2 Pa.C.S. § 566

This is the official text of 2 Pa.C.S. § 566, part of Pennsylvania’s Pa.C.S — part of the compiled statutory law of Pennsylvania, published by the state as "Pa.C.S." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.

Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Confidential communications in presence of interpreter.

Official statutory text

An interpreter appointed under this subchapter may not be compelled to testify, in any judicial proceeding or administrative proceeding, to statements made by the person with limited English proficiency and interpreted by the interpreter when the person with limited English proficiency is engaged in a confidential communication as provided by any statute or general rule, including, but not limited to:

(1) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5916 (relating to confidential communications to attorney).

(2) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5928 (relating to confidential communications to attorney).

(3) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5942 (relating to confidential communications to news reporters).

(4) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5943 (relating to confidential communications to clergymen).

(5) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5944 (relating to confidential communications to psychiatrists or licensed psychologists).

(6) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5945 (relating to confidential communications to school personnel).

(7) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5945.1 (relating to confidential communications with sexual assault counselors).

(8) 42 Pa.C.S. § 5945.2 (relating to confidential communications to crime stopper or similar anticrime program).

Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site

Need a lawyer in Pennsylvania?

Find a Pennsylvania lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the Open US Law dataset (Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine (Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.