Butler v. Dauphin County District Attorney's Office
163 A.3d 1139
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Cleveland Butler (Requester), an inmate, requested certified copies of all search warrants and inventory lists related to his 1999 criminal case from the Dauphin County DA’s Office under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- The DA’s open-records officer denied the request under the criminal investigatory exemption and minor-identity exemption; Requester appealed to the DA Office appeals officer.
- The appeals officer ordered disclosure, finding the records public; the DA Office produced copies but did not provide a formal certification under RTKL §904 or an affidavit about search completeness.
- Requester filed a petition for review in the Court of Common Pleas alleging (1) the trial judge should have recused himself because he was the DA at the time of Requester’s arrest, (2) the DA Office failed to certify the records, and (3) the DA Office should have produced an affidavit from the investigating detective verifying completeness.
- The trial court denied relief; on appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the court affirmed: it found the recusal claim waived and inapplicable, treated the DA Office’s affirmation of authenticity as the functional equivalent of certification, and held no entitlement to an investigating officer’s affidavit absent evidence of bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge recusal / due process | Judge should recuse because he was DA at time of Requester’s criminal case; participation violates due process (Williams) | Issue waived for failure to raise below; Code of Judicial Conduct does not create enforceable private right; Williams is distinguishable | Waived; Williams inapplicable (civil RTKL appeal, no motion for recusal, no evidence of actual bias) |
| Entitlement to certified copies (RTKL §904) | Requested certified copies; agency did not certify and did not invoice for fee — so requester entitled to certification | Agency says it does not certify documents; it provided true copies and did not charge fee | Agency’s affirmation that copies were true served as functional equivalent of certification; denial of petition on this basis affirmed |
| Requirement of affidavit re: search completeness | DA Office must provide an affidavit from investigating detective verifying all responsive records were produced | Agency satisfied RTKL by conducting good-faith search and disclosing records in its possession; no bad faith shown; not required to obtain records from non-agency actors | Denied — no affidavit required absent a showing of bad faith; agency met duty by searching its records and attesting to that search |
| Waiver / procedural default | Raised on appeal as soon as aware (post-Williams) | Failure to raise recusal or seek reconsideration in trial court constitutes waiver under Pa. R.A.P. 302 and Rule 1925(b) | Waived; appellate review refused on grounds not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2016) (requiring recusal where judge had significant prior prosecutorial involvement creating risk of actual bias)
- Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253 (Pa. 2009) (Rule 1925(b) cannot be used to raise an issue for the first time on appeal)
- Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (Code of Judicial Conduct does not itself create enforceable private rights)
- Office of the Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (presumption that agencies act in good faith under the RTKL)
- Office of Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (affidavits justify agency searches and non-disclosure under RTKL)