A. Posey v. DOC (OOR)
335 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Ajani Posey, an inmate at SCI-Houtzdale, requested the full names of several corrections officers from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- The Department denied the request in part, claiming the first and middle names of corrections officers were exempt under the RTKL’s personal security exception.
- Posey appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), which upheld the Department's denial, relying on other OOR decisions and an unreported case.
- No affidavits or evidentiary support were provided by the Department in support of its claimed exemption; just a letter brief was submitted.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed the matter, noting that a prior identical case (Posey I) involving the same parties and issue had already been decided against the Department on similar facts.
- The Court also addressed Posey's allegation of bad faith by the Department, considering if the record supported such a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether full names of corrections officers are exempt under RTKL personal security exemption | No evidence exists that disclosure would harm security; Department did not meet its burden | Disclosure poses a substantial and demonstrable risk to officer safety; exemption applies | Department failed to meet burden; exemption does not automatically apply without evidence |
| Whether Department met its evidentiary burden by submitting only a letter brief | Letter briefs are not evidence; actual evidence is required | Letter brief and prior OOR decisions suffice; affidavit unnecessary when exemption is clear | Letter briefs are not evidence; Department did not meet burden |
| Whether OOR properly relied on its own prior determinations and Stein v. OOR | OOR overread precedent; prior cases required specific evidence, not categorical exemption | Prior OOR and Stein support a categorical exemption for corrections officers' names | OOR erred; Stein requires evidence for exemption, not a per se rule |
| Whether the Department acted in bad faith in denying the request | Department willfully withheld access to public information | No bad faith; followed legal procedures and asserted exemption in good faith | No evidence of bad faith by Department |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of the Governor v. Davis, 122 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Affidavits are generally required to support RTKL exemptions unless the exemption is apparent from the record)
- Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (Exemptions under RTKL should be narrowly construed to maximize government transparency)
- Carey v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Defines evidentiary burden and standard to show substantial risk under the RTKL)
- Governor’s Off. of Admin. v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (Describes the need for more than speculation to meet justification for RTKL exemption)