185 A.3d 456
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Requester sought surveillance video of a November 9, 2013, holding-cell confrontation between detainee Logan and Officer Justin Todd Shultz; the video shows Shultz assaulting Logan.
- Chief Encapera viewed, downloaded the recording, fired Shultz and submitted the video to the district attorney; Shultz later pled guilty to simple assault.
- Borough denied the RTKL request claiming exemptions: criminal/noncriminal investigative records (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)-(17)), security-related exemptions (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(1)-(3)), and CHRIA confidentiality (18 Pa.C.S. §9106(c)(4)); Borough directed appeals to the OOR.
- OOR concluded the video was not a criminal investigative record (camera recorded for safety, not created to investigate), rejected CHRIA and security exemptions, and ordered disclosure.
- Trial court affirmed OOR; Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the video is an investigative record under the RTKL and CHRIA and therefore exempt, but agreed the Borough failed to meet security-exemption burden.
Issues
| Issue | Requester/Plf Argument | Borough/Def Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OOR had jurisdiction to decide the appeal under 65 P.S. §67.503(d)(2) | OOR may decide because statute unclear; moot because trial court conducted a de novo review | District attorney’s designated appeals officer must decide whether a record is a criminal investigative record | Jurisdiction issue is moot; trial court’s de novo review made the question unnecessary to decide |
| Whether the holding-cell video is a criminal or noncriminal investigative record under RTKL §708(b)(16)-(17) | Video was created for safety and not as part of an investigation, so it is disclosable | Video was downloaded and used to investigate and prosecute Shultz and thus is an investigative record exempt from disclosure | Video is an investigative record; trial court erred in treating it as non-investigative and disclosable |
| Whether CHRIA §9106(c)(4) bars public release of the video | Video is not CHRIA-protected because it was not created as investigative material | Chief assembled the investigative information by downloading and delivering the video to the DA, so CHRIA prohibits dissemination to non–criminal-justice agencies | CHRIA applies: the video constitutes "investigative information" assembled during the investigation and is protected |
| Whether security-related RTKL exemptions (§708(b)(1)-(3)) apply | Borough’s testimony showed release would reveal blind spots and risk safety | Borough argued disclosure would reasonably likely jeopardize public/physical/personal security | Borough failed to meet its burden; testimony was speculative and did not establish a reasonable likelihood of harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 119 A.3d 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (MVRs are not automatically investigative; analysis is fact-specific)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (Supreme Court: MVR exemptions under RTKL/CHRIA must be decided case-by-case; video not automatically exempt)
- Miller v. County of Centre, 135 A.3d 233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Section 503 creates separate appeals track for criminal investigative records)