Pa Sheriffs Immune from Liability for Breaching LTCF Confidentiality

[BenGlock]

On November 22, 2017, in a class action filed by attorney Joshua Prince in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entitled Doe v. Franklin County, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania sheriffs are entitled to "high public official immunity" in cases brought against them for violating 18 Pa.C.S. 6111(i) relating to license to carry confidentiality. As a result of this decision, the party responsible for safekeeping LTCF information is now immune from liability for failing to do so. In Doe, the plaintiffs allege that the Sheriff mailed out LTCF renewal notices using postcards instead of placing the information in sealed envelopes.

Section 6111(i) states, "All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees."

Fortunately, this decision may not affect the plaintiffs' ability to sue Franklin County since the sheriff's department is arguably considered an arm of the County. However, since the Sheriff does not answer to the county commissioners, this decision may permit Sheriffs to disregard the law without consequence, unless impeached.

The opinion is available at: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...67982.pdf?cb=1

[Sparks]

Section 6111(i) states, "All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees."

Don't know how that can stand, that language seems pretty plain to me. Then again IANAL.

[Sgt.K]

In the case of an applicant, who besides the Sheriff's department do they think *has* that information to give out?

Now, IANAL, but it would seem to me that a plain reading of 6111(i) is DIRECTED at the sheriff, or at least written with the sheriff in mind, when it comes to applicants.

Am I wrong?

[BenGlock]

Upon a plain reading, one would agree. However, the PA Supreme Court held, based upon long-standing precedent, that high public official immunity is not waived unless explicitly set forth in the statute. Since the word "sheriff" wasn't used in the statute (and it easily could have been), the Court held that immunity of the sheriff wasn't waived.

[Sgt.K]

Upon a plain reading, one would agree. However, the PA Supreme Court held, based upon long-standing precedent, that high public official immunity is not waived unless explicitly set forth in the statute. Since the word "sheriff" wasn't used in the statute (and it easily could have been), the Court held that immunity of the sheriff wasn't waived.

I wonder what their definition of "is" is...

[JenniferG]

This is a plain and simple case of the Supreme Court having nothing to do with the law but it has everything to do about an agenda.

[Bang]

Typical of the Penna Supreme Court's type of "logic". They have had a rep similar to the 9th circus for years.

Now, if legislators really had any sense of purpose owed their constituents, they would immediately begin to correct what the court has pointed out for them.

[fallenleader]

so are they also immune from suites against them for adding illegal stipulations to the requirements?
like restricting references to in-county only, requiring tax forms for identity, not refunding fees on denial. etc?

how do we clear out the judges responsible?

[Bang]

This seems to follow the immunity a sentencing judge enjoys when a defendant is found guilty, imprisoned, and subsequently gains freedom due to judicial error. Conferred upon all high public officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance statutes seem moot.

[JenniferG]

The purpose of laws and the courts aren't to protect the citizens at this point. They are designed to protect those in power and to keep them in power. The Constitution has become a moot point.