A.D. Brown v. Office of Inspector General
730 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Petitioner Alton D. Brown, an inmate, requested (1) all inmate complaints to the State Office of Inspector General (OIG) about DOC staff (2010–2015) and (2) documents reflecting OIG dispositions of those complaints and OIG policy on handling prisoner complaints.
- OIG denied disclosure asserting exemptions for noncriminal investigatory records and predecisional deliberations, and that repeated requests imposed an undue burden; it also claimed no policy records existed.
- Brown appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); OOR affirmed the noncriminal investigatory exemption for inmate complaints and found OIG showed no record of a policy but did not find OIG proved Brown’s repeated requests were an undue burden.
- Brown petitioned for Commonwealth Court review, arguing (inter alia) that the OIG lacked jurisdiction to investigate inmate complaints in his case and thus the exemption could not apply, and that the record contains documents contradicting OIG affidavits.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed de novo, found OOR failed to resolve whether an OIG investigation actually occurred (a prerequisite for the §708(b)(17) exemption), found conflicting OIG affidavits about existence of disposition records, affirmed that no policy record exists, vacated other parts of OOR’s determination, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inmate complaints are exempt under Right-to-Know §708(b)(17) when no investigation occurred | Brown: exemption cannot apply if OIG did not and could not investigate; his complaint was referred to DOC, not investigated by OIG | OIG: Stein requires complaints be exempt whether or not they led to investigation | Court: Stein was misread; exemption requires a noncriminal investigation. OOR failed to determine if an investigation occurred; reversal and remand. |
| Whether OIG has a written policy governing handling of prisoner complaints | Brown: evidence indicates OIG handled/processed complaints; policy existence disputed | OIG: Yerges affidavit says no such policy record exists | Court: Affirmed OOR — OIG established no record of a policy. |
| Whether OIG proved there are no records reflecting disposition of inmate complaints | Brown: letters in the record show dispositions exist (e.g., referral letters) | OIG: Yerges affidavit says no disposition records; Todd affidavit implies investigative materials exist (conflict) | Court: Reversed OOR on nonexistence finding due to affidavit conflict and existing disposition letters; remanded for further factfinding. |
| Whether Brown’s repeated requests placed an undue burden under §506(a)(1) | Brown: prior requests were limited and not unduly burdensome | OIG: Brown previously requested same records repeatedly imposing burden | Court: OOR correctly found OIG did not meet burden to show undue burden (OOR noted only one prior similar request). |
Key Cases Cited
- Stein v. Plymouth Township, 994 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (discussed scope of complaint exemption under RTKL)
- Department of Health v. Office of Open Records, 4 A.3d 803 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (definition of "investigation" for RTKL exemptions)
- Johnson v. Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, 49 A.3d 920 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (investigation must be conducted as part of agency's official duties)
- Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (burden of proof for exemptions under RTKL)
- Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Education, 76 A.3d 81 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (preference for allowing OOR initial factfinding on RTKL issues)