Latest news with #PennsylvaniaConstitution
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
PA Supreme Court ruling means you may not see a suspect's mugshot in the news
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — A Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling will now change how mugshots are handled when it comes to local news outlets, including access to them. In a ruling from April, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the decision in Mezzacappa v. Northampton County after a right-to-know (RTK) request was submitted over four years ago in Northampton County. In December 2020, the request was submitted for various records, including a request for 'all mug shots taken of all inmates' from October 2020 through December 2020. The County delivered everything except the mug shots in February 2021, advising that the mug shots were exempt from disclosure under the right-to-know law because they constituted 'confidential criminal history record information,' according to the lawsuit. Later that same month, the requester appealed the denial to the Office of Open Records, which then directed the County to provide the mug shots. However, the requester filed a second RTK in which she stated she was seeking the last names of correctional officers who worked on the unit where she had been incarcerated between October 13 and October 15, 2020, as well as the previous request relating to the mug shots. In February 2021, the County granted the second request in part. The County advised that the request for the mug shots was 'insufficiently specific and unduly burdensome in the context requested,' according to the lawsuit. Furthermore, the County also noted that the mug shots could only be shared by State or local police departments as the photos comprised criminal history record information. The requester then appealed the denial for a second time, and the Office of Open Records ultimately ordered the County in March 2021 to provide the requester with the mug shots. The office noted that 'mug shots are routinely disseminated to the press, sometimes as part of a press release' and that if a mug shot contains criminal history record information, the County can redact the information, the lawsuit reads. The County then proceeded to challenge the decision made by the Office of Open Records in the Commonwealth Court, where the ruling was handed down in favor of the office, with the court holding that the mug shots do not constitute 'identifiable descriptions,' according to the lawsuit. The County then proceeded to challenge the decision in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Ultimately, the PA Supreme Court ruled that mug shots do constitute 'identifiable descriptions' as defined in 'Criminal history record information' in the Pennsylvania Constitution. We further conclude that, pursuant to Section 9121(b), 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 by Appellee. Accordingly, we reverse the decisions of the Commonwealth Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court In an email to WTAJ, the Bedford County Prison confirmed that as a result of the aforementioned ruling, the facility is unable to provide any mug shots until further notice. 'Based upon a recent PA Supreme Court decision, the County is prohibited from releasing the request intake photos (mugshots) under the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act. 18 Pa. Cons, Stat. Ann. Sec. 9101, et seq,' The email reads. 'I know this is a departure from our usual practice, but based on this court ruling, I am unable to provide these. Once I receive more information related to this decision, I will provide an additional response.' Outlets are currently advised to reach out to local or State police departments for mug shots until further information is released on the ruling. However, departments may not have photos available before someone is processed into a county prison. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Yahoo
Hunting clubs ask Pa. Supreme Court to ban warrantless searches by game officials
Pennsylvania Judicial Center located in Harrisburg's historic capitol complex. (Getty Images) In the summer of 2013, a state wildlife officer confronted a member of the Pitch Pine Hunting Club, accusing him of feeding bears outside a house on the club's property. Wildlife officer Mark Gritzer told club member Jon Mikesell that he had been watching Mikesell and his guests for several days, using binoculars and wearing camouflage to conceal himself in the club's 1,100 acre swath of Clearfield County woods. Gritzer left without giving Mikesell a ticket, but Mikesell was rattled because neither he nor any of the club's other members had given the officer permission to enter the private club's posted and gated property. Pennsylvania laws, however, permit wildlife officers to search private lands without a warrant under a century-old U.S. Supreme Court decision. An attorney for Pitch Pine and the nearby 4,400-acre Punxsutawny Hunting Club said Wednesday that's what Gritzer and other wildlife officers had done at least 22 times, including the installation of surveillance cameras. 'The clubs are private places, places where members go to enjoy nature without being watched, to have private conversations, without being listened to, to hunt without worrying that strangers might be hiding in the bushes,' Joshua Windham, of the conservative public interest law firm Institute for Justice, said. The clubs sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Gritzer in Commonwealth Court, asking the court to find three state laws allowing the warrantless searches unconstitutional. The court ruled against them in 2023 and they appealed to the state's highest court. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE In an argument before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday, Windham argued the so-called Open Fields Doctrine created in the 1924 high court decision is at odds with the state constitution. He asked the court to reverse its own 2007 decision adopting the doctrine and invalidate the laws the decision upheld. Courts across the nation have relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision finding that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on warrantless searches of 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' does not apply to open land not immediately surrounding a home. According to a study by the Institute for Justice, 90% of land in Pennsylvania is subject to warrantless searches, Windham told the Capital-Star. Seven states have rejected the Open Fields Doctrine, most recently with the Tennessee Supreme Court finding last summer that warrantless searches by wildlife officials violated that state's constitution. Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which roughly corresponds to the Fourth Amendment, uses different language, guaranteeing people security in their 'persons, houses, papers and possessions.' 'Everywhere you look … you find Pennsylvanians and others using the word possessions to describe private land,' Windham said. 