Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove
119 A.3d 1102
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- PSP is appealing a final OOR determination ordering disclosure of two PSP vehicle recordings (MVRs) from accident scene; one is audio-less (Vanorden MVR) and one includes audio (Thomas MVR).
- Two officers responded to a two-vehicle crash; Vanorden MVR has video only, Thomas MVR has video and audio with driver/interviews.
- PSP asserted exemptions: RTKL 708(b)(16) and CHRIA 9106(c)(4) for investigative materials; also claimed 708(b)(18)(i) for audio transmissions to emergency personnel.
- OOR concluded recordings were not emergency-dispatch transmissions and required disclosure, with Redactions potentially allowed for investigative portions; PSP sought to supplement record with Rozier Affidavit.
- Court granted supplementation, evaluated whether MVRs are investigative records, and weighed Wiretap Act considerations and redaction requirements under RTKL §706, remanding for redactions of audio portions as needed.
- Court ultimately affirmed disclosure of Vanorden MVR in full, partially approved disclosure of Thomas MVR (video component), and remanded to permit redaction of audio portions involving witness interviews and private-citizen utterances without notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the MVRs exempt as criminal investigative records under RTKL 708(b)(16) and CHRIA? | PSP argues both MVRs are investigative records. | PSP contends exemptions apply due to relation to a criminal investigation. | No; MVRs are not per se investigative records; only portions with actual investigative content may be redacted. |
| Can non-exempt portions of an MVR containing investigative material be disclosed? | Even if some portions are investigative, others should be disclosed. | Redact non-disclosable portions and disclose remainder under RTKL §706. | Yes; redaction allowed; entire record not exempt if non-exempt portions exist. |
| Does the Wiretap Act apply to these video recordings and audio portions? | Disclosures could implicate Wiretap Act privacy concerns. | Wiretap Act restricts oral/electronic interceptions; video alone not covered. | Video recordings not covered; audio portions may be redactable if privacy interests apply and notice issues exist. |
| What redactions are warranted for the Thomas MVR audio component? | All audio should be disclosed. | Redact witness interviews and utterances of private citizens with no notice. | Remand to permit redaction of witness interviews and private-citizen utterances; audio redactions permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (RTKL exemptions and evidentiary balance; need for narrow construction)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (plenaries de novo review; record adequacy for exemptions)
- Coley v. Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, 77 A.3d 694 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (investigative content defined; not every related record exempt)
- McGill v. Pennsylvania State Police, 83 A.3d 476 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2014) (RTKL presumptions; limits on exemptions; public access)
- Advancement Project v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 60 A.3d 891 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (redaction requirements when exemptions apply)