Winig v. Off. of the DA of Phila., 2025 Pa. LEXIS 1824 (November 19, 2025) Brobson, J.
The Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (Wiretap Act or Act), 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 5701-5782, generally governs the legality of interceptions, disclosures, and use of oral, electronic, and wire communications between and among persons.
Commonwealth v. Byrd, 235 A.3d 311, 319 (Pa. 2020). The Wiretap Act allows parties aggrieved by violations of the Act to seek monetary damages by way of civil litigation. 18 Pa. C.S. § 5725(a). Appellant Jason Winig (Winig) pursued such an action against the District Attorney of Philadelphia and several of his assistant district attorneys for their roles in unsuccessfully attempting to prosecute Winig by utilizing recordings of conversations between Winig and his ex-wife, Jessica Braverman (Braverman), which Braverman surreptitiously captured when they were married. We are tasked with considering whether, under these circumstances, high public official immunity shields district attorneys and assistant district attorneys from facing civil suits seeking monetary damages for their alleged violations of the Wiretap Act that occurred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties. Like the Commonwealth Court, we hold that high public official immunity protects district attorneys and assistant district attorneys from such suits. Accordingly, we affirm the Commonwealth Court’s order.
