Mezzacappa v. Northampton Cnty.

1

In the Matter of: Tricia Mezzacappa v. Northampton County, Appellant

No. 1229 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

April 6, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: August 5, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

Northampton County (County) appeals from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (Trial Court) affirming a final determination by the Office of Open Records (Open Records), which directed the County to comply with a request for records pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).^[1] The Requester asked to obtain copies of all mug shots taken of inmates admitted to the Northampton County Prison during a three-month period in 2020. The County maintains that the records are exempt from release by the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), 18 Pa.C.S §§ 9101-9183, as well as the RTKL itself, and that the Trial Court failed to give proper consideration to the difficulties of fulfilling the request. Upon review, we affirm.

I. Background

On December 28, 2020, Tricia Mezzacappa (Requester) submitted a RTKL request to the County for various records including "all mug[ ]shots taken of all inmates" taken at the prison, from October 2020 to the date of the request, including all inmates released on bail. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 68a.^[2] Pursuant to Section 902 of the RTKL, the County invoked a 30-day extension.^[3] The County gave a full response via e-mail on February 3, 2021. Id. at 71a. While it delivered most of the other requested materials, the County declined to send the mug shots.^[4] Id.

Requester appealed to Open Records, arguing that the mug shots constituted public records. Id. at 5a-6a. The County made three assertions in defense of its denial of the request. Id. at 20a-24a. First, it argued that it was unable to make "a good faith assessment to determine if the records requested are public records," due to the sheer breadth of the request, the short response time permitted by the RTKL, and the exemptions that may apply to some, or all, of the mug shots. Id. at 20a-21a. Second, the County argued that the mug shots constituted "identifiable descriptions," and therefore criminal history record information, under CHRIA.^[5] The County maintained that, under CHRIA, criminal history record information could only be released to an individual by a "State or local police department." Id. at 23a (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 9121(b)^[6]). Consequently, the County argued, the mug shots were "statutorily exempt" under the RTKL.^[7] R.R. at 27a.

The County also submitted an affidavit from David Penchishen, the prison's warden. Warden Penchishen attested that approximately 800 individuals were booked during the period in question, that "most" had their mug shots taken, and that criminal charges were then pending against "[m]any of them." Id. at 29a. Additionally, Warden Penchishen noted that the prison had no knowledge of the status of each criminal case against the inmates. Id.

In a final determination dated March 18, 2021, Open Records directed the County to release the mug shots to Requester. R.R. at 33a. Open Records explained that, in determining whether the request was sufficiently specific, it applied the three-part balancing test set forth in Pa. Dep't of Educ. v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Pursuant to Post-Gazette, Open Records must determine to what extent the request identifies (1) its subject matter, (2) the scope of the documents sought, and (3) the time frame for which records are sought. R.R. at 38a (citing Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d at 1125). Open Records determined that the request in the instant matter provided "a context to narrow the search," identified "a discrete group of documents," and covered "a limited time frame." R.R. at 38a-39a.

With respect to CHRIA, Open Records disagreed that the mug shots constituted criminal history record information under the statutory definition. Id. at 40a. In its determination, Open Records explained that it is possible for a mug shot image to include criminal history record information; however, the "picture itself is not protected by CHRIA." R.R. at 41a. If the mug shots did contain such information, the County would be free to redact it before releasing them. Id. at 42a. Additionally, Open Records noted "the numerous local and the state correctional systems that utilize inmate locator tools that disseminate mug shots" as further evidence that mug shots are public records. R.R. at 41a.

The County appealed to the Trial Court, which affirmed Open Records' determination. See Order of Court filed October 5, 2021 (Trial Court Order). The Trial Court agreed with Open Records that the request was sufficiently specific, and that CHRIA was not a bar to the mug shots' release. Id. This appeal followed.^[8]

II. Issues

In what appears to be an issue of first impression, the County maintains that it is prohibited from releasing mug shots under both CHRIA and the RTKL. Alternatively, the County argues that the records are exempt from release under the RTKL itself. In addition, the County alleges that the Trial Court failed to properly consider the burdens of complying with the request. Lastly, the County argues that, while it is required under the RTKL to issue a "good faith response" to Requester, the nature of her request makes that impossible.

III. Discussion

A. Mug Shots Under CHRIA

The General Assembly enacted CHRIA in 1980 in order to "control the collection, maintenance, dissemination or receipt of criminal history record information." King v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Bar Examiners, 195 A.3d 315, 329 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). As noted above, Section 9102 of CHRIA defines criminal history record information as "[i]nformation collected by criminal justice agencies concerning individuals, and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, information or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom." 18 Pa.C.S. § 9102. When one criminal justice agency requests such records from another, Section 9121 provides that the records shall be shared free of charge. When requested by a non-criminal justice agency or an individual, Section 9121 instructs Commonwealth and local police departments to extract certain information from the records before releasing them.^[9] Instantly, the County argues that mug shots are "identifiable descriptions," and are subject to Section 9102's regulations. The County observes that "the essential purpose [for which] mug[ ]shots are taken in the first place" is to serve as identifiable descriptions. County's Br. at 13. Additionally, the County refers to the definition of "mug shot" in Webster's New World College Dictionary (5th edition, 2014), as "any of the photographs taken for police records of the face of a person under arrest." If mug shots are "police records," the County reasons, then they are obviously within CHRIA's definition of criminal history record information.^[10]County's Br. at 13.

We disagree. The underlying premise of the County's proposed interpretation is that "identifiable descriptions" refers not only to information expressed in words and numbers, but to visual representations of a person or thing. That may be a plausible reading of the phrase merely on its own, but this Court must also consider the relevant context. See MERSCORP, Inv. v. Delaware Cnty., 207 A.3d 855, 865 (Pa. 2019) (explaining that a phrase in a statute is to be read "with reference to the context in which [the words] appear" rather than by viewing it "in isolation").

The rule of statutory interpretation expressed by the maxim noscitur a sociis (literally, "it is known by its fellows") is that the meaning of a word may be indicated or controlled by those words with which it is associated. S.A. by H.O. v. Pittsburgh Sch. Dist., 160 A.3d 940, 945 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted). Its purpose is to avoid ascribing to a word such a broad meaning that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the legislature's acts. Id. Put succinctly, the rule of noscitur a sociis is that "[w]ords are known by the company they keep."^[11] Commonwealth by Kane v. New Founds., Inc., 182 A.3d 1059, 1073 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Northway Village No. 3, Inc. v. Northway Props., Inc., 244 A.2d 47, 50 (Pa. 1968).

In the instance of Section 9121's definition of criminal history record information, "identifiable descriptions" is followed by "dates and notations of arrests, indictments, informations or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom"; that is, several types of records that contain strictly information expressed in words or numbers.^[12] Applying the noscitur a sociis principle and following well established principles of statutory construction, we conclude that "identifiable descriptions," too, refers to information expressed in words or numbers. Had the General Assembly intended the phrase to encompass mug shots or other photographic images, it would have used more precise language to that effect.

Our interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the word "description" is most often used in reference to written or spoken language. Webster's New World College Dictionary (5th ed. 2014), defines "description" as "the act, process, art, or technique of describing or picturing in words" or "a statement or passage that describes" (emphases added). The use of the word "description" to refer to purely visual representations, though perhaps...