Background
Jason Paul submitted a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request to the Pennsylvania State Police seeking records concerning a 2010 non-traffic-related fatality investigation — specifically, a PSP Non-Traffic Death Investigation Report related to the death of Pamela L. Tunstall, which was classified as a suicide. The PSP denied the request, invoking the RTKL’s exemption for records relating to noncriminal investigations.
Paul appealed to the Office of Open Records, but the OOR notified him that his appeal was defective because he failed to attach copies of the original request and the PSP’s full response. Paul provided only the first page of the PSP’s verification but could not locate the other documents. The OOR dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, concluding it lacked a sufficient record. Paul then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing he could not submit what he did not have. The PSP filed a motion to supplement the record with the missing documents.
The case thus presented two distinct questions: whether the OOR erred in dismissing the appeal for an incomplete record, and whether — reaching the merits — the PSP’s noncriminal investigation exemption applied.
The Court’s Holding
In a precedential opinion, the Commonwealth Court vacated the OOR’s dismissal, finding the agency erred in refusing to address the merits. Judge Fizzano Cannon, writing for a unanimous panel, held that the OOR’s record was facially sufficient to conduct review. Paul’s appeal described the request with specificity, and the single page of the PSP verification was enough to confirm the existence of the responsive record, its relationship to a noncriminal investigation, and the PSP’s asserted exemption bases. A copy of the original request itself was unnecessary where its content was adequately described in other filings.
Importantly, the court declined to automatically remand to the OOR — as had been done in Barnett v. Department of Public Welfare, 71 A.3d 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) — and instead exercised its de novo review authority to resolve the merits. Relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s subsequent holding in Bowling v. Office of Open Records (Bowling II), 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013), the court emphasized that reviewing courts are “the ultimate finders of fact” under the RTKL and must conduct “full de novo reviews.” A remand here would have been pointless and would have unduly delayed resolution. The court distinguished Barnett as pre-dating Bowling II and declined to follow unreported opinions that had not analyzed Bowling II’s effect on the remand question.
On the merits, the court found the noncriminal investigation exemption under Section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL plainly applied. The requested record was a PSP death investigation report created to document the results of a noncriminal investigation conducted as part of the PSP’s official duties. The PSP’s uncontradicted verification was sufficient to sustain its burden, and nothing in the record suggested the exemption was inapplicable.
Key Takeaways
- The OOR may not dismiss a RTKL appeal for failure to attach the original request where the appeal filings adequately describe the request’s content — the RTKL does not require submission of an “identical copy” in the “original format.”
- When the OOR erroneously dismisses a RTKL appeal without reaching the merits, the Commonwealth Court is not required to remand; it may exercise its de novo review authority and decide the merits, especially where the record is sufficient and remand would cause unnecessary delay.
- Under Bowling II, reviewing courts are the ultimate finders of fact in RTKL matters and have plenary authority to supplement and review the record — the OOR’s determination is not entitled to deference.
- PSP non-traffic death investigation reports are exempt from RTKL disclosure under the noncriminal investigation exemption (Section 708(b)(17)), where the agency’s uncontradicted verification establishes the record relates to a noncriminal investigation conducted pursuant to the agency’s official duties.
Why It Matters
This published opinion provides important procedural and substantive guidance for RTKL practitioners. On the procedural side, it pushes back against the OOR’s practice of dismissing appeals based on technical filing deficiencies when the record otherwise contains sufficient information for review. Requesters who lose documents or receive incomplete responses from agencies now have authority supporting their right to proceed on appeal despite imperfect filings, provided the substance of the request is adequately described.
Perhaps more significantly for appellate practitioners, the decision clarifies that a remand to the OOR is not automatic when the agency dismisses without reaching the merits. By grounding its analysis in the Supreme Court’s Bowling II framework — which emphasizes the reviewing court’s role as the ultimate factfinder — the opinion gives Commonwealth Court panels explicit authority to resolve RTKL disputes on the merits rather than sending them back for another round of administrative review. For agencies and requesters alike, this may accelerate final resolution of RTKL disputes while reducing the potential for procedural gamesmanship at the OOR level.