IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Manuel Carrero, Jr., :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 259 M.D. 2021

: Submitted: October 28, 2022

Pa. State Police Central Repository, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: January 12, 2023

Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary 

objections filed by Pennsylvania State Police, Central Repository (Respondent), to 

the petition for review filed by Manuel Carrero, Jr. (Petitioner). Petitioner seeks 

declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge his criminal history information 

maintained by Respondent. For the reasons that follow, we sustain Respondent’s 

preliminary objections and dismiss Petitioner’s petition.1

The petition for review alleges that on October 25, 2019, Petitioner 

requested access to his criminal history record from Respondent. On December 23, 

2019, Respondent provided Petitioner with a certified copy of his criminal history

record, which the petition alleges to be erroneous in several ways. Petitioner’s name

is Manuel Carrero, Jr., not Manuel A. Carrero, who is his father; Petitioner’s race is 

Hispanic, not “unknown” or “White;” and Petitioner’s height is 5 feet 7 inches, not 

1 Petitioner did not file a brief in opposition to Respondent’s preliminary objections, and as such, 

this Court proceeds without Petitioner’s brief. 
2

5 feet 6 inches. Finally, the criminal history record improperly lists Petitioner’s

social security number. Petition for Review, ¶¶3-5. The petition alleges that 

Lieutenant Earl H. Rhoades knowingly and willfully placed false information in 

Petitioner’s certified criminal history record and that Respondent “has a history of 

maintaining false criminal record[s].” Petition for Review, ¶¶5, 8. The petition 

asserts that Respondent has violated the requirement in the Criminal History Record 

Information Act (CHRIA)

2

that Respondent maintain complete and accurate 

criminal history record information. 

Based on these allegations and legal claims, the petition seeks:

1) Declaratory relief: declaring [R]espondent maintained 

(willfully and knowingly) false record under Petitioner’s birth 

name, and Petitioner’s substantive due process right was 

violated[,] 18 Pa. C.S. [§]9151[,] and Petitioner was 

aggrieved by [R]espondent’s action;

2) Injunctive Relief: ordering [R]espondent to remove all false 

info[rmation] from Petitioner’s rap sheet with L.T. Rhoades 

punished. Sec. 9181 [of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. §9181].

Petition for Review, ¶11.

In response, Respondent filed preliminary objections asserting the 

inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter in the pleading; insufficient specificity

to the pleading; legal insufficiency (demurrer); and failure to exercise or exhaust a 

statutory remedy. PA.R.CIV.P. 1028(a)(2), (3), (4), and (7).3

2

18 Pa. C.S. §§9101-9183.

3 The rule states, in relevant part, as follows:

(a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited 

to the following grounds:

* * * *

(2) failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court or 

inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter;
3

In ruling on preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded 

material allegations in the petition for review and any reasonable inferences 

therefrom. Thomas v. Corbett, 90 A.3d 789, 794 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). “The Court, 

however, is not bound by legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences from facts, 

argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion encompassed in the petition for 

review.” Id. We may sustain preliminary objections where the law makes clear that 

the petitioner cannot succeed on his claim, and we must resolve any doubt in favor 

of the petitioner. Id.

We begin with Respondent’s preliminary objection that Petitioner 

failed to exhaust the statutory remedy available under CHRIA. Generally, where a 

remedy is provided by statute, it must be pursued to the exclusion of other remedies. 

Where the statutory remedy is not adequate or complete, equity may provide relief

to prevent irreparable harm. Pennsylvania State Chamber of Commerce v. Torquato, 

125 A.2d 755, 766 (Pa. 1956).

CHRIA requires “every criminal justice agency within the 

Commonwealth to maintain complete and accurate criminal history record 

information[.]” 18 Pa. C.S. §9111. Section 9151(a) of CHRIA states that “[a]ny 

individual or his legal representative has the right to review, challenge, correct and 

appeal the accuracy and completeness of his criminal history record information.” 

