*1
v. Joseph O’NEILL, Rendell, F. Edward G. Unknown
Police Officers. (a juvenile). In the Interest of Vander CLAYBORNE Appeal of COMMONWEALTH. (a juvenile).
In the Interest of Ronald FORREST Appeal of COMMONWEALTH. McCULLOUGH, (sic), Bradely
In the Matters of Luke Erick Clark, Clayborne, Antonio Vander Ronald Forrest
and Samuel Buffert. Appeal of COMMONWEALTH.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Nov. 1979. Filed Oct. 1981. Appeal Petition for Allowance of Denied Jan. *3 Palamarchuk, Philadelphia,
Alexander J. for Edward M. 1502). No. al., (at et appellants Wasser, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, Nancy Commonwealth, (at 1860), Nos. and appellant for O’Neill, al., (at 1502). et No. appellees Defender, Baker, Philadelphia, Assistant Public for
Karl Forrest, (at (at 1858), No. No. Clayborne, appellee appellee al., (at 1859), appellees 1860). et No. McCullough, CERCONE, PRICE, President and Judge, Before HESTER, CAVANAUGH, SPAETH, MONTGOMERY and HOFFMAN, JJ.
CAVANAUGH, Judge: in this case concerns the of Philadel- dispute legality juve- Police Directive 95 which concerns phia Department which police custody procedures niles in established photographing juvenile arrestees over fifteen On the Honora- years age. August Court, Paul A. in Juvenile Dandridge, sitting granted ble motions to all records expunge fingerprint photograph juvenile Clayborne obtained from defendants Vander to Directive 95. The pursuant Ronald Forrest Common- from these orders are and docket- appeals captioned wealth’s *4 as follows: In the Interest of Vander No. 1858 Clayborne, ed 1979; Term, Forrest, In the Interest of Ronald No. October Term, 1979. On Dan- August Judge 1859 October entered an the immediate drige Injunctive requiring Order cessation of the of Directive 95. The Com- implementation monwealth’s from this order is and docket- appeal captioned al., In the et McCullough, ed as Matters of No. 1860October Term, 1979. these consolidated with the in appeals appeal
We ordered O’Neill, al., M. et a1. the case of Edward v. et No. 1502 Term, In 1979. that case the Honorable John J. October III, in McDevitt, entered an order sitting equity, refusing enjoin implementation Directive 95. All preliminarily appealed of the orders have been stayed pending of these disposition appeals. provides, pertinent
Directive 95 as follows: part, IN SUBJECT: JUVENILES POLICE CUSTODY I. POLICY Juveniles 15 years age
D. and older who are taken custody following into for offenses will be finger- printed photographed accordance with the proce- dures in this outlined directive.
1. Murder juveniles 2. Retail Theft 16 and 17 (only years age) 3. Manslaughter
4. Murder Attempted
5. Assault Aggravated
6. Kidnapping
7. Rape
8. Robbery
9. Burglary
10. Auto Theft Occupied Arson of Premises
12. Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse 13. Perjury
14. Tampering with a Witness 15. Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act 16. All Bench Warrants
17. Escape AND IV. FINGERPRINTING OF PHOTOGRAPHING JUVENILES
A. All juveniles arrested the offenses listed in Sec-
tion I will be fingerprinted photographed CCTV *5 wherein were arrested they in the division
personnel to the Youth Center. delivery Study to release or prior arrested for the offenses listed Juveniles Exception: to at the Police Detention processed I are be Section is in Detective Unit, the conducted investigation when headquarters. in divisions without CCTV facili- arrested Juveniles ato division with as transported
ties will be CCTY In cases the “A”. these Appendix juvenile directed in the of arrest. At the investigated will division be juvenile the will be investigation conclusion of the will then be processing. juvenile transported where was to his at district he/she parents released Study or delivered to Youth Center. processed, arrested in 6th District. Investi- EXAMPLE: Juvenile & Processed at 24th & Pennsylvania. at 20th gated at 24th & Wolf. parents Wolf. Released to investigator Aid Division will assigned B. The Juvenile juvenile is and re- properly processed ensure that are necessary reports properly pre- and that the leased pared and distributed. implemented was was no
At the time Directive 95 there Po- express statutory authority permitting Philadelphia lice fingerprint photograph juveniles. Department Thus before us of the appeals authority in both challenged. initiate such police proceedings Since case, instant legislation in the has been filing appeals of authorizing pho- specifically enacted 6308(c) Pa. tographing juveniles. provides: C.S.A. § records66 6308. Law enforcement § 4s 4« 4s 4s 4= 4s (c) photographs.— Fingerprints
