G. Ocasio v. PA DOC
306 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Petitioner Gabriel Ocasio, an incarcerated individual, requested misconduct reports, investigation reports, witness statements, and related information about an April 17, 2016 assault in a DOC unit under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) denied the request in full, invoking RTKL exemptions for personal security, public safety, and criminal/noncriminal investigations.
- Department submitted two sworn declarations (Office of Special Investigations & Intelligence director; Chief Hearing Examiner) describing the records and asserting that disclosure would risk retaliation, identify witnesses, and impair prison safety and investigative processes.
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) denied Ocasio’s appeal, finding the investigation records exempt under the personal security exemption and the misconduct records exempt under the public safety exemption.
- Commonwealth Court reviewed the OOR decision de novo and affirmed, concluding the Department met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood of substantial risk to individuals and to prison security from disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested investigation records are exempt under RTKL §708(b)(1)(ii) (personal security) | Ocasio: Records needed to defend against charges; should be disclosed | DOC: Disclosure would identify complainants/witnesses, create risk of retaliation and physical harm | Held: Exempt — DOC showed reasonable likelihood of substantial risk to individuals |
| Whether misconduct records are exempt under RTKL §708(b)(2) (public safety) | Ocasio: Requests relevant to his defense; seeks redacted info if necessary | DOC: Records relate to law enforcement/public safety; disclosure would impair detection, discipline, and safety | Held: Exempt — records relate to public safety and disclosure would threaten prison security |
| Whether requester’s need or constitutional claims override RTKL exemptions | Ocasio: Need to defend and alleged constitutional right to records | DOC: Status, purpose, or need irrelevant under RTKL | Held: Denied — RTKL exemptions apply regardless of requester’s need or asserted constitutional claim |
| Whether partial redaction was required instead of full denial | Ocasio: Produce redacted versions to protect identities | DOC: Entire categories (investigations, misconducts, witness statements) would, if disclosed even in part, enable identification and endanger safety | Held: Denied — DOC showed disclosure of the requested record types (not merely discrete fields) would endanger safety, so full exemption applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (personal security/public safety considerations in prison RTKL requests)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. McGill, 83 A.3d 476 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (presumption of public access and agency burden to prove exemption)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa.) (agency burden of proof under RTKL)
- Governor’s Office of Administration v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition and application of personal security exemption)
- Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (public safety exemption elements)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (recognizing security and retaliation risks within prison disciplinary context)