Background
Natalie Sperry-Mauger filed a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104, request with Hampden Township in February 2025 seeking a police report that a witness, Madeline Mandel, had filed with township police around June 30, 1980. The report arose out of a homicide investigation at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Mrs. Mandel had contacted police because she believed a newspaper article incorrectly reported the time of death and because she had observed one of the victims alive after the reported time. Sperry-Mauger stated she sought the report on behalf of Ronald E. Sperry Jr., who is serving a life sentence for the homicide, in order to “validate his innocence” and support a clemency petition.
The Township’s RTKL officer denied the request, citing the criminal investigation exemption in Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(16), which exempts from disclosure “[a] record of an agency relating to or resulting in a criminal investigation,” including “[i]nvestigative materials, notes, correspondence, videos and reports.” Sperry-Mauger appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), which transferred the matter to the District Attorney’s office because local law enforcement records are not within OOR’s jurisdiction. The District Attorney’s office agreed the report was exempt. Sperry-Mauger then appealed to the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, which denied her appeal on the ground that the 1980 police report was investigative in nature and exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(16)(ii). Sperry-Mauger appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that the original intent behind the report was to be accessible to the public, that disclosure would serve the public interest, and that denial violated her constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed (Judge Fizzano Cannon, with President Judge Jubelirer and Judge Wallace). The court applied settled RTKL doctrine and rejected each of Sperry-Mauger’s arguments.
First, the court reaffirmed that the criminal investigation exemption in Section 708(b)(16) requires only that the agency demonstrate the record “relate[s] to a criminal investigation, period.” Castillo v. Pa. State Police, 310 A.3d 831, 835 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024). Because the police report unambiguously documented a witness’s contact with police during a homicide investigation—containing exactly the type of “investigative materials, notes, correspondence, videos and reports” listed in Section 708(b)(16)(ii)—the exemption applied on its face. When the exemption is clear from the face of the document and the agency’s description is sufficiently specific, a trial court need not hold a hearing, take evidence, or review the document in camera. Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
Second, the court rejected Sperry-Mauger’s argument that the 45-year age of the report undermined the exemption. Citing Castillo, the court reiterated that “the status or ‘staleness’ of a criminal matter is not relevant for disclosure purposes” because “[t]he RTKL does not provide an expiration date for exemptions.” A closed or decades-old criminal investigation remains exempt.
Third, the court held that Sperry-Mauger’s identity, motive, and intended use of the record are wholly irrelevant under the RTKL. “It is settled that the motive, purpose, or interest of a RTKL request is not relevant to the inquiry.” Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173, 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). The fact that Sperry-Mauger sought the report to support an innocence claim and clemency petition for a life-sentenced prisoner does not alter whether the record falls within a statutory exemption.
Finally, the court declined to engage with Sperry-Mauger’s constitutional argument, explaining that the only right at issue in RTKL proceedings is the citizen’s right of access to public records that are genuinely “open to the entire public at large”—i.e., records not exempt under Section 708 or other authority. The Pennsylvania Constitution does not create a right to access records that are validly exempt from public disclosure.
Key Takeaways
- Pennsylvania’s RTKL criminal investigation exemption under Section 708(b)(16) has no expiration date: police reports and investigative materials from closed or decades-old cases remain exempt regardless of how much time has passed.
- A requester’s identity, motive, and purpose—including a desire to establish a prisoner’s innocence or support a clemency petition—are irrelevant to whether a RTKL exemption applies; the inquiry focuses on the record itself, not the requester.
- When a Section 708(b)(16) exemption is clear from the agency’s description of the document, a reviewing court may deny access without conducting a hearing, taking additional evidence, or reviewing the document in camera.
- The Pennsylvania Constitution does not confer a right of access to records that validly fall within a RTKL exemption; constitutional arguments in RTKL cases have no purchase where the exemption is properly invoked.
Why It Matters
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, enacted in 2008, is one of the most litigated open-records statutes in the Commonwealth, and the criminal investigation exemption in Section 708(b)(16) is among its most frequently invoked provisions. Sperry-Mauger v. Hair LaRue confirms the breadth and permanence of that exemption in the context of historical police records. Practitioners and journalists who use the RTKL to investigate cold cases, past prosecutions, or wrongful conviction claims should understand that the exemption categorically forecloses disclosure of police reports and witness statements from old criminal investigations, regardless of the requester’s public-interest argument or innocence purpose.
For state and local agencies responding to RTKL requests, the decision reinforces that they need not conduct document-by-document privilege log analysis for records that facially fall within Section 708(b)(16)—a sufficiently specific description of the document and its investigative character is enough. Prisoners and their advocates seeking post-conviction documentary evidence through RTKL requests face a categorical bar under Section 708(b)(16) and must instead look to other avenues—such as discovery in post-conviction proceedings, Brady motions, or requests under the Criminal History Record Information Act.