Wolfe v. Beal
| Decision Date | 01 March 1976 |
| Citation | 353 A.2d 481,23 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 |
| Parties | Debra Bartholomew WOLFE, Plaintiff, v. Frank BEAL, Secretary of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Robert Gatski, Superintendent of Danville State Hospital, Defendants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Howard M. Levinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Harrisburg, for defendants.
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and KRAMER, WILKINSON, MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.
Petitioner asks this Court to order the respondents, the Secretary of Public Welfare and the Superintendent of Danville State Hospital, respectively, to destroy all records at Danville State Hospital that pertain to petitioner's confinement after November 21, 1973, in that institution. She had been confined there under an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County dated November 21, 1973. She had been unconditionally released from that institution on April 15, 1974. On August 7, 1974, petitioner obtained an order from the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County declaring its prior order of November 21, 1973, null and void for lack of due process and ordering it expunged from the records of that court. That order properly expressly stated that that court did not have jurisdiction to consider the destruction of the records and documents of an agency of the Commonwealth. This action in this Court followed. 1
The respondents maintain the records in question by virtue of the mandate of Section 602(a) of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (Act of 1966), Act of October 20, 1966, Special Sess. No. 3, P.L. 96, As amended, 50 P.S. § 4602(a):
This is a legislative mandate to maintain these records and there is no legislative authority for their destruction. Hence, this Court is without authority to grant the petitioner's prayer. See Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 215 Pa.Super. 534, 258 A.2d 695 (1969), wherein the Court of Common Pleas had granted a request for the destruction of a criminal record. The Superior Court reversed, stating:
Id., 215 Pa.Super. at 537, 258 A.2d at 696.
In Commonwealth v. Magaziner, 50 Pa.D. & C.2d 291 (1970), the Court of Common Pleas declined to order the chief of police and others to destroy all records in their files concerning the petitioner who had been arrested and acquitted of adultery. In a well-reasoned decision, Judge Gawthrop, while denying the general relief, did grant the prayer as it related to finger-prints in the file of the chief county detective because such was authorized by Section 5(c) of the Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 414, As amended, 19 P.S. § 1405(c):
'(c) The district attorneys of the several counties shall keep and arrange files of the fingerprints, taken under the provisions of this act, of persons convicted of crime and shall destroy the fingerprints of all persons acquitted.'
It is appropriate to note here that Section 602(d) of the Act of 1966, 50 P.S. § 4602(d), specifically provides that the record here involved may be opened to inspection and examination only by those designated by respondents. Under the facts of this case, we admonish the respondents to exercise this authority with great care and to see that those responsible for the custody of these records impound them in such a way that an inadvertent error or carelessness may not expose them to the view of any person not so specifically authorized.
Accordingly, we enter the following
Now, March 1, 1976, the prayer of the above petition is denied. Further, the Chief Clerk is directed, in addition to the usual distribution, to send a certified copy of this opinion and order to the respondent, the Superintendent of the Danville State Hospital. Said respondent is directed to place such copy of this opinion and order with the medical file of the petitioner to the end that those limited persons, if any, ever specially authorized by respondents to examine said medical file, shall know that the original commitment was improper and has been expunged from the court records of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County which ordered the commitment.
I respectfully dissent, in the belief that the maintaining of the records at a state mental hospital of a citizen who was illegally and unconstitutionally committed violates Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968.
As the majority points out, the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County declared its commitment order null and void for lack of due process and further ordered it expunged from the court records; but the trial court declared that it did not have jurisdiction to order the destruction of the records of the Danville State Hospital where Wolfe had been committed. The majority reasons that because there is a legislative mandate to maintain records of patients at state mental hospitals, but no legislative authority for their destruction, this Court is without authority to order such destruction.
Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 reads as follows:
'All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain Inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of Enjoying and defending life and liberty, of Acquiring,...
To continue reading
Request your trial