PA State Police, Aplt. v. Grove, M.
161 A.3d 877
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Michelle Grove requested Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) mobile video recordings (MVRs) and police report from a two-vehicle crash; PSP denied the MVRs asserting RTKL and CHRIA exemptions and a 911/dispatch exemption.
- PSP initially relied on unsworn statements and a conclusory verification; OOR found the evidence insufficient and ordered production.
- On appeal the Commonwealth Court allowed PSP to supplement the record with a sworn Rozier affidavit describing MVR content and PSP MVR policies; the court held video portions generally public but ordered redaction of investigative audio (witness interviews).
- PSP sought review in the Supreme Court, raising (a) whether MVRs are per se exempt under RTKL §708(b)(16) and CHRIA, (b) whether the specific MVR videos here are investigative, (c) whether Wiretap Act restrictions bar disclosure, and (d) whether mandated redaction improperly creates a “new” record in violation of RTKL §705.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: MVRs are not categorically exempt (must be decided case-by-case); the video portions at issue are public; PSP may redact investigative audio; redaction does not violate §705; Wiretap Act does not bar disclosure because recorded speakers had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Issues
| Issue | Grove's Argument | PSP's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are MVRs per se exempt as "criminal investigative records" under RTKL §708(b)(16) and as CHRIA "investigative information"? | MVRs are documentary recordings of public police activity and are not per se investigative; exemptions are narrow and case-by-case. | MVRs are routinely created during criminal investigations (traffic enforcement) and videos are expressly listed in §708(b)(16), so they should be exempt when related to an investigation. | Not per se exempt; whether an MVR is investigative must be assessed case-by-case and PSP bears the burden to prove exemption. |
| Do the specific video portions of the two MVRs here qualify as investigative material? | The video portions merely show what a bystander would observe and do not contain investigative material; only audio (witness statements) is investigative. | The MVRs documented troopers conducting an investigation that culminated in citations; the videos thus relate to the criminal investigation and are exempt. | Video portions of these MVRs are not investigative and must be disclosed; PSP may redact audio portions containing witness interviews. |
| Does the Wiretap Act prohibit disclosure of MVR audio/video? | No — recordings occurred in a public setting; speakers had no reasonable expectation of privacy; troopers had notice of recording. | Yes — Wiretap Act restricts interception/disclosure of oral communications and limits public disclosure; PSP contends RTKL disclosure would violate Wiretap Act protections. | Wiretap Act does not bar disclosure here: recorded persons had no justifiable expectation of privacy in the public crash-scene conversations, and troopers had notice; the RTKL release (with redaction of private citizen audio if applicable) does not violate Wiretap Act. |
| Does redacting audio from an MVR create a "new record" in violation of RTKL §705? | Redaction is expressly authorized by §706 and is not creation of a new record; redaction is analogous to blacking out paper. | Redacting audiovisual files involves substantive editing (cutting audio/video) and PSP contends this would amount to creating a new record prohibited by §705. | Redaction under §706 does not create a new record in violation of §705; ordering redaction is permissible and does not require PSP to compile new material. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (de novo review standard for appeals from OOR decisions)
- Levy v. Senate of Pa., 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (RTKL remedial purpose and review principles)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 119 A.3d 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (commonwealth court decision analyzing MVR content and ordering audio redaction)
- Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (conclusory agency affidavits insufficient to justify exemption)
- McGill v. Pennsylvania State Police, 83 A.3d 476 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (exemptions narrowly construed; burden on agency)
- Coley v. Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, 77 A.3d 694 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (witness statements may be exempt as investigative)
- Agnew v. Dupler, 717 A.2d 519 (Pa. 1998) (Wiretap Act analysis — expectation of non-interception must be justifiable)
- Commonwealth v. Henlen, 564 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1989) (no Wiretap violation where no reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988) (constitutional analysis on recording and expectations of privacy)