286 A.3d 726
Pa.2022Background
- In Feb. 2016 Fox 43 reporter Valerie Hawkins requested school-bus surveillance video from Central Dauphin SD depicting an altercation between a student and an adult; the District refused under FERPA and RTKL.
- The District’s open-records officer said the video was maintained by the District, used in its investigation, contained students’ identifiable images, and (assertedly) could not be redacted.
- OOR and the trial court ordered disclosure with redaction; Commonwealth Court initially followed Easton Area I and ordered disclosure, but this Court’s decision in Easton Area II produced a different analysis and remand.
- On remand the Commonwealth Court (Central Dauphin II) held the video is an education record under FERPA but must be disclosed after redacting students’ personally identifiable information; District appealed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed: education records are presumptively public under RTKL unless exempted, FERPA protects personally identifiable information (not entire records), and the District must reasonably redact and produce the video.
Issues
| Issue | District (Plaintiff/Appellant) Argument | Hawkins (Defendant/Requester) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the bus surveillance video an "education record" under FERPA? | Video is an education record but FERPA precludes public disclosure of such records. | Video is an education record but only students’ personally identifiable information is protected; the record itself is presumptively public under RTKL. | Yes; the video is an education record, but FERPA protects personally identifiable information, not the entire record. |
| Does FERPA or RTKL Sections 102/305 categorically exempt education records from RTKL redaction/production? | FERPA (and RTKL defs) make education records non-public so Section 706 redaction does not apply. | FERPA does not categorically exempt records; RTKL presumes agency records public unless proven exempt and allows redaction under §706. | No categorical exemption; RTKL presumption applies and §706 requires redaction of non‑disclosable information. |
| Must the agency produce a redacted version if identifying information can be removed? | If the District cannot technologically or reasonably de‑identify students, it may withhold. | Agency must redact if information is separable; inability to redact must be proven and may be discredited. | Agency must reasonably redact; the District failed to prove inability to redact. |
| Does prior public reporting (requester or media knowledge) bar redaction/disclosure? | Prior publicity means identities can’t be de‑identified, so FERPA requires withholding. | Publicity does not automatically defeat redaction obligations; determinations are fact‑specific. | Publicity is relevant but fact‑specific; here no adequate proof it prevents reasonable redaction — disclosure with redaction ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 232 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2020) (plurality) (held bus video was an education record and required redaction and release of non‑identifying content)
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 191 A.3d 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (intermediate court decision addressing whether bus video was an education record)
- Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. Hawkins, 199 A.3d 1005 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Central Dauphin I) (earlier Commonwealth Court ruling ordering disclosure)
- Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist. v. Hawkins, 253 A.3d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (Central Dauphin II) (on remand, held video is an education record but ordered redaction and release)
- Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 937 A.2d 1040 (Pa. 2007) (preponderance standard for agency proof under RTKL)
- Pa. State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (RTKL exemptions construed narrowly)
- Evans v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 951 F.3d 578 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (discussed here for principle that agency must explain why segregation/redaction of video is unavailable)