Granted: PSP incident report, including names of victim and accused
March 23, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Appealed to
court | Pa. State
Police | Incident
reports | Criminal
investigations | Media
request
Granted: A Pennsylvania State
Police incident report including the name of the
victims and the names of those charged.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted: A Pennsylvania State Police incident report including the names of the victims and the names of those charged.
(See similar Final Determination, issued this same date, in a case where the State Police redacted the name of the victim, but not the name of the accused.)
The state police had provided the requester with a copy of an incident report with the name of the adult victim and the names of those charge redacted, claiming the incident report was an investigative record, and therefore exempt from release. In responding to questions after the appeal was filed, the state police claimed it only maintains incident reports, not police blotters, and that the Right to Know Law provides only for the release of "police blotter" reports.
In its ruling, the Office of Open Records wrote:
"The issue then becomes whether a PSP incident report is equivalent to a police blotter, under the RTKL. The Legislature had opportunity to differentiate between an incident report and a police blotter, but did not do so. As a result, neither the new RTKL nor the statutory definition of a police blotter states on its face whether an incident report is equivalent to a police blotter. However, Pennsylvania courts have already resolved this question, ruling that an incident report is the equivalent of a police blotter."
The Office of Open Records also made a special point of noting that it is sensitive to the need to ensure a person's physical safety is not jeopardized by the release of information, but that the state police did not make that claim, even when the appeals officer posed the question.
Gilliland vs. Pennsylvania State Police (2) – AP 2009-0076
APPEALED TO COMMONWEALTH COURT: April 22, 2009
Granted: A Pennsylvania State Police incident report including the names of the victims and the names of those charged.
(See similar Final Determination, issued this same date, in a case where the State Police redacted the name of the victim, but not the name of the accused.)
The state police had provided the requester with a copy of an incident report with the name of the adult victim and the names of those charge redacted, claiming the incident report was an investigative record, and therefore exempt from release. In responding to questions after the appeal was filed, the state police claimed it only maintains incident reports, not police blotters, and that the Right to Know Law provides only for the release of "police blotter" reports.
In its ruling, the Office of Open Records wrote:
"The issue then becomes whether a PSP incident report is equivalent to a police blotter, under the RTKL. The Legislature had opportunity to differentiate between an incident report and a police blotter, but did not do so. As a result, neither the new RTKL nor the statutory definition of a police blotter states on its face whether an incident report is equivalent to a police blotter. However, Pennsylvania courts have already resolved this question, ruling that an incident report is the equivalent of a police blotter."
The Office of Open Records also made a special point of noting that it is sensitive to the need to ensure a person's physical safety is not jeopardized by the release of information, but that the state police did not make that claim, even when the appeals officer posed the question.
Gilliland vs. Pennsylvania State Police (2) – AP 2009-0076
APPEALED TO COMMONWEALTH COURT: April 22, 2009