State Police v. Court of Common Pleas , 150 Pa. Commw. 338 ( 1992 )

CRAIG, President Judge.

Petitioner Pennsylvania State Police has filed a motion for summary judgment, based upon its petition for review seeking a declaration that (1) the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas had no power to issue an order directing the State Police to expunge its records concerning an incident of retail theft involving Charlene Brieger, and that (2) the order is not enforceable, and requesting such other relief necessary to terminate the controversy between the parties and to remove all uncertainty regarding the issues raised.

The facts in this case, as established by the pleadings and stipulations, are as follows. On September 17, 1987, the Records and Identification Division of the Pennsylvania State Police received a copy of an order dated August 8, 1987, signed by a judge of the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. The order directed the State Police to expunge from its records and files any information pertaining to the arrest on September 25, 1977, and conviction of Brieger on a retail theft charge. Brieger had pleaded guilty to that charge and was ordered to pay a fine and costs. Although the Bucks County district attorney agreed to the entry of the expungement order, there is no expression, in the order or otherwise, of any reason for the expungement direction.

Before receiving that order, the State Police had not received notice of the expungement petition Brieger filed with the common pleas court. If the State Police had received notice of the expungement petition it would have opposed the petition, based on its belief that (1) there is no authority which permits the State Police to expunge criminal conviction records in this situation and (2) the State Police have a duty under 18 Pa.C.S. § 9111 and section 1 of the Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 414, as amended, 61 P.S. § 2171, to maintain complete and accurate records of all persons convicted of crimes in the Commonwealth.

The State Police initiated this proceeding to avoid a contempt of court order, because it believes that its duties under the relevant statutory provisions preclude it from complying with the expungement order. Furthermore, the State Police filed the declaratory judgment action in this court because (1) Brieger did not name it as a party in the expungement action, (2) the thirty-day appeal period from the date of the trial court’s order has run out, and (3) the issues the State Police seeks here to raise were not raised below. Hence, the State Police argues it has no other available remedy.

Initially, counsel for the trial court argues that the State Police lacks standing to bring this action because the statutory provisions relating to expungement place no affirmative duties upon the State Police in the expungement process, except to comply with court-ordered expungements.

Although the statutory provisions do place an affirmative duty on the State Police and its repository to collect arrest and conviction data, this court concludes that the State Police lacks standing to object to an expungement request.

The statute provides for notice only to the District Attorney before a trial court conducts an expungement hearing, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122(f), and for notice to the central repository only after an expungement is granted, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9122(d).

Although the legislative decision to provide notice of an expungement hearing only to the District Attorney does not in itself control whether or not the State Police have standing, a judicial doctrine, the notice provisions indicate a legislative intent to have the State Police and central repository play only a ministerial part in the collection of data. Thus, the State Police’s interest in an expungement hearing is insufficient to give it standing to object.

Hence, this court agrees with counsel for the trial court that the State Police is not entitled to the relief they seek in this declaratory judgment action.

ORDER

Now, September 3, 1992, the motion of the Pennsylvania State Police for summary judgment in the above captioned case is denied, and the petition is dismissed for lack of standing.