In Re: Appeal of A. Ehrlich v. Philadelphia Police Dept.

• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Docket: 1213 C.D. 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Leadbetter

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Appeal of Adam Ehrlich, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1213 C.D. 2024 : SUBMITTED: April 13, 2026 Philadelphia Police Department :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: May 13, 2026

Appellant Adam Ehrlich (Requester) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which denied his petition for judicial review of the Philadelphia Police Department’s denial of his request for certain police body camera (bodycam) video recordings. On September 18, 2023, Requester submitted multiple requests to the Department seeking police bodycam recordings pursuant to Act 22 of 2017.1 The requests still at issue relate to events occurring on August 1 and 2, 2023, at three properties in which Requester claims an ownership interest.2 One of those properties

1 Act of July 7, 2017, P.L. 204, commonly referred to as Act 22, is codified in various sections of Titles 18 and 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, and provides the exclusive means of accessing audio and video recordings created by law enforcement, see 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 67A01 - 67A09.

2 Other unrelated requests are no longer at issue in this litigation. has been the subject of a code enforcement litigation with the City of Philadelphia, which resulted in two previous appeals to this Court and, ultimately, the demolition of the property.3 During the course of that litigation, on August 1 and 2, 2023, the Department dispatched officers to prevent unlawful and unauthorized entry to the property, in compliance with the order of this Court.4 According to Requester, on August 2, 2023, officers forcibly removed him from the property, wrongfully arrested him, inflicting injuries in the process, and removed some of his personal belongings from the property. Requester asserts that he filed the requests in question to identify the source of his injuries, investigate potential civil rights violations, track the location of the personal belongings that were moved, and potentially use the recordings in a civil suit. The Department denied the requests for the recordings on the grounds that they comprised information pertaining to agency investigations and that reasonable redactions would not cure the issue, relying upon Act 22 and the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA).5

3 See City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint, LLC (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1012 C.D. 2023, filed May 6, 2025) and City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint, LLC, 301 A.3d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023).

4 See Order, City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 823 C.D. 2023, filed August 2, 2023) (per curiam) (ordering the City to continue preventing unlawful and unauthorized entry to the Property pending disposition of the case).

5 Section 9106(c)(4) of CHRIA provides, in relevant part, that “[i]nvestigative . . . information shall not be disseminated to any . . . individual unless the . . . individual requesting the information is a criminal justice agency which requests the information in connection with its duties.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 9106(c)(4). Investigative information is defined as “[i]nformation assembled as a result of the performance of any inquiry, formal or informal, into a criminal incident or an allegation of criminal wrongdoing and may include modus operandi information.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 9102.

2 Requester filed a timely petition for judicial review in the trial court. The Department moved to dismiss and for sanctions, arguing that the petition was moot because the City of Philadelphia produced the requested recordings in May 2024 during discovery related to the code enforcement litigation6 or had made them otherwise public such that Requester was able to access them. Requester admitted that he received 19 recordings from August 2, 2023, through the code enforcement litigation, but denied that he received all the recordings encompassed by the request, citing a document produced by the City during discovery which identified 22 separate recordings. The trial court issued an order denying Requester’s petition on August 14, 2024.7 The instant appeal ensued and the trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a), in support of its order. On appeal, Requester raises the following issues: whether he is entitled to the recordings and whether the trial court should have, at a minimum, reviewed the requested recordings in camera to determine whether they should be produced. We note that Requester’s brief addresses only Act 22 and does not challenge the trial court’s decision as it pertains to CHRIA. We have carefully reviewed the trial court’s opinion issued pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), and believe that it ably addresses

6 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 67A08(1) (“[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to alter the responsibilities of parties to any criminal or civil litigation to exchange information in accordance with applicable rules of procedure”).

7 The trial court also denied the Department’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions on the same date.

3 the substance of the issues raised.8 Therefore, we adopt the opinion of the trial court in Adam Ehrlich v. Philadelphia Police Department (C.C.P. Phila., Civil No. 231102234, filed March 20, 2025) (appended hereto), and affirm.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge Emerita

8 As Petitioner did not request an in camera review or raise the issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), before the trial court, the Court will not address the issue further. “Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 302, Pa. R.A.P. 302; see, e.g., Phila. Corr. Officers Ass’n v. Pa. Lab. Rels. Bd., 667 A.2d 459, 463 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (declining to hear appellant's constitutional issues that were not raised before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board or the lower court).

4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Appeal of Adam Ehrlich, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1213 C.D. 2024 : Philadelphia Police Department :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of May, 2026, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying Appellant Adam Ehrlich’s petition for judicial review is AFFIRMED.

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge Emerita VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII