343 Definitions

Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[234 PA. CODE CH. 1]

Definitions

[33 Pa.B. 1048]

   The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amend Pa.R.Crim.P. 103 (Definitions) to include a definition of signature that would make it clear that signature, when used in reference to a court generated document, includes a handwritten signature, a copy of a handwritten signature, a computer generated signature, or a signature created, transmitted, received, or stored by electronic means, and explains that the signature must be placed on the document by the signatory or by someone with the signatory's authorization. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

   The following explanatory Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this proposal. Please note that the Committee's Report should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the explanatory Reports.

   The text of the proposed rule changes precedes the Report. Additions are shown in bold; deletions are in bold and brackets.

   We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments or objections concerning this proposal in writing to the Committee through counsel,

Anne T. Panfil, Chief Staff Counsel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Criminal Procedural Rules Committee
5035 Ritter Road, Suite 800
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
fax: [phone]
e-mail:  [e-mail]

   no later than Friday, March 28, 2003.

By the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee

JOHN J. DRISCOLL,   
Chair

Annex A

TITLE 234.  RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 1.  SCOPE OF RULES, CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITIONS, LOCAL RULES

PART A.  Business of the Courts

Rule 103.  Definitions.

   The following words and phrases, when used in any Rule of Criminal Procedure, shall have the following meanings:

*      *      *      *      *

   SIGNATURE, when used in reference to a court generated document, includes a handwritten signature, a copy of a handwritten signature, a computer generated signature, or a signature created, transmitted, received, or stored by electronic means, by the signatory or by someone with the signatory's authorization, unless otherwise provided in these rules.

*      *      *      *      *

Comment

*      *      *      *      *

   Neither the definition of law enforcement officer nor the definition of police officer gives the power of arrest to any person who is not otherwise given that power by law.

   The definition of signature was added in 2003 to make it clear that when a rule requires a court generated document include a signature or be signed, the signature may be in any of the forms provided in the definition.

*      *      *      *      *

   Official Note:  Previous Rules 3 and 212 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended effective May 1, 1970; present Rule 3 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; amended June 8, 1973, effective July 1, 1973; amended February 15, 1974, effective immediately; amended June 30, 1977, effective September 1, 1977; amended January 4, 1979, effective January 9, 1979; amended July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; amended August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993; amended February 27, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; amended September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 103 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended _____ , 2003, effective _____ , 2003.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

*      *      *      *      *

   Report explaining the proposed definition of ''signature'' published at 33 Pa.B. 1048 (March 1, 2003).

REPORT

Proposed Amendment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 103

Definition of Signature

   The Committee has been undertaking a review of the Criminal Rules as part of its continuing efforts to 1) encourage and facilitate the use of advanced communication technology (ACT) in court proceedings,¹ 2) conform the rules to the ACT changes adopted by the Supreme Court in 2002,² 3) accommodate the automation of the common pleas courts, and 4) respond to issues raised by the Supreme Court's Common Pleas Court Management System (CPCMS) Project³ staff. One issue raised by the CPCMS Project staff was ''whether the rules permit a judge, defendant, counsel, etc . . . to use an electronic signature to sign a form.'' The Committee's review of the rules revealed that without some specific reference to electronic signatures, there could be confusion whether this form of signature is permitted. We also agreed some clarification in the rules is necessary if advanced communication technology procedures and automation are to be successfully integrated into the Criminal Rules and the criminal trial process. The Committee considered various means of providing this clarification and concluded the best way to proceed at this time is to define in the rules the term ''signature'' and make it clear the term ''signature'' includes electronic signatures on court generated documents that are prepared and transmitted electronically.

   During the Committee's discussion of the wording of a definition, several members expressed concerns about (1) the scope of the definition and (2) whether some controls over the use of forms of signatures other than a traditional signature handwritten by the signatory should be included. Concerning the scope of the definition, because the changes tie into the common pleas automation which primarily is a court management system, the Committee agreed that, for the time being, the definition should be limited to court generated documents and not documents coming into the court from counsel or defendants. In addition, the members thought this definition provides the best means of capturing a judge's signature so that when the judge authorizes a document, the signature of the judge can be generated or reproduced on the document in lieu of the judge physically handwriting his or her name.

   Concerning placing some controls in the definition, the members particularly were concerned about signatures being placed on documents without the authorization of the individual purporting to have signed the document. We noted that the same situation does arise with signatures that are not electronically generated, and that there probably is no procedural way to completely protect against unauthorized signatures. However, we agreed the definition could include a provision requiring that a signature must be affixed upon the document by the signer or by someone with the signer's authorization.

   In view of these considerations, the Committee is proposing the amendment of Rule 103 (Definitions) by including a definition of the term ''signature'' to make it clear that when used in reference to a court generated document, signature includes: 1) a handwritten signature; 2) a copy of a handwritten signature; 3) a computer generated signature, or 4) a signature created, transmitted, received, or stored by electronic means, and explain that the signature must be placed on the document by the signatory or by someone with the signatory's authorization.

   ¹The Committee strongly believes the use of technology should be encouraged when feasible because this promotes the Court's goals of statewide uniformity in the practice of law, and the use of technology has been shown to result in a more efficient use of the court's limited resources.

   ²See, e.g., Court's May 10, 2002 Order published at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

   ³The CPCMS Project is developing a statewide automated case management system for the common pleas criminal courts.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 03-343. Filed for public inspection February 28, 2003, 9:00 a.m.]