Mug Shots as Identifiable Descriptions Under CHRIA – County Dissemination Prohibited

Introduction

In Mezzacappa v. Northampton County, 2025 PA 40 MAP and 41 MAP, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether “mug shots” are “identifiable descriptions” under the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) and whether non-law-enforcement agencies may release them in response to Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) requests. Appellee Tricia Mezzacappa sought inmate mug shots from Northampton County. The County denied, citing RTKL exemptions and CHRIA’s confidentiality requirements. The Office of Open Records (OOR) ordered release. The trial court affirmed. The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding mug shots are not CHRIA “identifiable descriptions” and that CHRIA does not limit a county’s dissemination. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve these issues.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that a mug shot constitutes an “identifiable description” under 18 Pa.C.S. § 9102 and thus is criminal history record information protected by CHRIA.
Pursuant to CHRIA § 9121(b), dissemination of criminal history record information to individuals or noncriminal-justice agencies may be done only by a State or local police department; counties and other entities are prohibited from providing it directly.
The decisions of the Commonwealth Court were reversed; Northampton County may not release mug shots in response to an RTKL request.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Taha v. Bucks County, 172 F. Supp. 3d 867 (E.D. Pa. 2016) – held that CHRIA bars disclosure of expunged criminal records, including photographs, by county officials.
Commonwealth v. Copeland, 723 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Super. 1998) – concluded CHRIA § 9121 did not constrain district attorneys’ discovery obligations to criminal defendants, distinguishing prosecutorial duties from police dissemination rules.
1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1903, 1921–22 – Statutory Construction Act rules on interpreting undefined or ambiguous terms.
CHRIA provisions (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9102, 9121, 9161) – defining criminal history record information, setting dissemination restrictions, and granting rule-making authority to the Attorney General.

Legal Reasoning

1. “Identifiable Descriptions” Include Mug Shots
The phrase “identifiable descriptions” was ambiguous. The Court applied statutory-construction principles (1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1903, 1921–22) and considered:

Dictionary definitions showing “descriptions” may be visual (e.g., photographs, sketches) as well as written.
CHRIA’s purpose to protect privacy by limiting dissemination of criminal history details.
The absurdity of allowing textual descriptions but excluding photographs, which are more accurate identifiers.

2. CHRIA § 9121(b) Restricts Dissemination to Police Departments
Section 9121(b) provides that criminal history record information “shall be disseminated by a State or local police department to any individual or noncriminal justice agency only upon request.” Contrasted with § 9121(a) (authorizing dissemination among criminal-justice agencies), § 9121(b) repeatedly designates police as the sole disseminators to outsiders. The Court:

Applied the rule that each statutory provision must be given effect (1 Pa.C.S. § 1922).
Relied on the Attorney General’s CHRIA Handbook interpreting § 9121(b) identically.
Noted a 2024 amendment narrowing authority further to the Pennsylvania State Police.

Impact

Clarifies that mug shots are protected criminal history record information under CHRIA.
Local agencies may no longer fulfill RTKL requests for mug shots; requests must be referred to the appropriate police department.
Reinforces CHRIA’s comprehensive scheme governing the accuracy, security, and controlled dissemination of criminal history data.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CHRIA: Pennsylvania law controlling the collection, accuracy, and distribution of criminal records (rap sheets, arrest photos, dispositions).
RTKL: Pennsylvania law granting public access to government records, subject to statutory exemptions like CHRIA.
Identifiable Description: Any depiction—written, numeric, photographic, or graphic—by which a person’s involvement in criminal proceedings can be recognized.
Statutory Construction: Legal rules requiring that ambiguous terms be interpreted in context, to effect legislative intent, and to avoid absurd results.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes a new benchmark: mug shots are “identifiable descriptions” under CHRIA, and only law-enforcement agencies may disseminate them to individuals. County Correctional facilities and other noncriminal-justice agencies must redirect RTKL requests for mug shots to the police, ensuring consistency with CHRIA’s privacy and accuracy mandates. This decision brings clarity to conflicting lower-court rulings and reinforces statutory safeguards for criminal history information.