Borough of Pottstown v. S. Suber-Aponte
202 A.3d 173
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- On Nov. 25, 2015 Shanicqua Suber-Aponte (Requester) sought police department video footage showing her and all Department activity on Oct. 4, 2015.
- The Borough of Pottstown denied the request citing RTKL exemptions (personal security, public safety, building security, criminal and noncriminal investigations) and CHRIA, and asserted the request lacked specificity.
- Requester appealed to the OOR; the OOR ordered disclosure, finding the Borough had not met its burden and the request was sufficiently specific.
- The Borough appealed to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas; the trial court reversed the OOR, finding the request insufficiently specific and exempt in full.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the court held the request was sufficiently specific, reversed the trial court insofar as public-area footage was withheld, but remanded for the trial court to review footage in camera to designate which portions (if any) of nonpublic-area footage are exempt under RTKL Sections 708(b)(1)(ii), (2), (3), (16), (17) and CHRIA.
- Requester’s recusal claim was waived for failure to raise it below and was therefore affirmed as to denial; no remand for a new judge was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specificity under RTKL §703 | Request identified subject (Requester), scope (video footage), and a discrete timeframe (Oct. 4, 2015) | Request is overbroad: seeks footage for entire day without specifying locations, officers, or narrower times | Court: Request is sufficiently specific; trial court erred in holding it vague |
| Personal security exemption §708(b)(1)(ii) | Disclosure would not be likely to cause substantial risk to individuals | Borough: footage would reveal camera locations, procedures, armory, swipe-card access and create real risk to officers/detainees/public | Court: Borough presented detailed testimony supporting real risks; remanded for in-camera review to identify which portions are exempt |
| Public safety / building security exemptions §§708(b)(2) & (3) | Disclosure serves public interest; footage of public areas not investigative | Borough: disclosure would reveal layout, vulnerabilities, and jeopardize public safety and building security | Court: Borough’s testimony supports potential risks, but because record doesn’t identify specific footage, remand for camera-by-camera review to identify exempt portions; public-area footage is not exempt |
| Criminal/noncriminal investigation exemptions §708(b)(16),(17) & CHRIA | Requester: footage merely documents what a bystander would see and is not investigative information | Borough: footage relates to or resulted from criminal/noncriminal investigations and is CHRIA-protected investigative information | Court: Footage is not automatically investigative; public-area footage is not exempt under CHRIA/Grove; remand to determine which nonpublic footage (if any) qualifies as investigative information |
| Recusal of trial judge | Judge should be disqualified because he issued order leading to Requester’s arrest | Borough: claim was not raised below; no due process violation alleged | Court: Recusal claim waived for failure to raise in trial court; affirmed denial of recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (three-part specificity balancing test under RTKL)
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Baxter, 35 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (timeframe guidance; agency’s identification of responsive records supports specificity)
- Pa. State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa.) (recordings are not automatically investigative under CHRIA; bystander-observable footage may be public)
- Del. Cty. v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard for personal-security exemption requires more than speculation)
- Carey v. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definitions and scope for security-related RTKL exemptions)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (RTKL is remedial and broadens public access)
- Adams v. Pa. State Police, 51 A.3d 322 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (records that would assist criminals in achieving objectives may be exempt)
- Padgett v. Pa. State Police, 73 A.3d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (requester’s motives are irrelevant to whether records are public)