especially since the courthouse signs only prohibited “cell phones,” not “recording.” Cline was convicted and sentenced to almost a year in jail.

The Legal Issue: Is Ignorance of the Law a Defense?

On appeal, Cline basically argued that he didn’t know that recording was illegal, so he did not knowingly break the law.  The Superior Court rejected his argument, stating that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. The law only required evidence that Cline intentionally recorded without consent, and the law did not require proof that Cline intentionally and knowingly broke law. The fact that Cline didn’t understand or know the law was not a defense. The Court denied Cline’s appeal and affirmed his jail sentence.

Why This Case Matters for Clients in State College

This case highlights how Abraham Lincoln was correct – only a fool has himself as a lawyer. Cline represented himself at trial. An experienced criminal defense attorney would not have present the ignorance as a defens becuase the attorney would have known the defense was a dead loser. Regrettably, Cline didn’t know that he could record, and he didn’t know that he had no chance of winning with an ignorance defense. It cost him almost a year in jail.

Learn from Cline’s mistake and talk to a lawyer. For a free case review, contact JD Law by email or leave a message at (814) 689-9139. Email is the preferred method of communication, as phone calls are directed to voicemail due to the high volume of spam and unsolicited calls.