Mug Shots as “Identifiable Descriptions” under CHRIA: Police-Only Dissemination Rule

Introduction

In Mezzacappa v. Northampton County, 2025 PA 40 MAP 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania resolved a pivotal question of statutory construction under the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9101–9183. Appellee Tricia Mezzacappa had submitted two Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) requests to Northampton County for copies of inmate mug shots maintained by the county prison. The County refused, claiming that mug shots are “confidential criminal history record information” and, under CHRIA, may be disseminated “only by a State or local police department.” The Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the trial court and the Commonwealth Court held that mug shots are not CHRIA-protected “identifiable descriptions” and that the County itself could release them. This appeal asked: (1) whether a mug shot is an “identifiable description” under CHRIA; (2) if so, whether CHRIA bars a non-police agency from releasing such images; and (3) whether any balancing test should apply to privacy vs. public access interests.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Justice Todd, writing for a unanimous Court, held:

A mug shot is an “identifiable description” within CHRIA’s definition of criminal history record information (18 Pa.C.S. § 9102). Though “description” often refers to words, it also encompasses visual depictions used to identify a person.
Under CHRIA § 9121(b) (as it read at the time), dissemination of criminal history record information to individuals “shall be disseminated by a State or local police department” only upon request. A county prison, as a non-law-enforcement agency, is forbidden to release mug shots to private individuals.
Because the County lacked authority to provide the images, no remand for privacy/public-interest balancing was necessary. The Commonwealth Court’s contrary rulings were reversed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s reasoning engaged several key authorities:

King v. Barber Examiners, 195 A.3d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) – CHRIA’s purpose “to control the … dissemination … of criminal history record information.”
Taha v. Bucks County, 172 F. Supp.3d 867 (E.D. Pa. 2016) – federal district court held county violated CHRIA by publishing Taha’s expunged rap sheet, including a booking photograph.
Copeland, 723 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Super. 1998) – Superior Court allowed a district attorney (not a police department) to provide criminal-history details to a criminal defendant, reasoning CHRIA § 9121 did not bar non-police dissemination in a trial discovery context.
Karantsalis, 635 F.3d 497 (11th Cir. 2011) – Eleventh Circuit highlighted the privacy harm in publicizing booking photos.
SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) – RTKL’s public-access mandate.
Pa. State Educ. Ass’n v. DCED (OOR), 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) – privacy/public-interest balancing in RTKL disputes.

Legal Reasoning

At the heart of the opinion was a two-step statutory-construction analysis:

1. “Identifiable Descriptions” Include Mug Shots

CHRIA defines “criminal history record information” to include “identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests … and any dispositions arising therefrom” (18 Pa.C.S. § 9102). The phrase, undefined by CHRIA, was held ambiguous: dictionary definitions show that “description” may mean a visual portrayal as well as a verbal one (“to represent by a figure, model, or picture”). Applying the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c), the Court considered:

Occasion and Necessity: CHRIA’s goal is to protect privacy when law-enforcement records reflect criminal proceedings.
Mischief to Be Remedied: preventing publication of mere arrests or investigations that may mislead the public as to guilt.
Object to Be Attained: safeguard individuals from undue prejudice and preserve accurate criminal records.
Consequences of Alternative Interpretation: excluding mug shots would produce the absurd result that a photo—often the most precise identifier—could be publicly released while any written description could remain secret.

2. CHRIA § 9121(b) Bars Non-Police Dissemination

Section 9121 establishes two tracks:

(a) Criminal history information “maintained by any criminal justice agency” may be shared without charge with other criminal-justice or certain non-criminal-justice agencies providing law-enforcement services.
(b) Dissemination to private individuals or non-criminal-justice agencies “shall be disseminated by a State or local police department … only upon request,” with fees and mandatory redactions.

The Commonwealth Court had read “only” as applying to the timing of requests, not to the category of disbursing agency. The Supreme Court rejected that strained parsing: every provision of § 9121(b) presumes a police department as the exclusive provider to non-law-enforcement requesters. Reading subsections (a) and (b) together—so that no phrase is superfluous, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(2)—yields the clear rule that a county jail cannot turn over mug shots to private citizens. The 2024 amendment (limiting disclosure authority solely to the Pennsylvania State Police and clarifying that only law-enforcement entities may release records for law-enforcement functions) confirms the legislature’s intent.

Impact

This decision establishes a bright-line rule:

Mug shots and other visual booking images are CHRIA-protected “criminal history record information.”
Only police departments (now exclusively the Pennsylvania State Police) may release them to private requesters under CHRIA’s procedures.
Local governments, jails and non-police agencies must refer RTKL or CHRIA requests to the State Police or face liability.
The ruling preserves privacy interests in mug shots—photos that can imply guilt and carry social stigma—while channeling legitimate public-records requests through the statutory framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CHRIA: A 1980 statute controlling the collection, maintenance and dissemination of criminal record data to protect privacy and ensure accuracy.
“Identifiable Descriptions”: Any means—words, numbers, drawings or photographs—by which an individual is visually or verbally identified.
1 Pa.C.S. § 1903 & § 1921: Rules mandating that undefined terms take their ordinary meaning and that ambiguous statutes be interpreted by context, purpose and practical consequences.
Nosci tur a Sociis: A canon of interpretation—“known by its associates”—that urges reading a word in light of its surrounding terms, but not to the point of producing absurd results.
Brady & Copeland: While criminal defendants enjoy broad discovery rights (Brady obligations), CHRIA imposes separate, stricter protocols for general public access to criminal-history files.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mezzacappa clarifies that mug shots are CHRIA-protected “identifiable descriptions” and that only State or local police can disseminate them to private citizens. This preserves individual privacy, prevents misleading publication of arrest images, and enforces the legislature’s careful scheme for criminal history records. Local agencies must direct any mug-shot requests to the Pennsylvania State Police and may no longer act as de facto distributors. This ruling will guide future RTKL and CHRIA requests and reinforce consistent, transparent handling of sensitive booking photographs.