(1) enforcement officers shall have authority Law to be or fingerprints photographs, take or cause taken both, child 15 and older who is years age act that, have committed a but for alleged delinquent chapter, felony of this would constitute a application or a violation of Subchapter Chapter 61 of Title 18 (relating act)67. to uniform firearms
(2) Fingerprint photographic records shall not be *6 disseminated to law enforcement officers or other jurisdic- tions, the Pennsylvania State Police or the Federal Bureau of unless so Investigation ordered the court. by
(3) and Fingerprints photographic records of children shall be immediately destroyed by all and persons agencies these records if the having child is not adjudicated delin- quent for reason of the alleged acts. 6308, (c). 42 Pa.C.S.A. subsec. §
Thus insofar as the seek juveniles to the enjoin police from of continuing practice and photographing juveniles no live controversy presented. However, juveniles claim that these procedures, which are quoted above, violate the Juvenile Act2 and their constitutional Therefore, rights. although we hold that the cases before us are moot as issue of authority to and fingerprint photograph juveniles, as seen below the statute does not render the matters before us moot. entirely
I First we will consider the Commonwealth’s appeals the orders of Judge Dandridge. Although all of finger- the crimes listed in Directive 95 for which prints gradation, photographs may and highest be taken are felonies at their necessarily not all offenses committed thereunder rise to Therefore, felony. the level of a fingerprinting arguably the Directive authorizes photographing juveniles and of where the child is summary arrested for the commission of a misdemeanor or offense juveniles challenge authority in the adult context. Because the of police fingerprint photograph general and not the authority fingerprint photograph depending upon grade of offense, question the better addressed proper interpretation we do not address this issue. This would be argument where we have the benefit of as to the 6, infra, additionally, of § 6308. See also n. we specifically provides note that the retail theft printing finger- statute for the juveniles purpose grading provid- for the the offense as 3929(g). ed therein. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § Act, 586, July 2,
2. Juvenile P.L. No. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § seq. (formerly seq. (Supp. 1976-77)). 6301 et 11 P.S. § 50 101 et §
A filing court was commenced action in the lower The fingerprint photograph to expunge of petitions filed a Subsequently appellees the appellees. records of Action and a Motion for Interven- a Class Certify Motion to both motions were denied. order of By July tion. to ex- granted petitions Judge Dandridge Thereafter stated in an Judge Dandridge following day punge. 95 is violative of the purposes that Directive order Department Police Philadelphia Act and that Juvenile and desist its practice fingerprint- cease immediately shall latter In reference to this juveniles. ing photographing that the court acted argues lower order the Commonwealth sua judicial responsibility by sponte of its derogation We agree proce- order. due entering injunctive an must be re- the cease and desist order irregularities dural *7 versed. denied Judge Dandridge appellees’ above
As noted action. This denial was proper a class certify petition with the Rules of Civil comply failure appellees’ view of class actions. the commencement of governing Procedure 1, 1977). (effective September 1701-1716 Pa. R.C.P. See class shall be com that action 1703(a) provides Rule “[a] with the complaint prothono of a only by filing menced Rule 1703 that (b) “[u]pon states Subpart tary.” the action shall be forthwith assigned of the filing complaint charge purposes.” be in of it for all to a who shall judge Appellees the form of the complaint. Rule 1704 dictates simply with these filed comply prerequisites, failed to of their without a judge choosing with the their motion 1703, note to Rule According explanatory complaint. 1704, not with Rule it will not comply “if the does complaint Further, 1710(e) action.” Rule provides commence a class revoked, is refused or the action shall that certification “[i]f the named alone.” against parties continue by and its own procedural irregularities these Despite certification the lower court entered an order of class denial which in effect mandates class-wide relief.3 The Common- wealth that once the lower argues court denied appellees’ action, certify motion to a class he could not thereafter grant form of class-wide relief. maintain, however, the lower
Appellees
court judge
in the
proceeding
context of a
in equity brought
an
by
individual
all further
may enjoin
implementation of the
police regulation which has been found to be
contrary
law.
