150 A.3d 155
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Requester sought PSP’s crash file and surveillance video from a Mt. Airy Casino parking‑lot accident; PSP released a two‑page public information release report but withheld the surveillance video (Video).
- PSP obtained the Video from the private casino during its investigation and issued a citation arising from the crash; PSP asserted exemptions under CHRIA and the RTKL criminal investigative exception, submitting an affidavit and the PIRR.
- OOR ordered disclosure, relying on Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove and reasoning that only investigative portions of the Video could be withheld; OOR treated the Video like the MVRs in Grove.
- PSP petitioned for review to the Commonwealth Court, arguing Grove was limited to agency‑created MVRs and did not apply to privately created surveillance footage obtained during an investigation.
- The Commonwealth Court analyzed whether the Video became a record “of” PSP and whether it “related to” or was “assembled” for a criminal investigation such that it is exempt under Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL and CHRIA.
- The Court concluded the Video was created by a private party, was gathered by PSP as part of its criminal inquiry, and therefore related to and was assembled for a criminal investigation — making it exempt; OOR’s Final Determination was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kim) | Defendant's Argument (PSP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grove’s treatment of MVRs controls disclosure of privately‑created surveillance obtained by PSP | Grove applies; PSP must show specific investigative content within the Video to withhold it | Grove is limited to PSP‑created MVRs documenting officers’ duties; it does not apply to third‑party videos obtained in investigations | Grove does not apply to privately created video seized for an investigation; OOR erred in extending Grove |
| Whether the Video "relates to" a criminal investigation under RTKL §708(b)(16) | Video is not inherently investigative; only investigative portions should be withheld | Video was gathered and used during PSP’s investigation and thus relates to a criminal investigation | The Video related to PSP’s criminal investigation and is exempt under §708(b)(16) |
| Whether CHRIA protects the Video as "investigative information" | PSP failed to show the Video’s content was investigative | CHRIA protects information "assembled" in the course of an inquiry; PSP assembled the Video during its investigation | The Video was "assembled" as part of PSP’s inquiry and is exempt under CHRIA |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 119 A.3d 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (MVRs created by PSP document officers’ duties and are not automatically investigative)
- Mitchell v. Office of Open Records, 997 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (agency affidavit can substantiate RTKL investigatory exception)
- Heavens v. Department of Environmental Protection, 65 A.3d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (agency bears preponderance burden to withhold under RTKL)