Pa. Supreme Court ruling limits access to mug shots
The unanimous high court ruling in April in Mezzacappa v. Northampton County states that mug shots are categorized as 'identifiable descriptors' and county agencies are prohibited from distributing them under the state's Criminal History Record Information Act, or CHRIA. Police departments may provide mug shots to noncriminal justice agencies, such as media organizations, and individuals.
The Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association takes issue with the ruling and submitted a brief to the state Supreme Court before its decision, stressing the importance of transparency when it comes to the dissemination of public documents.
'The records in this case provide significant insight into law enforcement actions and the administration of justice, and they have been available to press since law enforcement began using photography to document individuals taken into government custody,' the brief read.
Melissa Melewsky, attorney for the news media organization, said that mug shots do not only provide a photo of an accused criminal at the time of their arrest; they provide a historical account of the demeanor of the accused at the time of their arrest.
'For instance, the mug shot of civil rights icon Rosa Parks displays dignity and resolve in the face of racial segregation and conveys commitment to her act of civil disobedience, in addition to serving as an official record of the fact that she was arrested,' she said.
Another example Melewsky provided was Jerry Sandusky's mug shots released first by the Pennsylvania attorney general's office after his 2011 arrest and then by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections after he began serving his sentence.
'These photographs were used in media coverage initially to illustrate the defendant's custody, appearance and countenance, and then later, to confirm that the defendant was incarcerated as required by law,' she said of Sandusky's mug shot.
Also significant was the release of President Donald's Trump mug shot in 2023, interesting to both his supporters and detractors, she said. Trump himself posted the image to his account on X, formerly Twitter.
Local impact
Lackawanna County District Attorney Brian Gallagher has put a pause on providing mug shots to media sources while his office evaluates the opinion to ensure the office is complying with the law. Gallagher also plans to contact district attorneys from other counties in the state to have an understanding of their interpretation of the ruling.
Luzerne County prison officials received a memo Thursday morning indicating they were no longer at liberty to provide mug shots to media sources because of the ruling.
A Schuylkill County Prison employee told a Times-Tribune reporter that the prison had stopped providing mug shots to the media as of Wednesday and that officials were reviewing the ruling.
*
Trump (SUBMITTED)
*
Jerry Sandusky (SUBMITTED)
*
The front of the Lackawanna County Prison in Scranton Thursday, April 10, 2025. (SEAN MCKEAG / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
*
ROSA PARKS (SUBMITTED)
Show Caption
1 of 4
Trump (SUBMITTED)
Expand
Supreme Court decision
The case that ultimately led to April's Supreme Court decision had its roots in a Nov. 7, 2020, Right to Know request.
Tricia Mezzacappa submitted the request to Northampton County Prison for the mug shots of two individuals who had allegedly been detained at the prison.
The county denied the request Dec. 15, 2020, claiming the records were exempt from disclosure because they related to criminal investigations.
Mezzacappa appealed and the county released the mug shots to her.
In Dec. 28, 2020, Mezzacappa filed a second Right to Know request, seeking 'all mugshots taken of all inmates at the jail from October 2020 to present, including inmates released on bail' and other documents.
On Feb. 3, 2021, the county denied Mezzacappa's request for the mug shots, indicating they were 'insufficiently specific and unduly burdensome in the context requested.'
In denying the request, Northampton County said the mug shots comprise criminal history record information under CHRIA and that the photos could be released only by state or local police departments.
In March 2021, Mezzacappa appealed the denial to the Office of Open Records, which directed the county to provide the mug shots.
Northampton County, however, challenged the decision in Commonwealth Court, which ruled in favor of the Office of Open Records and directed the release of the mug shots.
Ultimately, the county challenged that decision in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled in its favor and reversed the Commonwealth Court ruling.
'We conclude that mug shots constitute 'identifiable descriptions' as contemplated in CHRIA's definition of 'criminal history record information,'' the court wrote. 'We further conclude that … criminal history record information may only be disseminated to noncriminal justice agencies and individuals by a police department, and, thus, that the County, as a non-law enforcement agency, is prohibited from releasing the mug shots requested.'
History of mug shots
The official use of mug shots can be traced to Birmingham, England, in 1848, when police officers began taking photos of prostitutes and thieves.
A book from that time period titled 'Accusare: Storia del Novecento' includes mug shots, indicating that at least some of those photos became public, according to a recent collection of mug shots and information compiled by local historian Nicholas Petula in his book, 'Faces of the Accused: A History of Scranton Mugshots and Criminal Activity.'
