Port Authority of Allegheny County v. W. Towne
92 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Requester sought all video recordings from multiple cameras on a specific Port Authority bus for a run on April 14, 2016.
- The Port Authority denied the request under the RTKL noncriminal investigation exemption, explaining footage was downloaded and retained in connection with a claims department investigation of Requester’s property-damage claim.
- Authority affidavits stated bus footage is not routinely saved or reviewed for operations; it is downloaded and preserved only when an incident/claim triggers an investigation and access is limited to claims and Authority police.
- Requester had viewed some footage in the Authority’s offices, disputed certain factual assertions about what was produced, and appealed the denial to the OOR.
- The OOR ordered disclosure, reasoning that preexisting surveillance video created independent of an investigation cannot be said to exist "merely or primarily" for investigative purposes.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the OOR, holding the footage was related to and constituted investigative materials under Section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL because the Authority only used and retained them for investigations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Towne) | Defendant's Argument (Port Authority) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bus surveillance recordings are exempt under the RTKL noncriminal-investigation exemption | Recordings are created before and independent of any investigation and thus are not "merely or primarily" investigative; OOR ordered disclosure | Recordings were downloaded, preserved, and reviewed only as part of the Authority’s claims investigation; they therefore relate to and are investigative materials exempt from disclosure | Court held recordings were investigative materials related to a noncriminal investigation and exempt under Section 708(b)(17) |
| Whether a record created before an investigation can "relate to" that investigation | Preexisting creation means no primary investigative purpose; cannot be exempt solely because later used in investigation | Agency evidence that records are only used/retained for investigations shows they can exist "merely or primarily" for investigative purposes | Court held records created earlier can still be investigative where agency shows sole or primary use is for investigations |
| Applicability of Grove (PSP MVR case) to automatic disclosure of video-only footage | Grove and OOR found that video-only portions are generally not inherently investigative | Authority argued Grove supports case-by-case analysis; here affidavits show footage was used in investigation so exemption applies | Court distinguished Grove: where agency shows footage used solely for investigative purposes, exemption may apply; Grove does not create a per se rule against exemption |
| Burden of proof for exemption | Requester: agency must show exemption; OOR applied presumption of non-exemption | Authority: met burden with detailed affidavits about retention/use and claims investigation | Court reaffirmed agency bears burden and found Authority met it by preponderance of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Health v. Office of Open Records, 4 A.3d 803 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (defines "investigation" as a systematic or searching inquiry and requires agency authority for official probes)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (MVRs not per se exempt; investigative content must be assessed case-by-case)
- Pa. State Troopers Ass’n v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (explains preponderance standard under RTKL)
- Fennell v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 149 A.3d 101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (records sufficiently related to noncriminal investigation fall within exemption)
- Office of Governor v. Davis, 122 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (RTKL exemptions construed narrowly; promotes government transparency)