For the Defense - Vol. 6 Issue 3 - 19

example of how CHRIA can impede a party's ability to
effectively prosecute its case. " 49
quashed plaintiff's subpoena and ordered that the
toxicology report should not be produced.50
CHRIA's prohibition on the dissemination
of
investigative and intelligence information applies
regardless of whether the requestor seeks information
about a third party or about himself. In Rojas v. Lehigh
County, 51
Nevertheless, the court
suspected crime, a criminal proceeding, or a conviction.
Bald assertions that information is investigative are not
enough to satisfy an agency's burden of proving that
documents are exempt from disclosure under CHRIA.56
For example, in Zielinski v. Mega Manufacturing, a
worker died when sheets of steel fell on him while
working at a manufacturing plant. The decedent's wife
brought a wrongful death claim and subpoenaed the
police department's accident investigation file.57
The
an inmate sought a video recording made by
the police of him confessing to a crime. Although the
request was made under the RTKL, the Commonwealth
Court determined that the video constituted
investigative material that was not subject to release
under CHRIA. The court explained that the RTKL
provides that " information restricted from disclosure
under another state law is not a public record subject
to disclosure under the RTKL. " 52
However, if protected information constitutes
Brady material,53
defendant, even if otherwise prohibited by CHRIA.
As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Pennsylvania
v. Ritchie, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, state police and prosecutors must comply
with Brady even when doing so violates a state statute.54
The government bears the burden of establishing
It
that requested material constitutes protected material
under CHRIA and therefore cannot be disclosed.55
must demonstrate that the material is connected to a
it must be provided to the criminal
police department moved for a protective order so it
would not have to produce investigative information.58
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the
police department's file regarding the accidental death
was not exempt from discovery, because the police
department failed
to demonstrate with
sufficient
specificity that any of the information was subject
to CHRIA.59
The court held that the department's
assertions based on " information and belief that the
records at issue relate to an ongoing criminal matter "
was insufficient to prevent disclosure, because only the
police department is in a position to know for certain
whether such an investigation is underway.60
The court
suggested that if such investigation did in fact exist
and the department wanted to prevent disclosure of
the file, a department official should have provided a
sworn statement to that effect, rather than speculative
and equivocal statements.61
Pennsylvania courts have made it clear that
" [t]he mere fact that a record has some connection to a
criminal proceeding does not automatically exempt it "
We proudly support the
Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
and the 2021 White Collar Practice Seminar
Post & Schell, P.C.
Post & Schell, P.C. t www.postschell.com
Philadelphia n
Pittsburgh n
Internal Investigations & White Collar Defense
www.postschell.com
Washington, D.C. n
Harrisburg n
Allentown n
Lancaster n Mt. Laurel, NJ n
Wilmington, DE
Vol. 6, Issue 3 l For The Defense 19
http://www.postschell.com http://www.postschell.com
For the Defense - Vol. 6 Issue 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 6 Issue 3
