139 A.3d 354
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (PFUR) requested itemized government-issued cell phone usage records for certain Centre County judicial officers and the name/salary of the DA Office’s RTKL appeals officer.
- The DA Office’s open-records officer denied the phone-record request, asserting the DA Office is a judicial agency and only must disclose financial records; the appeals officer information was provided.
- PFUR appealed to the DA-designated appeals officer; the appeals officer denied access, citing a court order in a related pending appeal and did not explain whether the records were criminal investigative records.
- PFUR petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review; Centre County intervened and the DA sought stays pending related appeals (Grine, Miller) addressing similar cell-phone requests.
- The Commonwealth Court examined whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a DA Office final determination under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) and whether the DA Office is a judicial agency or a local agency.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the DA Office is a local agency; RTKL appeals from local agencies must be heard first in the county court of common pleas, so the matter was transferred to Centre County Court of Common Pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over PFUR’s RTKL appeal | PFUR appealed the DA Office’s final determination to Commonwealth Court under RTKL review provisions | DA Office claimed it is a judicial agency, making Commonwealth Court the proper tribunal | Held: Commonwealth Court lacks jurisdiction because DA Office is a local agency; transfer to Centre County Court of Common Pleas required |
| Whether DA Office is a "judicial agency" for RTKL purposes | PFUR sought broader review but relied on statutory appeal routes | DA Office argued it is a judicial agency and subject to Commonwealth Court review | Held: DA Office is not a judicial agency (consistent with Miller); it is a local agency for RTKL appeals |
| Whether the DA-designated appeals officer properly handled the appeal (threshold criminal‑investigative determination) | PFUR contends the appeals officer denied access without addressing whether records were criminal investigative | DA Office relied on an existing court order and treated the records as within its purview | Held: Appeals officer did not make the statutorily required determination whether records were criminal investigative; trial court may remand for that threshold finding |
| Proper appellate path for records like government-issued cell phone usage | PFUR sought direct Commonwealth Court review | DA Office asserted judicial-agency route; County argued local-court review | Held: Final determinations involving local agencies (including decisions by DA-designated appeals officers) are appealed to the county court of common pleas; transfer ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenberger v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department, 39 A.3d 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time)
- Mastrocola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 941 A.2d 81 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- Blackwell v. State Ethics Commission, 567 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1989) (parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement)
- Barros v. Martin, 92 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (appeals from district-attorney appeals officers are reviewed by county courts of common pleas)
- Faulk v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, 116 A.3d 1183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (deference to appeals officers’ fact-finding within their expertise)