Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Fennell
149 A.3d 101
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Carla Fennell requested records of a Pennsylvania Game Commission investigation after a neighbor complained her husband’s tree stand was too close to a house and the Commission told them not to hunt from it.
- The Commission denied the request, citing RTKL exemptions for records of noncriminal investigations and related materials (Section 708(b)(17)), and also asserted other exemptions it did not pursue at OOR.
- Fennell appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR). The OOR invited evidentiary submissions and warned that unsworn position statements are not evidence.
- The Commission submitted an unsworn position statement but no affidavit or in camera submission of the records; Fennell submitted no additional material.
- OOR concluded the Commission failed to meet its burden of proof because it offered no evidence and ordered disclosure of the records within 30 days.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the requested records were clearly within the RTKL investigatory exemption and that OOR misapplied precedent by treating the absence of an affidavit as an automatic default when the exemption is clear from the face of the request/record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fennell) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission met its RTKL burden to show requested investigation-related records are exempt so disclosure can be denied | Fennell sought the records and argued for disclosure | Commission argued records are exempt under RTKL §§708(b)(17) (noncriminal investigatory materials) and other exemptions; relied on its position statement but submitted no affidavit or in camera materials | Court held the records plainly fit §708(b)(17) investigatory exemptions and reversed OOR; evidence (affidavit/in camera) unnecessary when exemption is clear from the face of the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Troopers Ass’n v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (defines preponderance standard and appellate review scope)
- Office of the Governor v. Davis, 122 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (unsworn position statements are not evidence; affidavits may prove exemptions but not always required)
- Pa. State Police v. Office of Open Records, 5 A.3d 473 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (discusses when investigatory records are exempt and the sufficiency of in camera review)