'William Penn's Charter, the original charter that granted him the land that became this commonwealth, granted him the right to quote, 'possess and enjoy the land.'' Deputy state Attorney General Anthony Kovalchick argued on behalf of the game commission and Gritzer that reversing its own decision on the Open Fields Doctrine would require the state Supreme Court to jettison a century's worth of legal precedent. Justice David Wecht said the court takes the issue of precedent seriously, but challenged Kovalchick to name another area of law where people have no expectation of privacy. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'I mean, our cases make clear that even in a hotel room that you're renting for a night or a rental car or a visit to another person's house, you at least get a chance to show an expectation of privacy,' Wecht said. Kovalchick replied that the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment both provide for a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and reasonable people wouldn't expect the woods where they hunt to be private. He added that trespassing laws keeps out members of the public, but the fact that a game warden can enter a property to investigate hunting violations doesn't mean that the owner has no privacy. The justices asked Kovalchick about Gritzer's placement of cameras on the clubs' properties. He replied that it was done in response to allegations that members were illegally feeding elk and that no warrant was required to do so. 'Your answer is, 'Well, the law doesn't require it,'' Wecht said. 'And a response from us might be, Well, why shouldn't the law require that?'' Kovalchick said the court should use the same reading of the constitution as it did inits 2007 decision on this issue, that the term 'possessions' does not apply as broadly as the hunting clubs assert. 'If the framers wanted the word possessions to mean every single thing that is owned, including real property, it would have most likely used other phrases like private property,' Kovalchick said. Justice Kevin Brobson noted other parts of the state constitution refer to the right to possess land. 'I'm hard pressed to say that in Article One, Section One, they talked about land as a possession, but in Article One, Section Eight, they didn't,' Brobson said. Wecht proposed a hypothetical situation in which a person built a swimming pool in the middle of a heavily wooded property with a wall around it and used it to go skinny dipping. 'Mr. Greitzer could walk on and put up a camera … the person enjoying that pool cannot even attempt to show any expectation of privacy. How does that square with the Pennsylvania Constitution?' Wecht asked. 'A reasonable person would not believe that going out and doing things that you would only do in the home are reasonable to go out and do in the woods,' Kovalchick replied. The court has no deadline to reach a decision.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Yahoo
Luigi Mangione Claims Cops Used Dirty Tricks During McDonald's Arrest
Cops pulled a number of dirty tricks on Luigi Mangione during their first encounter with him at a McDonald's in Pennsylvania and later at a local police station, the 26-year-old's lawyer claimed in new court filings this week. The purportedly illegal tactics included tricking him into accepting a snack to obtain his DNA and seizing his bag at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania as a pretext to rummage through his belongings. The actions violated protections afforded to Mangione under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, lawyer Thomas Dickey alleged in the documents. Mangione is accused of carrying out the high-profile murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan last December. He faces charges in Pennsylvania including possessing an unlicensed firearm, forgery and providing false identification to police. Mangione is facing trial in New York first, however, on separate charges in both federal and state courts, including homicide and terrorism. One of the federal charges, murder through use of a firearm, means Mangione could face the death penalty if convicted. Dickey claimed cops formed 'a human law enforcement wall' at the Altoona McDonald's where Mangione was spotted, questioned and eventually arrested—though they did not have a legal basis to seize his belongings: a backpack, plastic bag, and other items. 'Prior to this stop, arrest, seizure and/or detention of the Defendant, the APD Officers had no articulable facts and observed no criminal conduct on the part of the Defendant, nor any other evidence indicating that any criminal activity was afoot,' the document states. 'Accordingly, APD lacked reasonable suspicion to engage in this activity. At no time did the Defendant exhibit any threatening gesture or show of force. These actions by APD, were in violation of the protections afforded to the Defendant under the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Article 1, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution.' 'Other than the anonymous 911 call, the APD had no independent corroborating evidence that the Defendant was in fact the suspect sought in New York, prior to, or at the time of their stop and/or the investigatory detention of the Defendant.' In the 36-page document, Dickey writes, 'Any purported identification of the Defendant as the person wanted in New York was speculative and based on a hunch,' and describes actions by APD officers and other law enforcement personnel, as 'coercive.' Dickey said the discovery of numerous items were illegal and should be removed from the case, including a computer chip, a clip containing bullets which was wrapped up in some undergarments, 9mm handgun with printed lower receiver, mechanized upper receiver, suspected 3D printed suppressor, and a red notebook. Multiple hand written notes were also seized. 'The Altoona Police Department illegally seized a notebook which allegedly contained numerous personal writings covering a plethora of personal experiences of the Defendant,' the filing notes. 'A member of the Altoona Police Department improperly, and without justification, labeled these writings and/or notebook as 'Manifesto'. The use of this characterization of the Defendants alleged personal experiences and writings is incorrect, improper, and without justification and has no probative value. The document says Mangione believes 'that this characterization was done so solely for the purpose to prejudice the Defendant and put him in a negative light before the public; all in an effort to prejudice any potential jury pool.' Later, at the police station, cops provided snacks to an unwitting Mangione. 'While illegally seized, arrested, and detained, the Defendant was provided food and soda while at the Altoona Police Department Station,' the document states. 'The purposes for the same, was to obtain DNA from the Defendant for further investigative purposes. Insofar as the Defendants detention was illegal for reasons set forth, infra, any and all DNA samples, profiles, etc. were poisonous fruits obtained in violation of the protections afforded the Defendant by the constitutions of both the United States and this Commonwealth.' Prosecutors have accused Mangione of shooting Thompson in front of the Hilton in Midtown Manhattan on the morning of Dec. 4, 2024, in a 'frightening, well-planned, targeted' killing. He has pleaded not guilty to state charges but is yet to enter a plea to federal charges.
