199 A.3d 1005
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- On Feb. 23, 2016 Fox43 requested a school-bus surveillance video showing an altercation on Feb. 16 involving a student and the parent Erica Rawls, who was later criminally charged.
- Central Dauphin School District denied the request, claiming the video is exempt under the RTKL because (1) it is an “education record” under FERPA (disclosure could risk federal funding) and (2) it "relates to" a noncriminal investigation.
- OOR directed disclosure, concluding the video was not an education record under FERPA and was only incidental to the District’s investigation.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, received testimony from the District’s assistant superintendent/open-records officer (who maintained the downloaded video in a safe), and affirmed OOR: the video is not an education record and not exempt as a noncriminal investigative record.
- The District appealed to this Court arguing (a) FERPA protection (loss of federal funds) and (b) the RTKL noncriminal-investigation exemption. The Court of Common Pleas’ order was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (School District) | Defendant's Argument (Fox43/Requester) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bus video is an "education record" under FERPA so disclosure risks loss of federal funds | Video contains personally identifiable student information and is maintained by the District, so FERPA applies and disclosure could result in funding loss | A surveillance video that primarily depicts a non-student (the parent) and is not maintained as a permanent education record is not an education record | The video is not an education record: it did not "directly relate" to a student and was not maintained as FERPA contemplates; Section 708(b)(1)(i) exemption fails |
| Whether the video is exempt as a record "relating to" a noncriminal investigation under RTKL §708(b)(17) | The District downloaded the video and used it in an extensive internal investigation and discipline, so it is an investigative record and exempt | Mere use in an investigation or prior public knowledge does not automatically make the video investigative; the record must actually reveal investigative substance | Exemption denied: the District failed to show the video captured investigative material or revealed progress/result of an investigation; Grove II requires a case-by-case showing and the video was largely what a bystander would observe |
Key Cases Cited
- Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2002) (FERPA "maintain" requires records kept in a permanent/secure fashion, not ephemeral handling)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (Grove II) (MVRs/video are not categorically exempt; whether a video "relates to" an investigation is fact-specific)
- Grove v. Pennsylvania State Police, 119 A.3d 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Grove I) (when video contains both investigative and non-investigative content, redaction may be appropriate)
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 191 A.3d 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (school-bus video showing teacher conduct not automatically an education record under FERPA)
- Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Towne, 174 A.3d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (bus surveillance created for/used in investigations may be exempt if agency shows how recordings relate to investigations)
- California Borough v. Rothey, 185 A.3d 456 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (surveillance capturing police misconduct exempt where video was central to discipline and prosecution)