138 A.3d 65
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- In Oct. 2005 Nathan Slaughter was taken to Temple University Hospital after a suicide-related aspirin ingestion; records indicate a Section 302 emergency examination and a later Section 303 application to extend involuntary treatment.
- PSP’s PICS database flagged Slaughter as disqualified from firearm possession under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(4) (involuntary commitment), and Slaughter’s 2014 firearm purchase was denied.
- Slaughter challenged the PICS entry; an OAG ALJ held a de novo hearing where PSP introduced county mental‑health and court records (including Act 77 notice and a Section 303 application) but could not produce the original Temple hospital 302 petition or some hospital records (destroyed under retention rules).
- Slaughter produced a Virginia Henrico General District Court order (unopposed petition) restoring his firearm rights in Virginia and argued PSP failed to produce the required physician certification under §302.
- The ALJ sustained Slaughter’s challenge, ordering PSP to remove the §6105(c)(4) disability; Commonwealth Court sua sponte remanded for an ALJ opinion, then retained jurisdiction and reviewed the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Slaughter's Argument | PSP's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSP met its burden to prove Slaughter was disqualified under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(4) (involuntary commitment under MHPA §302 with physician certification) | PSP failed to produce the §302 physician certification and thus cannot sustain a firearms disability; preponderance/clear‑and‑convincing standards argued; records are incomplete and unreliable | Agency may introduce relevant circumstantial evidence; preponderance of evidence applies; PSP presented county/court records, Act 77 notice and physician attestations sufficient to infer a §302 commitment and certification | PSP met its burden by preponderance via circumstantial evidence; ALJ erred — Commonwealth Court reversed ALJ order |
| Whether a Virginia court order restoring Slaughter’s firearm rights is enforceable in Pennsylvania or entitled to full faith and credit | Virginia order should be given full faith and credit and preclude relitigation | Full Faith and Credit does not bar PSP from proving accuracy of its records here; Pennsylvania law governs restoration procedure and res judicata/full faith and credit do not require substitution of Virginia law | Full Faith and Credit inapplicable; Virginia order does not control Pennsylvania’s record‑accuracy review or restoration procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- R.H.S. v. Allegheny Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., Office of Mental Health, 936 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (describing §302 emergency examination/treatment procedures)
- A.B. v. Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist., 906 A.2d 674 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (explaining circumstantial evidence and inferences)
- D'Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 (Pa. 2007) (preponderance standard applies to ALJ hearings challenging firearm denials)
- Wilkes v. Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., 902 A.2d 366 (Pa. 2006) (Full Faith and Credit precludes collateral attack on foreign judgments)
- Gies v. Commonwealth, 770 A.2d 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (state not required to substitute another state's statutory regime for its own on matters within its legislative competence)