155 A.3d 1153
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Campbell filed an RTKL request to SERS for: (1) an earlier RTKL request by Fultz, (2) records ordered released to Fultz, and (3) names and home addresses of retired SERS members listed in certain European countries.
- SERS provided redacted copies of Fultz’s request and the names, but withheld home addresses (including Fultz’s) citing unsettled law and a Supreme Court Hold Order tied to related litigation.
- Campbell appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); the OOR ordered release of all requested home addresses, relying on prior cases (Duncan, Mohn, Raffle).
- SERS sought reconsideration and then appealed the OOR’s Final Determination to the Commonwealth Court after the OOR denied reconsideration.
- While the OOR decided, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued PSEA III holding that home addresses of public employees are protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article I, Section 1) unless a public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy; PSEA III disapproved Mohn and Raffle to the extent they relied on Duncan.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the OOR’s decision and remanded for the OOR to apply the PSEA III balancing test before ordering disclosure of the addresses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are SERS members’ home addresses disclosable under the RTKL? | Campbell: Addresses are public records and should be released. | SERS: Addresses are exempt/withheld pending higher-court guidance and a Hold Order; not automatically public. | Vacated OOR order; remand for balancing under PSEA III before disclosure. |
| Does the Pennsylvania Constitution protect home addresses (privacy right)? | Campbell: Relied on precedent (Duncan/Mohn/Raffle) saying no reasonable expectation of privacy. | SERS: Relied on PSEA III and Hold Order — there is a constitutional privacy interest. | PSEA III controls: there is a constitutional privacy interest in home addresses. |
| Could OOR rely on Duncan/Mohn/Raffle to order disclosure without balancing? | Campbell/OOR: Those cases permitted disclosure because no reasonable expectation of privacy. | SERS: Those cases were disapproved by PSEA III and cannot justify disclosure. | Court held PSEA III disapproved Mohn/Raffle reliance on Duncan; OOR must apply PSEA III balancing. |
| Should the OOR’s release order stand or be remanded? | Campbell: Order release. | SERS: Order should be vacated/remanded to apply PSEA III balancing. | Court vacated OOR decision and remanded for balancing consistent with PSEA III. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in name and address under Article I, Section 8 in criminal context)
- Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Mohn, 67 A.3d 123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (held no constitutional privacy in home address; later disapproved by PSEA III)
- Office of the Governor v. Raffle, 65 A.3d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (permitted release of official’s residence address; relied on Duncan)
- Pennsylvania State Education Ass’n v. Office of Open Records (PSEA III), 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (held home addresses of public employees implicate Article I, Section 1 privacy right and require a balancing test before disclosure)