Chester Housing Authority v. S. Polaha
173 A.3d 1240
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Stephen Polaha, Township solicitor, requested under the RTKL a list of Township properties where Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) tenants reside, including unit addresses and owners. The Authority initially produced owner names/addresses and inspection/certificate data but withheld tenant home addresses.
- The Authority asserted RTKL exemptions (personal identification, social-services recipients, personal security, and minors) and federal HUD/Privacy Act confidentiality obligations for HCVP records; OOR ordered disclosure and the trial court affirmed that order.
- On appeal this Court (Chester I) affirmed disclosure, relying on precedent that addresses are not categorically exempt and that disclosure did not violate HCVP recipients’ constitutional privacy under Duncan.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review limited to the Authority’s constitutional claim and remanded for consideration under PSEA III, which held a constitutionally protected privacy interest in home addresses that must be balanced against any public interest favoring disclosure.
- On remand this Court applied the Denoncourt balancing test and concluded Polaha’s request did not show a significant government interest or lack of a less intrusive alternative; the Court vacated Chester I and reversed the trial court, protecting tenant addresses from disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether home addresses of HCVP tenants must be disclosed under the RTKL | Polaha: Township needs addresses to verify inspections and certificates of occupancy; HUD forms allow disclosure to local agencies for investigations | Authority: Tenants have constitutional privacy in home addresses per PSEA III; HUD/Privacy Act and program confidentiality bar release | Court: Home addresses implicate constitutional privacy; balancing favors privacy because Township’s stated need was satisfied by information already provided and a less intrusive method existed |
| Whether tenants waived privacy by signing HUD forms | Polaha: HUD consent forms put tenants on notice and permit limited disclosures, so any privacy right was waived | Authority: Forms did not include rental addresses and PSEA III privacy right was not clearly established at signing; no knowing, intelligent waiver | Court: No waiver — forms did not intentionally relinquish address privacy and PSEA III postdates the forms |
| Whether disclosure would identify social-service recipients and thus be exempt under RTKL §708(b)(28) | Polaha: He did not request names; addresses alone do not identify recipients | Authority: Even addresses alone reveal locations of low-income recipients and are protected by constitutional privacy and HUD confidentiality | Court: Constitutional privacy in addresses applies regardless of whether names accompany them; exemption analysis requires the constitutional balancing test under PSEA III |
| Whether a less intrusive alternative existed to obtain Township’s objectives | Polaha: Preferred single-step direct list from Authority for convenience | Authority: Already provided owner names/addresses, inspection dates, and certificate info; Township could use that or other methods | Court: Authority had already supplied a least-intrusive data set sufficient for Township’s purpose; no significant government interest justified further intrusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n v. Commonwealth, 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (recognizes constitutional privacy interest in home addresses and requires balancing public interest against privacy before disclosure)
- Denoncourt v. State Ethics Commission, 470 A.2d 945 (Pa. 1983) (sets balancing test for government intrusion into private affairs: significant interest and no less-intrusive alternative)
- Van Osdol v. Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 40 A.3d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (addresses RTKL exemptions and whether addresses with no names identify social-services recipients)
- Duncan v. Commonwealth, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (held no reasonable expectation of privacy in certain address information; Court here explains Duncan is inapposite to PSEA III privacy analysis)
- Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (held home addresses are not categorically exempt under RTKL §708(b)(1) and require balancing)