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawsuit aims to strike down LGBTQ antidiscrimination protections in Pennsylvania
Two public school districts and several parents have sued Pennsylvania in a bid to undo antidiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people, saying the state's two-year-old regulation is illegal because it goes beyond what lawmakers intended or allowed. The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the rights of transgender high school athletes to compete in women's sports, and was filed in the statewide Commonwealth Court late Thursday. If the lawsuit is successful, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission would no longer be able to investigate complaints about discrimination involving sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The plaintiffs' lawyers also say a favorable ruling in court would bar transgender student athletes from competing in women's high school sports in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs include two districts — South Side Area and Knoch, both in western Pennsylvania — and two Republican state lawmakers, Reps. Aaron Bernstine and Barbara Gleim, as well as three parents and seven students. The lawsuit names Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which investigates complaints about discrimination because of someone's race, sex, religion, age or disability in housing, employment and public accommodations. Shapiro's office said it had no immediate comment Friday, and the commission did not respond to an inquiry about the lawsuit Friday. The lawsuit is aimed at the definition of sex discrimination, which the commission expanded by regulation to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The regulation was approved in late 2022 by a separate regulatory gatekeeper agency, and it took effect in 2023. The plaintiffs contend that the state Supreme Court has interpreted the term 'sex' as used in the Pennsylvania Constitution to mean either male or female. They also contend that the state Legislature never gave permission to the Human Relations Commission to write regulations expanding the legal definition of sex discrimination, making the regulation a violation of the Legislature's constitutional authority over lawmaking. The commission has justified the expanded definition by saying that state courts have held that Pennsylvania's antidiscrimination laws are to be interpreted consistently with federal antidiscrimination law. The commission can negotiate settlements between parties or impose civil penalties, such as back pay or damages. For years, Democratic lawmakers tried to change the law to add the terms sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the portfolio of complaints that the Human Relations Commission could investigate. Every time, Republican lawmakers blocked the effort. Shapiro, in the past, has backed the Democrats' legislation and in 2021 called GOP-backed legislation to prohibit transgender athletes from playing women's high school and college sports 'cruel.' Most states have laws against discriminating against gay or transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations or investigate such complaints, according to the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for equality for LGBTQ people. Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
CBS News
07-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
2 western Pennsylvania school districts sue to strike down state's LGBTQ antidiscrimination protections
Two public school districts and several parents have sued the state in a bid to undo antidiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people in Pennsylvania, saying that the two-year-old regulation is illegal because it goes beyond what lawmakers intended or allowed. The lawsuit, filed in the statewide Commonwealth Court late Thursday, comes amid a debate in Pennsylvania and nationally over the rights of transgender high school athletes to compete in women's sports. If the lawsuit is successful, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission would no longer be able to investigate complaints about discrimination involving sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The plaintiffs' lawyers also say a favorable ruling in court would bar transgender student athletes from competing in women's high school sports in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs include two districts — South Side Area and Knoch, both in western Pennsylvania — and two Republican state lawmakers, Reps. Aaron Bernstine and Barbara Gleim, as well as three parents and seven students. The lawsuit names Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which investigates complaints about discrimination because of someone's race, sex, religion, age or disability in housing, employment and public accommodations. Shapiro's office said it had no immediate comment Friday and the commission did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the lawsuit Friday. The lawsuit is aimed at the definition of sex discrimination that the commission expanded by regulation to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The regulation was approved in late 2022 by a separate regulatory gatekeeper agency, and it took effect in 2023. The plaintiffs contend that the state Supreme Court has interpreted the term "sex" as used in the Pennsylvania Constitution to mean either male or female. They also contend that the state Legislature never gave permission to the Human Relations Commission to write regulations expanding the legal definition of sex discrimination, making the regulation a violation of the Legislature's constitutional authority over lawmaking. The commission has justified the expanded definition by saying that state courts have held that Pennsylvania's antidiscrimination laws are to be interpreted consistently with federal antidiscrimination law. The commission can negotiate settlements between parties or impose civil penalties, such as back pay or damages. For years, Democratic lawmakers tried to change the law to add the terms sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the portfolio of complaints that the Human Relations Commission could investigate. Every time, Republican lawmakers blocked the effort.