In
of this
cite
support
appellees
Simco Sales v. Town-
Merion,
of Lower
ship
38 Pa.Cmwlth.
We have no doubt about the right of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County the exercise of its equitable powers to entertain a bill to an enjoin adminis trative agency Commonwealth from exercising powers not conferred on it or unconstitutionally conferred on it. point That has been decided too to be frequently doubt, *8 in longer [citations omitted]. cases,
These however, do give not the courts the authority to ignore established procedures. In the instant case an injunction was not nor sought was a hearing conducted prior to the sponte sua issuance of injunctive order. Once class denied, certification was matter only properly before the court was the expungement of the individual Despite sweeping order, Judge Dandridge’s opinion effect of no support of the order was filed in this court. See Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a).
540 out, Dan- point Judge appellants Thus as records. juvenile properly which was never on an issue relief granted dridge Pa. 331 Bell 460 Telephone, Marks v. him. before See was brought an action in equity In Marks (1975). A.2d all recording department practice the police that claiming Penn- violated the lines department on police calls telephone enjoined Act. The lower court Tap Anti-Wire sylvania calls. recording only appellant’s intercepting city enjoined the court should have that argued it was appeal On reject- Court Supreme recording .system. all use of eligible he was not holding argument, ed appellant’s procedural prerequisites where the relief class-wide satisfied. The have not been of a class action protections that, procedural addition to the further reasoned court relief im- involved, the of class-wide granting irregularities The court stated: the defendants. on hardships undue poses the relief the merits and succeeded on the plaintiffs If would be bound the defendants were granted, be However, should defendants injunction. broad in their favor the verdict litigation, in the successful not a party upon persons res effect judicata have no would suit, Thus, defendants omitted]. [citations all upon of suits based to a multitude subjected could be the same broad facts, seeking all set of the same basic new plaintiffs, effect upon free of final relief, and all the defendants. binding upon although potentially 82-83, A.2d at 429. Pa. at an injunction error in issuing court was in Thus the lower reverse. and we sponte sua
B or- Dandridge’s of Judge the propriety Next we address petitions expunge granting August ders of juveniles. of the individual fingerprints photographs is the proper whether expungement before us is The issue merit to the petitioners’ of the possible regardless remedy claim.
541
The
that
argues
juvenile petitioners
Commonwealth
entitled to the
legally
expungement.
were not
In
remedy
of this contention the
support
Commonwealth cites Com-
Malone,
62,
v.
244 Pa.Super.
(1976).
monwealth
inherent of Due Process and is not dependent on However, express statutory authority. expunction is in cases where proper only acquittal is consistent with a finding of real innocence and is not a result of legal technicalities unrelated to questions guilt or innocence.
Thus where an accused is indicted but never tried
because the indictments were nol prossed
the district
upon
confession that he would be
attorney’s
unable to establish a
trial,
prima facie case at
due process requires the Common
wealth to
evidence
present compelling
retention
justifying
of the arrest
Jennings,
467,
record. Wert v.
