267 A.3d 531
Pa. Commw. Ct.2021Background
- Former Philadelphia DA Williams compiled a “Do Not Call” roster of 66 officers deemed problematic; the roster (and personnel-file details) became public in 2018.
- After DA Larry Krasner took office, FOP alleged Krasner was compiling an expanded Do Not Call List and sending form letters to officers notifying them their personnel-file misconduct information might be disclosed to defense counsel.
- Several named officers were allegedly exonerated by internal or quasi‑judicial processes but were nonetheless placed on the List; they claim no pre‑deprivation notice or meaningful hearing to contest placement and allege reputational, assignment, and economic harms.
- Plaintiffs (FOP and officers) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Pennsylvania Constitution and RTKL; the trial court sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint, relying in part on Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations, lack of proof of a List, absolute prosecutorial immunity, and speculative harm.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed dismissal to the extent plaintiffs sought to enjoin Brady/Giglio disclosures, but vacated dismissal of Counts I–II (state‑constitutional due process claims about reputation) and remanded, holding those claims adequately pleaded and not preempted by federal disclosure obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did complaint sufficiently plead existence of a Do Not Call List? | Complaint sufficiently alleged an updated/ongoing List and attached press reports and letters; plaintiffs need only plead ultimate facts, not produce evidence. | Trial court said plaintiffs produced no evidence proving the List exists and dismissal was proper. | Court: Plaintiffs adequately pleaded existence; trial court erred by requiring evidentiary proof at preliminary‑objection stage. |
| 2. Do Brady/Giglio preempt plaintiffs’ claims or authorize defendants’ conduct? | Plaintiffs: Brady/Giglio do not eliminate officers’ state‑constitutional due process right to contest placement before public disclosure. | Defendants: Federal disclosure duties under Brady/Giglio (and Pa.R.Crim.P. 573) require collecting and disclosing personnel material; state claims cannot trump federal duties. | Court: Brady/Giglio obligate disclosure and the court affirmed dismissal of claims seeking to enjoin constitutionally required disclosures; but those doctrines do not preempt separate state due‑process claims for pre‑disclosure notice/hearing. |
| 3. Does absolute prosecutorial immunity bar the claims against the DA? | Plaintiffs seek only injunctive/declaratory relief to prevent unconstitutional disclosures, not damages; immunity should not bar that relief. | DA argued absolute immunity shields prosecutorial decisions connected to prosecution. | Court: Absolute immunity does not bar equitable relief that restrains future unconstitutional acts; immunity doesn’t defeat Counts I–II insofar as they seek injunctive/declaratory relief. |
| 4. Are alleged harms merely hypothetical/speculative? | Plaintiffs alleged concrete harms (restricted duties, lost overtime, reputational damage, prior publication of earlier list) and a realistic risk of public disclosure; claims ripe at pleading stage. | Trial court/DA argued harms were speculative and no concrete adverse action had occurred. | Court: Allegations suffice at pleading stage; dismissal for speculative harm was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to satisfy due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility is Brady material)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
- Agurs v. United States, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (scope of Brady disclosure obligations and materiality standard)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors against damages for actions intimately associated with judicial phase of prosecution)
- Fawber v. Cohen, 532 A.2d 429 (Pa. 1987) (governmental immunity does not bar suits seeking to enjoin unconstitutional official actions)
- Simon v. Commonwealth, 659 A.2d 631 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (state‑constitutional right to reputation requires notice and opportunity to be heard before publication that injures reputation)
- Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n v. Commonwealth Ins. Dep't, 607 A.2d 850 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (inclusion on an official index can harm reputation even if access is limited)
- Duchesne v. Hillsborough Cnty. Attorney, 119 A.3d 188 (N.H. 2015) (officers must be removed from prosecutor's impeachment list when no valid basis exists; courts may provide remedy)