Denied: Recording/transcript of requester's own 911 call
Denied: A request for an
audiotape and transcript of 911 calls the
requester made from a Lancaster County police
department.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Denied: A request for an audiotape and transcript of 911 calls the requester made from a Lancaster County police department.
The Lancaster County District Attorney's Office denied the request, citing the provision in the Right to Know Law that specifically exempts 911 call recordings and transcripts from release.
In his appeal to the Office of Open Records, the requester noted that it was his own voice on the recordings, and authorized the release of those recordings to himself.
The OOR, in denying the appeal, noted that the law allows 911 recordings and transcripts to be withheld from the public.
"While the law allows for an exception where the agency or court determines that the public interest outweighs the interest in nondisclosure, the [requester] points to no such agency or court determination in support of his request for the records," the OOR wrote. "Further, the discretion to release such a record for public policy reasons rests with the agency.”
The OOR noted that if an agency chooses to exercise its discretion to release the tapes, it has the authority under the law to do so. "Otherwise, however, the local agency is permitted to withhold release of this record."
While the OOR did not, in this ruling, address the implication in the requester's appeal that he was entitled to the tapes since they contained a recording of his own call, in other rulings the OOR has repeatedly determined that a requester's relationship to the record makes no difference to the outcome of a request.
(See Rech v. Dept. of Education, AP 2009-0034; Hawkins v. Pa. Dept. of Labor & Industry, AP 2009-0139; Sunshine v. Dept. of Corrections, AP 2009-0322.)
Vonderheide vs. Lancaster County District Attorney's Office -- AP 2009-0493
Denied: A request for an audiotape and transcript of 911 calls the requester made from a Lancaster County police department.
The Lancaster County District Attorney's Office denied the request, citing the provision in the Right to Know Law that specifically exempts 911 call recordings and transcripts from release.
In his appeal to the Office of Open Records, the requester noted that it was his own voice on the recordings, and authorized the release of those recordings to himself.
The OOR, in denying the appeal, noted that the law allows 911 recordings and transcripts to be withheld from the public.
"While the law allows for an exception where the agency or court determines that the public interest outweighs the interest in nondisclosure, the [requester] points to no such agency or court determination in support of his request for the records," the OOR wrote. "Further, the discretion to release such a record for public policy reasons rests with the agency.”
The OOR noted that if an agency chooses to exercise its discretion to release the tapes, it has the authority under the law to do so. "Otherwise, however, the local agency is permitted to withhold release of this record."
While the OOR did not, in this ruling, address the implication in the requester's appeal that he was entitled to the tapes since they contained a recording of his own call, in other rulings the OOR has repeatedly determined that a requester's relationship to the record makes no difference to the outcome of a request.
(See Rech v. Dept. of Education, AP 2009-0034; Hawkins v. Pa. Dept. of Labor & Industry, AP 2009-0139; Sunshine v. Dept. of Corrections, AP 2009-0322.)
Vonderheide vs. Lancaster County District Attorney's Office -- AP 2009-0493