249 Pa.Super.
124,
(1977), aff’d,
In Commonwealth v. 278 Briley, 420 A.2d Pa.Super. (1980) was remedy expungement extended to the petitioners who had successfully completed the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program (hereafter ARD), see Pa.R.Crim.P. 175 et There we held seq., Pa.C.S.A. retention of justifying the burden of has
the Commonwealth
record.
individual’s arrest
*10
is an
above,
remedy
expungement
judicial
As noted
where
is consist-
acquittal
process
proper
to due
adjunct
ARD cannot
Although
innocence.
a
of real
finding
ent with
innocence”, this
to a
of “real
finding
to be equivalent
be said
in conclud-
Malone and Rose line of cases
relied on the
court
entitled to
may be
participants
that ARD program
ing
First,
placement
that
acknowledging
while
expungement.
we
that in practical
stated
jury’s acquittal,
in ARD is not a
in that once the
is not that different
the program
effect
Common-
completes
program,
successfully
candidate
him on the
from convicting
was forever barred
wealth
that ex-
holding
a second reason for
As
charges lodged.
we stated:
remedy
is an available
pungement
admis-
the lower court for
Here, moving
appellant’s
by
demon-
the Commonwealth
program,
sion into the ARD
offense
appellant’s
that the nature of
strated its belief
character were such that
background
and his
were he not
would be best served
society
interests of
justice system
out of the criminal
but diverted
prosecuted,
as
quickly
possible.
as
363,
278 Pa.Super. case ordered Judge Dandridge In the instant records photographs fingerprint of all expungement Clayborne. Forrest and Vander Ronald juvenile appellees, on the adjudicated delinquent had been Both appellees and finger had been they photographed for which charges this, Given Dandridge. the orders of Judge printed prior would not have been juveniles that argue appellants and are there the retention of these records stigmatized agree. We expungement. fore not entitled above, judicial remedy length As discussed at we held that available. rarely Initially is expungement inno- where the defendant is is only proper expungement technicalities. legal is the result of cent, acquittal not where found in of the was However, remedy a extension principled the ARD program: nature of singular because Briley similarity disposition between and a jury’s acquittal; stringent possess individual must qualifications be- entry fore the Commonwealth will recommend into the program; the Commonwealth’s own admission in recom- ARD that mending diversion out of the criminal justice cases, will In however, benefit all system society. expunge- ment is rooted in accused’s to due right process, as we stated Commonwealth v. Malone: life, Punishment of the innocent is the clearest denial of liberty and without property process due of law. To remedy situation, such a an individual must be afforded a hearing to his claim he present is entitled to an expungement—that because an innocent individual has to be right free from punishment, unwarranted a court *11 the authority has to the remedy denial of that right by ordering the expungement of arrest record.
We so hold even though expungement cases upon we which rely deal with solely adult offenders. due process interest to be protected is the same with both an adult and a juvenile. Likewise, the societal interest is maintaining records no less present where the accused is a
juvenile. We therefore no find basis distinguish the due process right to of the expungement culpable juvenile from that of the culpable adult. This support conclusion finds legislation enacted to the subsequent filing of these appeals.
As noted earlier 42 Pa.C.S.A. 6308 was amended § for provide the fingerprinting and photographing of juve- niles. Section 6308(c)(3) provides:
Fingerprints and records photographic of children shall be immediately destroyed by all persons agencies having these records if the child is not adjudicated delin- acts, of the quent reason alleged [emphasis added]. 544 Act, Record Information History
Also the Criminal 1, 1980),4 (effective January et now seq. Pa.C.S.A. § provides: records. Juvenile
§ juvenile records.—Notwithstand- (a) Expungement (relating section 9105 other crimi- ing provisions shown, information) except upon cause justice nal cases juvenile delinquency of records of expungement occur after ten notice days or retained shall kept wherever whenever the court its attorney, upon district motion of a child or the or parents upon motion or guardian finds: which is filed is not substantiated or
(1) complaint a of a complaint is filed as a result is petition which as a court other than result an dismissed adjustment; informal since the final
(2) elapsed discharge five have years commitment, probation placement, person and referral and since such final disposition or other a felony, has not been convicted of discharge, person proceed- and no adjudicated delinquent misdemeanor or conviction or seeking adjudication; such ing pending is or
(3) years age older and individual expungement. court orders course, meet 9123(a). Of should they 18 Pa.C.S.A. § *12 are free to seek relief statutory appellees requirements, under this section. 1, 16, 1979, July July 1979 until at This Act had been in effect from subsequent point repealed given a date. it was effective which History of the Criminal Record Informa- In the adult context 9122 § Act, seq., expungement Pa.C.S.A. 9101 et authorizes § tion (b), Subpart apparently permits which ex- limited circumstances. finding guilt, provides history despite pungement criminal may expunged record information be when: (1) subject An individual who is the information reaches prosecution years age or and has been free of arrest ten supervision; years following release from confinement or final subject (2) is the of the information has been An individual who years. dead for three
The orders of Judge Dandridge granting petitions expunge of Vander Clayborne Ronald Forrest are re- versed.
