Philadelphia District Attorney's Office v. Cwiek
169 A.3d 711
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Timothy Cwiek (Requester) sought a full Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) record for a 2002 vehicle stop; he had previously provided the DAO with a redacted CAD copy he obtained elsewhere.
- Requester filed multiple Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) requests to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO) seeking a more complete CAD and, in his fourth request, asked for a certified copy under 65 P.S. § 67.904.
- DAO responded that it had no responsive records other than the redacted CAD copy Requester had provided; an unsworn 2015 declaration from a DAO official attested that a search found only that partial CAD.
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) ordered DAO to provide a certified copy of the redacted CAD; the Court of Common Pleas affirmed but held the 2015 declaration satisfied Section 904’s certification requirement.
- DAO appealed to this Court arguing (1) it cannot certify authenticity of a record it did not create or independently possess and (2) the 2015 declaration is not a proper Section 904 certification.
Issues
| Issue | Requester’s Argument | DAO’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DAO must provide a “certified copy” of the redacted CAD under RTKL §904 | Requests certification of the redacted CAD; seeks proof and certification of records | DAO should not be forced to certify authenticity of a record it did not create or independently possess | Court: DAO must provide a certified copy upon payment, but certification must meet evidentiary standards; can certify the redacted CAD as part of the DAO’s RTKL record package to avoid misleading isolated certification |
| Whether an agency may be compelled to authenticate a record originated by another agency | Seeks certification regardless of origin to use in litigation | RTKL cannot compel Agency A to authenticate Agency B’s record merely because it was attached to a request to A | Court: RTKL does not require an agency to investigate/authenticate another agency’s original record; certification requirement has limits |
| Whether the 2015 Declaration satisfies Section 904 certification requirements | Implicitly relies on the declaration as attestation/certification of the DAO’s copy | DAO implied the declaration was not intended as an evidentiary authentication of the document | Court: 2015 Declaration does not meet the evidentiary/authentication standard required by §904 and is inadequate as certification |
| Whether the redacted CAD is a “public record” of the DAO under RTKL | Argues the redacted CAD is part of DAO’s RTKL record history because it was attached to prior DAO requests | DAO contends it did not create or independently retain the CAD | Court: The CAD is not independently a DAO record, but it is part of the DAO’s public record because it was attached to Requester’s prior RTKL requests; DAO must therefore produce/certify it in that context |
Key Cases Cited
- PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Powell, 100 A.3d 611 (Pa. Super. 2014) (self-authenticating public records under Pa. R.E. 902(4))
- Butler v. Dauphin Cnty. District Attorney’s Office, 163 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (RTKL certification equates to certifying copies for admission into evidence)
- Paint Twp. v. Clark, 109 A.3d 796 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (RTKL does not require agencies to create or reorganize records they do not maintain)
- Pa. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Philadelphia Inquirer, 127 A.3d 57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (two-part test for public records under RTKL)
- Rawson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 99 A.3d 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (use of certified records to meet evidentiary burdens)
- East Stroudsburg Univ. Found. v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (waiver of arguments not raised below)
- Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Dep’t of Transp., 860 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (official seal and self-authentication of documents)