In Re: Appeal of A. Ehrlich v. Philadelphia Police Dept.

── In Re: Appeal of A. Ehrlich v. Philadelphia Police Dept. ── Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Leadbetter Category: General IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Appeal of Adam Ehrlich, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1213 C.D. 2024 : SUBMITTED: April 13, 2026 Philadelphia Police Department : BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: May 13, 2026 Appellant Adam Ehrlich (Requester) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which denied his petition for judicial review of the Philadelphia Police Department’s denial of his request for certain police body camera (bodycam) video recordings. On September 18, 2023, Requester submitted multiple requests to the Department seeking police bodycam recordings pursuant to Act 22 of 2017.1 The requests still at issue relate to events occurring on August 1 and 2, 2023, at three properties in which Requester claims an ownership interest.2 One of those properties 1 Act of July 7, 2017, P.L. 204, commonly referred to as Act 22, is codified in various sections of Titles 18 and 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, and provides the exclusive means of accessing audio and video recordings created by law enforcement, see 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 67A01 - 67A09. 2 Other unrelated requests are no longer at issue in this litigation. has been the subject of a code enforcement litigation with the City of Philadelphia, which resulted in two previous appeals to this Court and, ultimately, the demolition of the property.3 During the course of that litigation, on August 1 and 2, 2023, the Department dispatched officers to prevent unlawful and unauthorized entry to the property, in compliance with the order of this Court.4 According to Requester, on August 2, 2023, officers forcibly removed him from the property, wrongfully arrested him, inflicting injuries in the process, and removed some of his personal belongings from the property. Requester asserts that he filed the requests in question to identify the source of his injuries, investigate potential civil rights violations, track the location of the personal belongings that were moved, and potentially use the recordings in a civil suit. The Department denied the requests for the recordings on the grounds that they comprised information pertaining to agency investigations and that reasonable redactions would not cure the issue, relying upon Act 22 and the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA).5 3 See City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint, LLC (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1012 C.D. 2023, filed May 6, 2025) and City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint, LLC, 301 A.3d 988 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). 4 See Order, City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 823 C.D. 2023, filed August 2, 2023) (per curiam) (ordering the City to continue preventing unlawful and unauthorized entry to the Property pending disposition of the case). 5 Section 9106(c)(4) of CHRIA provides, in relevant part, that “[i]nvestigative . . . information shall not be disseminated to any . . . individual unless the . . . individual requesting the information is a criminal justice agency which requests the information in connection with its duties.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 9106(c)(4). Investigative information is defined as “[i]nformation assembled as a result of the performance of any inquiry, formal or informal, into a criminal incident or an allegation of criminal wrongdoing and may include modus operandi information.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 9102.