II We now address the appeal of M. Edward This action was commenced of a by filing class action complaint and a equity petition for a preliminary injunction Ed- M., S., H., ward Tyrone Joseph on behalf of themselves and all other juveniles similarly situated. filed Appellants their complaint against the Philadelphia District Attorney, Rendell, Edward G. Philadelphia Commissioner, Police Jo- O’Neill, seph F. and certain unknown members of the Phila- Police delphia Department.
A on the hearing petitioner’s for a request preliminary 16, hearing 1979, was held on May before Judge McDevitt. 1, 1979, June Judge On McDevitt denied petition for a preliminary injunction, denied class certification and sus- tained defendants’ preliminary objections. From these de- terminations the juveniles bring this appeal.
Each of the named plaintiffs was fingerprinted and photo- graphed to Directive 95. according According testimony at the Edward M. hearing was at arrested approximately 5:00 m. on p. April 1979. He was taken first to the 15th Precinct and then to the transported Police Administration where he was Building fingerprinted and He photographed. was advised that the reason he was taken to the Police Administration was Building that the equipment for photo- graphing and at the 15th Street Precinct was out of order. Edward M. was released to the custody his mother at approximately p. 11:25 m. that same evening. S. testified that he
Tyrone was taken into custody by police officers on March transported the 9th District where he was photographed and released after one approximately and one-half hours. He testified that he assumed he was released being because it was a mistaken which identity, happened had to him before. On April was Tyrone again S. taken into on a warrant custody *13 was to the 9th where He taken District robbery. charging with what he described as “older in room he remained m. At ap- 2:30 until 8:00 approximately p. people” 1st transported 2:30 m. he was to Police p. proximately At 12:00 approximately 24th Wolf at and Streets. District n . finally and and photographed fingerprinted, m. he was Center at Study approximately to the Youth transported a. m.5 2:30 1:30 a. m. on approximately H. was arrested at
Joseph He attempted burglary. the charge on March he was fingerprinted the District where was taken to 35th at 10:30 a. m. approximately and released photographed and following morning. the juveniles of the three were that each
Except for fact the factual situations of fingerprinted photographed, different. Rule Pa. R.C.P. sets quite arrest are each a class action. Two maintaining five prerequisites forth here: There must be ques- are relevant prerequisites such class; to the and the claims or or fact common tions of law must be parties typical the representative defenses of or class. claims defenses above, argument appellants’ As noted is not authorized under Penn juveniles photographing moot has rendered enactment of law been sylvania Moreover, before during hearing 1608(c). Pa. C.S.A. § juveniles aban expressly counsel for Judge McDevitt authority fingerprint photo to the any challenge doned challenge procedures its fol Counsel limited graph. Ap- fingerprints photographs.6 procuring lowed Tyrone adult. S. is now an 5. injunction During hearing preliminary for a on motion juveniles exchange place following between counsel for the took the court:
Ms. Defrantz: object practice objecting to the itself. What we’re We do not county; being way the fact that defendants it’s done this is have, and, then, own, process, having initiated this after on their *14 argue implementation that the Directive 95 re- pellants in prolonged juveniles sults detention of in various police in of 42 Pa. 6326 and facilities violation C.S.A. §§ 6326 provides: Section
(a) person General rule.—A a child into taking custody, speed with all reasonable and without first taking the elsewhere, child shall:
(1) other notify parent, guardian or custodian of whereabouts; of the child his apprehension (2) to his parents, guardian, release the child or other custodian upon promise bring their to child before court, the court requested when unless his by deten- tion or is or shelter care warranted required under section (relating child); to detention of or
(3) before bring child the court deliver him to a detention or care shelter facility designated by the court or to a medical if the facility child is believed to suffer from a serious physical condition or illness which re- quires prompt treatment. He shall promptly give writ- notice, ten together with a statement the reason for taking the child into to a custody, parent, guardian, or other custodian to the court.
