Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania State Police
146 A.3d 814
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- OOR issued three in camera review orders directing Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) to produce videos in three RTKL appeals: Collazo (surveillance video from Mt. Airy Casino) and two media requests (Hamill and Blanchard seeking PSP MVR/body-cam footage).
- PSP declined to produce the records, claiming CHRIA bars dissemination of "investigative information" to non-criminal-justice agencies and asserting OOR lacks authority to receive such records.
- OOR petitioned this Court to enforce its in camera production orders, citing the need to develop the record and relying on prior Commonwealth Court guidance that MVRs are not automatically investigative.
- The court accepted that OOR may seek enforcement of in camera production orders and that jurisdiction is proper, per precedent (Center Twp.).
- The court distinguished the Collazo surveillance video (recorded by a third party and obtained by PSP during its investigation) from PSP-created MVRs; it concluded the Collazo video is CHRIA "investigative information" and OOR is not a CHRIA criminal justice agency.
- Because the legal status of MVRs is materially affected by PSP v. Grove (pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court), the court held the portion of the petition concerning the Media Requests in abeyance pending Grove.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OOR) | Defendant's Argument (PSP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May OOR petition the Court to enforce its in camera production orders? | OOR: Yes; Court should enforce to develop the record. | PSP: OOR lacks standing/authority to invoke court enforcement. | Court: OOR may petition for enforcement; standing and jurisdiction accepted. |
| 2. Is OOR a "criminal justice agency" under CHRIA such that PSP may disclose investigative records to it? | OOR: Implicitly argued it can receive records for in camera review (relying on Grove). | PSP: No; OOR is not a criminal justice agency, so CHRIA bars disclosure. | Court: OOR is not a criminal justice agency under CHRIA. |
| 3. Is the Mt. Airy surveillance video "investigative information" barred from disclosure to OOR? | OOR: Argued in camera review needed; relied on Grove for non-investigative character of some recordings. | PSP: Video was obtained during a criminal investigation and is CHRIA-protected investigative information. | Court: Collazo video is investigative information; PSP cannot release it to OOR. Petition denied as to Collazo. |
| 4. Are PSP-created MVRs/body-cam recordings subject to CHRIA’s investigative-information bar for disclosure to OOR? | OOR: Relied on Grove to argue MVRs are not automatically investigative and OOR should review them. | PSP: Contends MVRs may be investigative and CHRIA bars disclosure; Supreme Court review of Grove may decide. | Court: Stayed/held in abeyance pending Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in PSP v. Grove. |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Open Records v. Center Twp., 95 A.3d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (OOR may seek court enforcement to obtain records for in camera review to develop the evidentiary record)
- Dep’t of Auditor Gen. v. Pa. State Police, 844 A.2d 78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (interpretation of CHRIA definitions; Auditor General not a criminal justice agency)
- Levy v. Senate of Pa., 94 A.3d 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (reviewing court defers to OOR/appeals officer findings; evidentiary development occurs at appeals stage)
- Twp. of Worcester v. Office of Open Records, 129 A.3d 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (confirms OOR’s authority to develop the record through in camera review)