# Boettger v. Miklich

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 23, 1992 · 142 Pa. Commw. 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752790

## Case

- **Full name:** Alfred R. BOETTGER v. Robert E. MIKLICH; Daniel Dunn, Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Appeal of Robert MIKLICH and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 23, 1992
- **Citations:** 142 Pa. Commw. 136; 599 A.2d 713
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Silvestri
- **Judges:** Smith, Pellegrini, Silvestri
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Boettger v. Miklich, 534 Pa. 581 (1993).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752790

## Opinion text

SILVESTRI, Senior Judge,
concurring and dissenting. I concur with the majority as to the six year statute of limitations being the limitation period in effect at the time of the events giving rise to this action; I also concur with the majority that officers of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States Government and Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (PDR) are not investigators within the definition of “Investigative or law enforcement officer” as defined in section 5702 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act 1 (Act); I also concur with the majority that Robert E. Miklich’s disclosure to the IRS and PDR agents of the information obtained by way of a wiretap pursuant to section 5704(2)(ii) 2 of the Act was not “appropriate to the proper performance” of Miklich’s “official duties” under section 5717(a) 3 of the Act.
The foregoing holding 4 by the majority, which is derived from the plain, clear, unambiguous language of sections *153 5702, 5704(2)(ii), 5708, 5717(a) of the Act, not only militates, under the facts 5 of this case, against a “good faith” defense, but eliminates such a defense.
I dissent and would affirm the trial court.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5702.
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(2)(ii).
. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5717(a).
. Excepting the statute of limitations issue.
. I accept the majority’s statement of the facts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752790. Public record. Not legal advice.