Any detention or temporary questioning of the child nec- to essary with this comply subsection shall conform to the procedures and conditions prescribed this by chapter and other provisions of law.
Section 6327 that provides a child to alleged be delin be quent may detained in only facilities listed therein. The section states: process, attempted by legitimize offering initiated the to it amend- Legislature. ments to We feel that is— again. THE COURT: better You had state that over say you object process You don’t itself? object photo- MS. don’t DEFRANTZ: WE
graphing object way practiced children. We to the is it in this county. in any shall a child be detained no circumstances Under is be adults, or where child abused apt with facility other children. by (c) provides:
Subsection employed of or any charge It person is unlawful detain in to receive for detention or to a jail knowingly has he or should have reason whom jail person ais child. believe express mandatory language that the
Appellants contend the violation of these sections Directive makes therefore a class action appro- Act inevitable and Juvenile if activity Even police We priate. disagree. *15 be said to have could juvenile appellants arrests of Act, fall short establish- appellants violated the Juvenile of the are class representative these three instances ing that juvenile arrestees. 489, Anderson, 227 313 A.2d Pa.Super. of In re The case instructive here. In that case a is (1973), particularly 260 taken to the station for police was arrested and juvenile police He detained at the p. at nine m. was “booking” he hours, during two which time questioned for station juvenile m. he was taken to the p. At eleven confessed. one-half This held that two and center. court detention the arrest the arrival at deten- delay between hour to contra- delay not an unreasonable so as tion center was significantly Act.7 Most we stated: the Juvenile vene hour delay might A and one-half be unreason- two two normally These cases under some circumstances. able However, in facts. this particular on their own stand detaining had a reason in case, police legitimate so the defendant might in the station defendant they of this crime when were other identify perpetrators in. [Emphasis brought added]. 442, A.2d at 261.
227 at 313 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. v. 249 375 Bey, In Commonwealth juvenile a (1977), determining whether A.2d Anderson, 50-310(a) supra, decided under P.S. § 7. Re was In now 42 Pa. C.S.A. § which is police was detained at station an unreasonable amount time, we stated: his appellant p. therefore arrest at 10:00 m. upon on June was in within meaning ‘custody’ Juvenile before Act. he was taken Consequently, else- where, for a which allowing period in the authorities could administratively process juvenile he suspect, should have been released in the custody parents, guardian his or other custodian or before a brought court or delivered to a detention or shelter care center by the designated court. [Emphasis added].
Thus it is a factual question post as whether the arrest administrative delay long so as violate unduly Juvenile Act.8 As Judge McDevitt stated in his memoran- dum “A opinion: myriad of fact varying situations would necessarily arise contacts between the police juve- niles in a of two million city persons.” We hold that in view of the fact-sensitive question nature of the of Juvenile Act violations the lower court correct refusing was to grant class Alleged certification. violations of the will Act best be considered on a case case basis. we
Parenthetically note that Directive 95 address does problems to juvenile related arrests. The states, Directive inter alia:
Once a juvenile has been taken into a police facility *16 he/she not should be transferred to another district/unit for investigation except specified as in this directive.
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
companion
Schirner,
Pa.Super. 185,
8. See also the
re
cases of In
264
White,
(1979)
Pa.Super.