Scranton, with a growing crime problem, began using a mug shot system in the 1890s, with photos accompanied by a description of the accused.
Many of those mug shots became public and are included in Petula's book.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US sanctions more ICC judges, prosecutors for probes into alleged American, Israeli war crimes
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is ramping up pressure on the International Criminal Court for pursuing investigations into U.S. and Israeli officials for alleged war crimes. The State Department on Wednesday announced new sanctions on four ICC officials, including two judges and two prosecutors, who it said had been instrumental in efforts to prosecute Americans and Israelis. As a result of the sanctions, any assets the targets hold in U.S. jurisdictions are frozen. The sanctions are just the latest in a series of steps the administration has taken against The Hague-based court, the world's first international war crimes tribunal. The U.S. has already imposed penalties on the ICC's former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who stepped aside in May pending an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, and four other tribunal judges. In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had taken action against ICC judges Kimberly Proust of Canada and Nicolas Guillou of France and prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal. 'These individuals are foreign persons who directly engaged in efforts by the International Criminal Court to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation,' Rubio said. He added that the administration would continue 'to take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our troops, our sovereignty, and our allies from the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions.' In a separate statement, the State Department said Prost was hit for ruling to authorize an ICC investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, which was later dropped. Guillou was sanctioned for ruling to authorize the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant related to Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. Khan and Niang were penalized for continuing Karim Khan's investigation into Israel's actions in Gaza, including upholding the ICC's arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, according to the statement. Wednesday's move carries on a history of Trump administration actions against the ICC, of which the U.S. is not a member, dating back to his first term in office. During Trump's first term, the U.S. hit the ICC with sanctions, but those were rescinded by President Joe Biden's administration in early 2021.
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats facing crisis as more than 2M voters leave party in four years: analysis
The Democratic Party is bleeding registered voters, suffering a 4.5 million swing against it that could take years to recover from, according to a new report. Between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, Democrats lost about 2.1 million voters across the 30 states that track registration by political party, according to a New York Times analysis of data gathered by the L2 tracking firm. Over the same period, the Republican Party gained 2.4 million registered voters. Officially, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans nationwide, but that number is incomplete because blue states like California and New York allow voters to register by party — as does the District of Columbia — while reliably red states like Texas, Missouri and Ohio do not. Most alarmingly for Democrats, the decline is nationwide, with the US seeing more new voters registering with the GOP in 2024 for the first time in six years. Democrats also saw their registered voter advantage dwindle in four 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — all of which President Trump carried this past Nov. 5. Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters in the 30 states that track registration by political party. AP Michael Pruser, who tracks voter registration closely as the director of data science for Decision Desk HQ, warned that the numbers not only help explain Trump's victory last year — in which he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years — but also forecast significant headwinds for Democrats in next year's midterm elections as well as the 2028 presidential vote. 'I don't want to say, 'The death cycle of the Democratic Party,'' Pruser told the Times, 'but there seems to be no end to this.' 'There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill. This is month after month, year after year,' he added. In North Carolina, Democrats lost 115,523 voters between the 2020 and 2024 election, with Republicans gaining more than 140,000 members and erasing the Dems' registration advantage, according to the L2 data. More new voters registered to be Republican than Democrat last year, the first time since 2018. Michael Nagle Democrats suffered similar losses in Arizona and Pennsylvania, while in Nevada — a state whose politics were long dominated by the Las Vegas-based Culinary Workers Union — the share of registered Democrats suffered the second-steepest plunge of those states measured between 2020 and 2024. (Only deep-red West Virginia saw more precipitous losses.). Even Democratic bastions like New York and California were not safe from voter erosion, with Dems losing 305,922 registered voters in the Empire State in between the two elections. In California, Democrats lost 680,556 voters between 2020 and 2024. All in all, Democrats went from enjoying an advantage of nearly 11 percentage points over Republicans in registered voter numbers in 2020 to just over six percentage points across the 30 states and DC in 2024, the Times found. Experts believe that the fall of new Democratic registrations can be linked to the growing number of voters choosing to be independents or unaffiliated, a trend that is sapping both parties' rolls. In 2018, more than one-third (34%) of new voter registrations nationwide were Democrats, while registered Republicans made up just 20% of new voters. As of last year, however, Republicans had erased that gap, with party supporters making up 29% of new voters, while Democrats made up 26% of new voters.
