Chester Housing Authority v. S. Polaha
2391 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Chester Housing Authority (Authority) administers the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) in Chester Township. Requester Stephen Polaha (Township solicitor) sought lists of HCVP-assisted property addresses and owner information under the RTKL.
- The Authority initially provided a chart with owner names and inspection data but refused to provide property addresses of HCVP tenants, citing confidentiality and exemptions.
- Polaha appealed to the OOR, which ordered disclosure; the Authority petitioned for review in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas and requested a de novo hearing.
- At the hearing, the Authority’s HCVP director testified the Authority organizes paper files by participant (not by address), that some address data exist in an electronic database, and that disclosure would violate federal privacy guidance, RTKL exemptions, and tenants’ privacy/physical safety.
- The trial court ordered production of the addresses, finding the information exists in a searchable database and is not exempt; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Polaha's Argument | Authority's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RTKL required creation/compilation of new records (§705) | The Authority already has the address data in an electronic database and can produce it | Producing a list would require creating/compiling records organized by address, which RTKL §705 forbids | Held: Information exists in a searchable database; extracting it is not creating a new record, so §705 does not bar disclosure |
| Whether addresses are exempt as identifying social services recipients (§708(b)(28)(i)) | Request for addresses does not itself identify individuals receiving social services | Addresses can be linked to identify recipients and thus are exempt | Held: Addresses alone do not identify recipients; exemption does not apply (Van Osdol controlling) |
| Whether addresses are exempt as identifying minors (§708(b)(30)) | Addresses do not directly identify children or their ages | Disclosure would reveal locations of minors (Authority cited number of minors in program) | Held: Addresses do not directly identify children under 17; exemption not met |
| Whether disclosure is barred by Privacy Act/federal HUD guidance or constitutional privacy/physical-harm concerns | Addresses serve legitimate municipal inspection purposes; federal guidance and exemptions do not categorically bar disclosure | HUD PIH guidance and Privacy Act prohibit dissemination of PII; disclosure poses risk of stigmatization, financial disclosure, or physical harm | Held: HUD guidance does not categorically classify addresses as exempt PII here; Authority produced only generalized anecdotal harm evidence, not particularized risk; constitutional privacy not implicated for addresses; therefore disclosure allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (agency may use sworn testimony to establish nonexistence of records)
- Department of Environmental Protection v. Cole, 52 A.3d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (extracting information from a database does not constitute creating a record under RTKL)
- Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh v. Van Osdol, 40 A.3d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (addresses and owner names of Section 8 properties are not per se exempt under RTKL)
- Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (physical-harm exemption requires preponderance showing of substantial, demonstrable risk)
- Fort Cherry School District v. Coppola, 37 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (standard of appellate review for trial court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (framework for constitutionally protected expectation of privacy)