We need not address relief as them injunctive question uals because are in they that as individuals allege moot. do not They in the police being subjected practices similar danger of to avail course, are free themselves they future. Of of their fingerprints remedies of destruction statutory records, 6308(c)(3), expunge- 42 Pa.C.S.A. photograph § records, 9123(a). juvenile their Pa.C.S.A. § ment of M. v. in the case of Edward et aI. of the lower court Order O’Neillis affirmed. In the of Clayborne, the lower court in Interest
Orders of In the of McCullough of Forrest and Matters In Interest et a reversed. are
SPAETH, J., dissenting opinion concurring files HOFFMAN, J., CERCONE, join. Judge which President SPAETH, Judge, dissenting: that DANDRIDGE agree Judge I with the majority an sua I also injunction sponte. should not have issued Judge McDEYITT was correct majority with agree However, I grant class action certification. refusing Judge reversal of DAN- majority’s with the disagree petitions expunge orders granting DRIDGE’s Vander photographs juveniles Clayborne fingerprints *17 and RonaldsForrest. “At the time majority recognizes,
As the Directive 95 was there was no express authority per implemented statutory Police mitting Philadelphia Department to fingerprint At The juveniles.” and statute photograph permitting and fingerprint photograph juveniles, 42 Pa.C. police 1980, was not until 6308(c)(1), 29, S.A. enacted February § not effective until sixty days and was thereafter. Clayborne and Forrest were and fingerprinted photographed on March 1979, 16, and April respectively. at that time Since express had no police statutory authority fingerprint them, we must photograph inquire and whether had they any implied statutory authority.
When Clayborne Forrest were fingerprinted pho- statute tographed, only authorizing 27, of at all was photographing any persons the Act of April 3, amended, P.L. as 19 P.S. which § § provided: Police, Pennsylvania persons charge State institutions, the penal
State wardens or keepers jails, within prisons, workhouses this Commonwealth, and all within the police political officers several subdivisions Commonwealth, take, of this shall have the authority to or taken, cause to be fingerprints or photographs with person custody, charged crime, the commission of have or who reason to believe they fugitive is a from criminal, or justice except a habitual persons with charged a violation of “The Vehicle Code” which is punishable in a upon conviction summary proceeding unless have they reason believe the is a person fugitive from justice criminal; habitual and it shall be the of the chiefs of duty bureaus of all cities within this Commonwealth to furnish Police, daily, Pennsylvania copies State and, if fingerprints possible, photographs, all persons their jurisdiction arrested within with charged the com- of felony, mission or who have they reason to are believe justice criminals, fugitives or habitual such finger- to be on prints taken forms furnished or approved by *18 552 It duty State Police. shall be the
Pennsylvania Police, immediately upon receipt State Pennsylvania records, compare them with those already of such and, a files, person if find arrested has they their is a fugitive justice, record or criminal previous officer, the officer arresting to inform or forthwith (Emphasis of such fact. prisoner charge, having added.) promulgation authorize the impliedly statute did not
This 95, consequent and the and fingerprinting Directive Police Forrest, as juve- and because Clayborne photographing . . . charged Forrest were not “person[s] Clayborne niles charged of crime.” Juveniles are not the commission with of a “crime” but of a act.” “delinquent with the commission The Act clear that an Juvenile makes 42 Pa.C.S.A. § a not con- provisions under its does constitute adjudication crime. viction of to the issue of fingerprinting juve- case related only Robinson, (W.D.Pa. F.Supp. v.
niles Owens-El
that the
Juvenile
1978),
Pennsylvania
where the court held
333, 11
Code,
P.L.
No.
P.S.
Act of Dec.
prison
not
administrator from
seq.,
prohibit
50-101 et
did
§
upon
prison
their admission to
juveniles
fingerprinting
federal, state,
and local author-
sending their fingerprints
for
no
represented
authority
ities. This case
arrest
juveniles upon
and photographing
no
au-
express
implied statutory
had
police
Since
and For-
Clayborne
thority
fingerprint
photograph
rest,
expunge
fingerprints
was to
their
proper remedy
Fredericks,
e.
v.
Commonwealth
photographs.
g.,
See
(1975) (fingerprints
I should therefore orders expungement. petitions