172 F. Supp. 3d 867
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Plaintiff Daryoush Taha was arrested in 1998, entered ARD, and a Bucks County court ordered his arrest and related records expunged in 2000.
- In 2011 Bucks County created a public Inmate Lookup Tool that exposed data from Taha’s 1998 custody record (photo, physical descriptors, DOB, incarceration dates, case number, and charge “DC, HARASS”).
- Taha discovered the online listing in 2011 and alleged emotional harm but no economic loss.
- Taha sued under Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), asserting the County’s publication violated the statute; parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The County argued the posted data did not constitute CHRIA “criminal history record information,” sought dismissal of damages and injunctive relief as moot; Taha moved for partial summary judgment on liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the posted data qualifies as CHRIA "criminal history record information" | CHRIA is disjunctive; any listed category (e.g., identifiable descriptions or formal charges) suffices, so the Inmate Lookup posting is covered | The statutory definition requires all listed elements together (conjunctive), so the posting without full rap-sheet/disposition is not CHRIA information | Court: CHRIA is read disjunctively; the posted photo/descriptors and charge qualify as criminal history record information — partial SJ for Taha on liability granted. |
| Whether Taha is "aggrieved" under CHRIA and thus may seek damages | Taha: publication of CHRIA-covered information makes him aggrieved | County: if information is not CHRIA material, he is not aggrieved | Court: because the information is CHRIA material, Taha is aggrieved. |
| Whether CHRIA "actual and real damages" requires economic loss | Taha: damages recoverable without economic loss | County: CHRIA requires proven economic loss; no damages here because none shown | Court: "actual and real damages" requires actual injury; absent economic loss, Taha is not entitled to those damages. |
| Whether punitive/exemplary damages and injunctive relief are available | Taha: CHRIA permits exemplary/punitive damages and injunctive relief; remedy against agencies permitted | County: punitive damages against government agencies violate due process; injunctive relief is moot because County removed the data | Court: Punitive damages can be awarded under CHRIA against agencies; County failed to carry heavy burden to show injunctive relief is moot — summary judgment on punitive damages denied and injunction claim not moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Zappala, 987 A.2d 190 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009) (interpreting scope of CHRIA categories)
- Dep’t of the Auditor Gen. v. Pa. State Police, 844 A.2d 78 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004) (statutory definition quoted)
- Penn. Labor Relations Bd. v. Martha Co., 59 A.2d 166 (Pa. 1948) (interpreting "and" as "or" to avoid absurd results)
- Thornburgh v. Lewis, 470 A.2d 952 (Pa. 1983) (statutory construction rejecting implausible conjunctive reading)
- Schmidt v. Deutsch Larrimore Farnish & Anderson, LLP, 876 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (CHRIA permits actions against agencies)
- Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1989) (punitive damages may be awarded even absent compensatory damages)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (defendant claiming voluntary cessation bears heavy burden to show mootness)