Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> First Amendment Center
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Constitutional Law
: First Amendment CenterPa. appeals court: Trooper incident reports aren't public
By By The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. ? Incident reports filed by Pennsylvania state troopers do not have to be released to the public, a state appeals court has ruled, reversing a decision by the state open-records office.
The 6-1 ruling by the Commonwealth Court said the State Police forms are covered by an exception to the state Right-to-Know Law that allows agencies to withhold criminal investigative records.
The case involves a February 2009 request by the Potter Leader-Enterprise for a complete incident report about a fight. The Commonwealth Court found that the incident report did not amount to police-blotter information, which is a public record, and therefore did not have to be released.
"The incident report is not a 'chronological listing of arrests,'" wrote Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer in Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records. "Rather, it is a description of an investigation by the PSP into a complaint of criminal activity."
The document included notes of interviews with a witness and the people involved, as well as boxes for troopers to check off if a suspect could be named, fingerprints were collected or there was a "unique unusual method of operation," Jubelirer said.
Donald Gilliland, who at the time was the Leader-Enterprise's managing editor, filed a request for additional information after being handed a press release that did not name the two people involved.
The press release said the matter began with an argument and then degenerated into pushing and punching. It described each of the two people involved as an "actor," saying one "proceeded to spin 'doughnuts' in the driveway" as the other "threw recently purchased meat products out the vehicle into the driveway and yard area in a circular pattern."
The Sept. 16 opinion noted the Legislature had "manifested a clear intent" that police-blotter information ? defined as a chronological listing of arrests ? should be public. She said a lawyer for the State Police said in court that the agency tracks arrests electronically, but that individual police stations do not maintain logs.
Jubelirer also noted the Right-to-Know Law provides access to electronic records, suggesting another route people might take to obtain the information Gilliland sought unsuccessfully.
In the dissent, Judge Dan Pellegrini said the Potter County incident report contained very little information and did not document a criminal investigation.
"It is merely the initial form the trooper fills out to show the 'who, what, where and when' that any observer of the scene could discern without investigation," Pellegrini wrote.
Lt. Myra Taylor said the ruling "emboldened and relieved" the State Police.
"Persons must know that, should they be a victim of a crime, we care and will be there to serve them, to include a proper and thorough investigation of the incident, and to provide them with the assistance and protections they are afforded by law," she said.
Terry Mutchler, director of the Office of Open Records, said she was reviewing the decision to decide whether to appeal.
"Every public official in every public agency is for open records unless it's about their own records," she said. "That's where we look to the court to offer us a structure so that every agency ... sticks to the structure and the design here that was created by the Legislature. And the Legislature said, loud and clear, 'more disclosure,' and this opinion doesn't necessarily line up in this regard."
Leader-Enterprise Publisher James Monks said the ruling was "unfortunate" but did not surprise him.
Gilliland, now a reporter with The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, said he was concerned that the courts were allowing the State Police to make arrests without releasing the names of those who were arrested.
"I think releasing the name of a person who is charged with a crime is the most basic form of public accountability you can get," he said.
Full post as published by First Amendment Center on September 18, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Clopidogrel Marketed as Plavix FDA Issues Public Health Advisory
Clopidogrel Marketed as Plavix FDA Issues Public Health Advisory
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Garden Benches
Recalled Following Reports of Injury
Nursing Home Abuse
New Data Made Public
Healon D
Reports of Postoperative Eye Problems Prompts FDA Recall

MO patrolman nominated for Trooper of the Year
Ct. State Trooper Killed www.privateofficer.com
Trooper First Class Wesley Brown Killed








