Motion to Quash Investigative Information Criminal History Record Information Act
Mielcarz v. Pietzsch, PICS Case No. 17-1080 (C.P. Philadelphia, Jun.21, 2017) Cohen, J. (13 pages).
The court improperly denied the commonwealth's motion to quash in this personal injury proceeding, because the Criminal History Record Information Act precluded discovery of investigative information that was obtained in the defendant's criminal proceeding arising out of the same accident.
Plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by defendant. The collision forced plaintiff's car into oncoming traffic, where she was stuck by another vehicle and seriously injured. At the time of the crash, defendant's blood alcohol level was .276, well in excess of the legal limit. In a criminal proceeding, defendant was convicted of aggravated assault by a vehicle while driving under the influence.
Plaintiff later filed this personal injury proceeding. Plaintiff served a civil subpoena on the Bucks County District Attorney's office, requesting the complete investigative file in connection with the accident. The commonwealth filed a motion to quash, which the court denied. The commonwealth then filed this appeal.
In the motion to quash, the commonwealth argued that the materials subpoenaed were protected by the Criminal History Record Information Act. Plaintiff responded that the materials subpoenaed were not "investigative information" within the meaning of CHRIA, and therefore needed to be produced. Prior case law held that information collected by criminal justice agencies in direct response to a complaint of criminal activity was considered investigative information, and was precluded from disclosure under CHRIA.
The court noted that simply because parts of a public record contained exempt information did not immunize the nonexempt portions from disclosure. Instead, the exempt information was to be redacted. Plaintiff clarified that she was seeking the full unredacted police report with the police photos and measurements taken at the time of the immediate aftermath of the crash. Plaintiff argued that such records were discoverable because they were not compiled by the district attorney during a criminal investigation, but by police after they were called to the scene of an accident. Furthermore, plaintiff pointed out that application of CHRIA to in such a case essentially had the effect of dismissing any personal injury case that began with police involvement and resulted in a criminal charge.
The court found no authority that supported an interpretation of CHRIA which shielded from discovery only the information that was assembled by the district attorney, and not information obtained by police at the scene of an emergency. The documents sought by plaintiff were specifically protected by CHRIA. The court held the denial of the commonwealth's motion to quash should be reversed and remanded, to allow the court to review the requested records in camera or under seal to determine which portions were subject to disclosure. Or in the alternative, reversing the court's decision and entering an order granting the motion to quash.