County of York v. Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
13 A.3d 594
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Requester seeks 911 time response logs for December 2008 and January–February 2009 with destination addresses.
- York County denied addresses, defining time logs as times of call, dispatch, response, arrival, and available.
- OOR granted Requester’s appeal, finding addresses were part of time response logs and must be disclosed.
- County appealed; trial court reversed, holding no definition in RTKL for time response logs and excluding addresses.
- This Court reverses: time response logs include cross-street/destination data, which must be disclosed with substitution allowed.
- Court directs disclosure in the same manner as maintained, substituting cross-street information for addresses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County waived denial requirements | Czech argues County satisfied Section 903 with two letters. | York County asserts sufficient notice and authority cited in denial letters. | Waiver not found; letters satisfied Section 903 requirements. |
| Who bears the burden to prove exemption for addresses | RTKL presumes records are public; agency must prove exemption by preponderance. | County bears burden to show addresses are exempt or outside time logs. | County bears burden; it did not prove exemption for addresses. |
| Interpretation of 'time response logs' | Term includes addresses/cross-street to assess emergency response times. | PA NENA definition/explanations limit it to non-address data. | Term meaning includes addresses; Legislature intended disclosure of time response logs with location data. |
| Legislative history and intent controlling interpretation | Floor debates and amendments show intent to protect privacy; not determinative, but guides construction. | Legislative history weak as proof of intent; actual statutory text governs. | Legislative history does not override statutory text; contemporaneous context supports disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL remedial purpose and open records priority)
- Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (statutory construction and access limitations)
- Signature Information Solutions, LLC v. Aston Township, 995 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (waiver and agency denial authority)
- Jones v. Office of Open Records, 993 A.2d 339 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (waiver and procedural aspects under RTKL)
- SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 999 A.2d 672 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of review and statutory interpretation standards)