Background
Shakia Perry asked the Pennsylvania State Police for a complete, unredacted investigative report concerning a vehicle that previously had a New Jersey title and later received a clean Pennsylvania title without a recorded lien. She identified the report by incident number and said a state trooper had prepared it. PSP denied the request under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, asserting that the report related to a criminal investigation and was also protected by the Criminal History Record Information Act.
The Office of Open Records affirmed the denial. Perry petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review, arguing that the matter was essentially an administrative title inquiry, that PSP had not carried its burden to establish the criminal-investigation exemption, and that errors in the agency process showed bad faith. One OOR document referred to the report with two different incident numbers.
The dispute required the court to apply the RTKL’s criminal-investigation exemption to a record whose subject included vehicle-title administration and to distinguish OOR’s role from the remedial authority assigned to a reviewing court.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed. Judge Stacy Wallace concluded that PSP’s evidence established that the report documented and resulted from a criminal investigation. The exemption in Section 708(b)(16) depends on the nature and purpose of the record, not on whether the investigation ultimately produced criminal charges. A report assembled by PSP while investigating possible criminal conduct remains protected even when the underlying facts also touch an administrative subject such as title history.
The court also held that the Criminal History Record Information Act independently prohibited disclosure. CHRIA restricts dissemination of investigative information compiled by criminal justice agencies. The requester’s personal interest in the vehicle did not override those categorical protections or convert the record into a public document.
Perry’s bad-faith argument also failed. The RTKL assigns courts, not OOR, the authority to make the findings supporting statutory penalties and attorney-fee remedies. The erroneous second incident number was a typographical mistake, and Perry offered no evidence that it misled her or affected the disposition. An agency error, standing alone, does not establish intentional obstruction or bad faith.
Key Takeaways
- The RTKL protects records related to a criminal investigation even when the investigation does not result in charges.
- A report can remain criminal-investigative although its facts also involve an administrative process such as vehicle titling.
- CHRIA may independently bar disclosure of investigative information held by a criminal justice agency.
- Typographical or clerical mistakes do not establish bad faith without evidence of obstruction or effect on the request.
Why It Matters
The unreported decision gives Pennsylvania RTKL practitioners a useful application of the criminal-investigation exemption. Requesters should focus on the record’s creation and function, while agencies should submit evidence connecting the document to investigative activity rather than relying on a conclusory label. Whether charges followed is not dispositive.
The opinion also clarifies remedy procedure. A requester seeking bad-faith sanctions must develop evidence for the reviewing court and show more than an inaccurate number or imperfect agency explanation. PSP and other criminal justice agencies can cite both the RTKL and CHRIA when the requested material contains investigative information, but they should still document the statutory basis with precision.
The analysis does not mean every document in a police agency’s possession is exempt. Routine administrative records, policies, and materials created independently of a specific investigation may remain accessible. The agency bears the burden of showing the exemption, usually through a detailed affidavit or other competent evidence. Requesters can narrow a request to segregable noninvestigative records, challenge vague agency proof, or seek records from a different custodian whose copies were created for a noncriminal purpose.
Practitioners should keep the two statutory grounds analytically separate. The RTKL exemption addresses public access through the open-records process; CHRIA imposes its own controls on criminal-history and investigative information. If one ground is disputed, the other may still independently resolve the request. Appeals should address the agency’s evidence for each basis and preserve any argument that redaction or segregation can produce a nonexempt portion without exposing protected investigative details.