18 Pa. C.S. §9151(a). In challenging the accuracy of the criminal history record, 

the individual must specify the errors and offer corrections. 18 Pa. C.S. §9152(c). 

(3) insufficient specificity in a pleading;

(4) legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer);

* * * *

(7) failure to exercise or exhaust a statutory remedy[.]

PA.R.CIV.P. 1028(a)(2), (3), (4), and (7).
4

The criminal justice agency has 60 days to conduct a review of any challenge, and 

it bears the burden of proving the accuracy of the record. 18 Pa. C.S. §9152(d). 

Where it is established that a criminal history record is inaccurate, the criminal 

justice agency must correct the record. 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 accordance with the 

Administrative Agency Law[, 2 Pa. C.S. §§501-508, 701-704].” 18 Pa. C.S. 

§9152(e). 

In the instant matter, Respondent is a criminal justice agency within the 

meaning of CHRIA. 18 Pa. C.S. §9102 (defining “criminal justice agency” as 

including, but not limited to, “organized State and municipal police departments”). 

The petition for review does not allege that Petitioner presented his challenge to the 

accuracy of his criminal record to Respondent, as required by Section 9152 of 

CHRIA. 18 Pa. C.S. §9152. Nor does the petition allege that the statutory remedies 

in CHRIA for the correction of criminal history record information are inadequate. 

Because Petitioner has failed to pursue the statutory remedy available to him under 

CHRIA, we sustain Respondent’s preliminary objection raised under PA.R.CIV.P. 

1028(a)(7).

The petition for review also alleges that Respondent knowingly and 

willfully placed false information in Petitioner’s criminal record, in violation of

substantive due process. “The substantive protections of due process are meant to 

protect citizens from arbitrary and irrational actions of the government.” Gresock v. 

City of Pittsburgh Civil Service Commission, 698 A.2d 163, 169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) 

(citation omitted). “Preliminarily, for substantive due process rights to attach[,]
5

there must first be the deprivation of a property right or other interest that is 

constitutionally protected.” Khan v. State Board of Auctioneer Examiners, 842 A.2d 

936, 946 (Pa. 2004). Here, the petition does not specify whether it is based upon the 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1, or Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution, PA. CONST. art. I, §9. However, substantive due process protections 

afforded under the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution are 

analyzed the same and are, thus, coextensive. Griffin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority, 757 A.2d 448, 452 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

In the petition for review, Petitioner alleges that he requested access 

and review of his criminal history record information, and Respondent provided him 

with a certified copy thereof. The petition for review alleges there is erroneous 

information in that history, but it does not allege that Petitioner requested a 

correction from Respondent or pursued his remedy under Section 9151(a) of 

CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. §9151(a). Stated otherwise, the petition for review does not 

aver that Respondent has in any way restricted Petitioner’s “right to review, 

challenge, correct and appeal” his criminal history record information. Id. 

Accordingly, it does not allege an arbitrary action of the government to deprive him 

of a right to correct his criminal history. Khan, 842 A.2d at 946. We conclude that 

the petition does not state a substantive due process claim and sustain Respondent’s 

preliminary objection raised under PA.R.CIV.P. 1028(a)(4) asserting legal 

insufficiency. 

Based on the foregoing, we sustain the preliminary objections asserting 

failure to exhaust a statutory remedy under PA.R.CIV.P. 1028(a)(7) and a demurrer 
6

under PA.R.CIV.P. 1028(a)(4). Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s petition for 

review.4 

 ____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

4 Because we dismiss the petition for review based upon Petitioner’s failure to exhaust a statutory 

remedy and a demurrer, we need not address Respondent’s other remaining preliminary objections.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Manuel Carrero, Jr., :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 259 M.D. 2021

:

Pa. State Police Central Repository, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2023, Pennsylvania State Police 

Central Repository’s preliminary objections asserting a demurrer and failure to 

exercise or exhaust a statutory remedy are SUSTAINED. Manuel Carrero, Jr.’s 

Petition for Review is DISMISSED.

 ____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita