Department of the Auditor General v. Pennsylvania State Police

844 A.2d 78, 2004 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 197
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 8, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 844 A.2d 78 (Department of the Auditor General v. Pennsylvania State Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Department of the Auditor General v. Pennsylvania State Police, 844 A.2d 78, 2004 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 197 (Pa. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinions

OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

The Department of The Auditor General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Auditor General Robert P. Casey, Jr., (together, Auditor General) have filed an application for summary relief (Application) in connection with a petition for review (Petition) of the refusal of the Pennsylvania State Police, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller (together, PSP) to provide the Auditor General with the names, addresses and release dates of sexual offenders registered with the PSP under the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act (Megan’s Law), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9791-9799.7. We deny summary relief.

By letter dated May 7, 2003, the Auditor General informed the PSP that it was commencing a performance audit to determine the Commonwealth’s compliance with Megan’s Law. On August 4, 2003, the Auditor General requested in writing that the PSP provide the Auditor General with the names, current addresses and release dates of those sexual offenders listed on the Megan’s Law registry who were convicted between July 9, 2000, and June 10, 2003. (Petition, ¶¶ 9,16.)

The PSP informed the Auditor General on August 15, 2003, and again on September 30, 2003, that the PSP would not provide the requested information due to restrictions in the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9101-9183. The PSP asserted that the information sought by the Auditor General is protected “investigative information” under sections 9102 and 9106(c)(4) of the CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9102 and 9106(c)(4), and that the CHRIA authorizes the PSP to disseminate such information only to criminal justice agencies. (Petition, ¶¶ 18-19.)

On October 28, 2003, the Auditor General filed its Petition, seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that the names, addresses and release dates of individuals registered as sexual offenders with the PSP under Megan’s Law are not “investigative information” prohibited from disclosure to noncriminal justice agencies under sections 9102 and 9106(c)(4) of the CHRIA; (2) an order directing the PSP to provide the Auditor General with the requested information; and (3) such further relief as may be just under the circumstances. (Petition at 7.) On the same date, the Auditor General filed the Application pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b).1

The PSP has filed an answer to the Petition, with new matter. The PSP alleges, inter alia, that: (1) the Auditor General lacks authority to conduct a performance audit of the PSP’s compliance with Megan’s Law; and (2) Megan’s Law and its implementing regulations do not authorize the PSP to disclose the requested information to the Auditor General. (PSP’s New Matter, ¶¶ 56, 59.) The Auditor General has filed an answer to the new matter. This court has heard argument on the matter; thus, the Auditor General’s Application is now ripe for disposition.

I. Declaratory Judgment

Any person whose rights or legal relations are affected by a statute may have the court determine any question of construction arising under the statute and [80]*80obtain a declaration of his or her rights or legal relations. Section 7533 of the Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 7533. However, a court may refuse to render a declaratory judgment where such judgment would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding. Section 7537 of the DJA, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7537.

As indicated above, the Auditor General seeks a judgment declaring that the names, addresses and release dates of individuals registered with the PSP as sexual offenders under Megan’s Law are not “investigative information” as defined in section 9102 of the CHRIA. The Auditor General believes that the rendering of such a judgment would terminate its controversy with the PSP, and the PSP would be required to provide the Auditor General with the information requested for the Auditor General’s performance audit. Thus, in addition to the declaratory judgment, the Auditor General seeks an order directing the PSP to disclose the information.

However, if this court were to render a declaratory judgment in favor of the Auditor General with respect to the “investigative information” issue, it would not terminate the controversy between the Auditor General and the PSP. Before this court could issue an order directing the PSP to provide the requested information, we first would have to consider the issues raised by the PSP in new matter opposing the Auditor General’s Petition and determine whether the Auditor General has the authority to conduct a performance audit of the PSP’s compliance with Megan’s Law and whether Megan’s Law and its implementing regulations prohibit disclosure of the requested information to the Auditor General.

Because the controversy between the Auditor General and the PSP involves legal issues that would remain following the grant of the declaratory judgment sought, it is apparent that we may refuse to render a judgment and deny summary relief on that basis alone. 42 Pa.C.S. § 7537. However, the “investigative information” issue is a necessary component to the ultimate resolution of the controversy between the Auditor General and the PSP. Moreover, the additional issues are before this court as new matter; therefore, in a proper exercise of our discretion, we shall address the “investigative information” issue. For the following reasons, we conclude that the information requested by the Auditor General is “investigative information” within the meaning of the CHRIA. As such, the PSP properly refused to provide it to the Auditor General.

II. The CHRIA

The CHRIA provides for “the collection, compilation, maintenance and dissemination of criminal history record information by the [PSP].” 18 Pa.C.S. § 9102. The CHRIA defines “criminal history record information” as follows:

“Criminal history record information.” Information collected by criminal justice agencies

18 Pa.C.S. § 9102 (emphasis added). The PSP may disseminate “criminal history record information” to individuals or noncriminal justice agencies upon request, but, in doing so, the PSP must extract all information relating to the initiation of criminal proceedings where three years have elapsed since the arrest, where no conviction has occurred and where no proceedings are pending seeking a conviction. Section 9121(b) of the CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9121(b).

The PSP may not include “investigative information” in the central repository. Section 9106(a) of the CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9106(a). In fact, the CHRIA explicitly states that nothing in the CHRIA applies to “investigative information.” Section 9105 of the CHRIA, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9105. Thus, unlike “criminal history record information,” the PSP may not

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

R. Boyle v. DOC (OOR)
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
TomBev Restaurant v. Certain Underwriters
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
Com. of PA, OOR v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania State Police
146 A.3d 814 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Taha v. Bucks County Pennsylvania
172 F. Supp. 3d 867 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2016)
Corman v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
93 A.3d 1 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Doe v. Zappala
987 A.2d 190 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Department of the Auditor General v. State Employees' Retirement System
860 A.2d 206 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Department of the Auditor General v. Pennsylvania State Police
844 A.2d 78 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
844 A.2d 78, 2004 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-the-auditor-general-v-pennsylvania-state-police-pacommwct-2004.