Are there any police reports or court records for Phil Godlewski?
Executive summary
Phil Godlewski is linked to public court records and reporting that summarize police reports in a 2010 Pennsylvania criminal docket; local and national outlets say those records show charges and a conviction for “corrupting a minor,” and police reports and related affidavits were later filed into a defamation case that brought them back into the public record [1] [2] [3]. The reporting also describes police-investigative materials—text-message logs, gift evidence and victim affidavits—being cited in court filings and news coverage, though the original full police reports are available only through court or law‑enforcement channels rather than in the aggregated articles [4] [2].
1. The concrete court trail: a Lackawanna County criminal docket exists
The Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System docket for “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Philip Godlewski” (docket number CP‑35‑CR‑0002613‑2010) is publicly listed on the state portal, and multiple outlets reference that criminal docket and related filings as the primary official record of the 2010 prosecution and disposition [1] [2]. Journalists and legal filings cited that docket when reporting that Godlewski pleaded guilty to a count often summarized as “corrupting a minor” and received a sentence that included house arrest—details drawn from that criminal-case file and subsequent court papers now discussed in press accounts [2] [3].
2. Police reports are repeatedly described in news reporting, and were entered into later court filings
Mainstream reporting by The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone and others says investigators compiled police reports documenting extensive text-message exchanges, gifts and other materials involving a victim identified as “B.D.,” and that those investigative materials were included or described in affidavits and exhibits introduced later in a defamation lawsuit against the Scranton Times‑Tribune [3] [2] [4]. Those accounts quote police reports as the source for descriptions such as hundreds of texts in a short span and expensive gifts like diamond earrings—language that appears in multiple stories summarizing the police files [4] [2].
3. The defamation lawsuit reopened the record and produced new court filings that reference the police materials
Reporting documents that Godlewski’s own defamation suit against the Scranton Times‑Tribune led to the filing of new motions in which the newspaper’s lawyers pointed to the prior criminal docket and police-related evidence, alleging perjury and other misconduct in the newer civil proceeding; those motions, and the newspaper’s public statements, are the vehicle by which earlier police reports and victim affidavits have been re‑articulated in the press [5] [3]. In short, the criminal docket and later civil-court filings are the official places where police reports and sworn statements have been memorialized and litigated publicly [1] [5].
4. What the public reporting shows — and what it doesn’t
News articles consistently report that police records show an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor at age 15, copious text exchanges, and gifts; they also state Godlewski pleaded guilty to a corruption‑of‑a‑minor charge and served a limited sentence such as house arrest, as reflected in court records [2] [3]. What the aggregated reporting does not provide is direct reproduction of the entire original police‑investigative file—full interview transcripts, complete police reports, or sealed docket pages—so confirmation of every granular investigative detail requires access to the court docket entries or law‑enforcement records via official channels [4] [1].
5. Assessing credibility and alternative viewpoints
Major outlets rely on court filings and the state docket as primary sources, and their accounts are consistent in citing police reports and the 2010 criminal case; critics or defenders could point to legal technicalities, redactions or context that are not fully visible in press summaries, and reporting notes motions alleging perjury and procedural disputes that complicate the narrative and could affect interpretation of some documents [5] [3]. Peripheral aggregators and people on social platforms amplified docket summaries and commentary, but the strongest factual anchors remain the Pennsylvania court docket entry and the motions and affidavits copied into the later civil case record [1] [5].