Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 9114. Correction of inaccurate information.
Within 15 days of the detection of inaccurate data in a criminal history record, regardless
of the manner of discovery, the criminal justice agency which reported the information
shall comply with the following procedures to effect correction:
(1) Correct its own records.
(2) Notify all recipients, including the central repository, of the inaccurate data and
the required correction.
Notes of Decisions
Haron v. Pennsylvania State Police, 171 A.3d 344 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 9114. Section 9152 of CHRIA establishes the following procedure for a party wishing to challenge the accuracy of his/her criminal history record information, and provides in pertinent part, as follows: (c) Challenge of accuracy.”
M. Haron v. PSP, No. 220 M.D. 2015 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 19, 2017).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. §9114. Section 9152 of CHRIA establishes the following procedure for a party wishing to challenge the accuracy of his/her criminal history record information, and provides in pertinent part, as follows: (c) Challenge of accuracy.”
J. Tillman v. PSP, No. 1299 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 17, 2019).
“Where it is established that a criminal history record is inaccurate, PSP has a duty to correct the record under Section 9114 of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9114. “Criminal history record information” is defined by Section 9102 of CHRIA to include “[i]nformation collected by criminal…”
M. Carrero, Jr. v. PSP Cent. Repository, No. 259 M.D. 2021 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 12, 2023).
“18 Pa. C.S. §9114. “If the challenge is ruled invalid, an individual has the right to appeal the decision to the Attorney General within 30 days of notification of the decision by the criminal justice agency,” and the Attorney General “shall conduct a hearing de novo in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.