City police reports an issue under open records law
January 10, 2009 New RTK Law | Open records | Police reports | Office of Open Records | Terry Mutchler
By SEAN ADKINS
[York] Daily Record/Sunday News
Should you walk into York's City Hall and glimpse a new sign that refers to the revamped Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law, pay attention to the wording that mentions the availability of police records.
"Pennsylvania's Right-To-Know Law has changed. Police Reports and other records relating to police investigations are not available to the public," the sign states.
While technically accurate, the sign's wording should be clarified in how the open records law refers to police incident reports, which are public, and the more detailed investigative reports that remain closed, said Teri Henning, general counsel for Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
"The only change in the law is that traffic reports are now public," she said. "I think the sign needs to be more clear so that people know what they can and can't get."
On Jan. 1, an updated version of the state's right-to-know law took effect, stating that records are presumed open unless they fall under a list of exemptions in the law.
Each day, Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records receives roughly 50 calls and e-mails from residents inquiring about a particular record, officials with questions on how to follow the law and those who ask for services not covered by the department, said Terry Mutchler, executive director of state's office of open records.
"Everyone knows there will be growing pains with this new law," she said. "There will be mistakes of interpretation and that is to be expected at the beginning. I'm encouraging patience."
For example, Mutchler said, she's received inquiries from some agencies that were not clear if they should respond to multiple requests for information for a particular record, or to just answer one request.
One mistake in interpretation of the law came recently in the form of letter from a prison inmate who asked the office of records for help in attaining early release, Mutchler said.
"We anticipate a lot of confusion and it will straighten itself out," she said.
In the case of the sign that hangs in York's City hall, near the York City Police headquarters, the apparent confusion is with the definition of police report.
"The key statement is 'relating to police investigations,'" said Don Hoyt, the city's assistant solicitor. "Investigative reports were never public record and that has not changed under the new law."
York City Police Complaint Investigation Reports that include information such as race, sex, age, height and Social Security information are not open to the public under the new or old state right-to-know law, he said.
"None of (that information) is appropriate for public disclosure," Hoyt said.
Police incident reports, which offer basic information about an event -- such as where an incident took place -- remain open under the new law, Henning said. The new law does exempt some information, such as Social Security numbers, from release.
Hoyt said that any information contained in a York City Police investigation report is not open to the public, save for basic data that is culled from those records and included on the incident report.
The city police log online includes information that might focus on one or two aspects of an event -- for example, in the case of robbery, the log might list where it took place but exclude other details. Henning said an incident report, while providing basic information, should include "the who, what, when and where."
York is not the sole entity that has interpreted the new right-to-know law in a way that could be in need of clarification.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who last year signed the open records law, had issued a management directive that would have allowed state agencies to charge for record retrieval and redaction, said Chuck Ardo, a Rendell spokesman.
The request for reimbursement would come only if a significant amount of time would be spent by a state employee to gather the records, he said.
Rendell has since shelved his directive and would not impose any fees until it could be determined how much time and effort those kinds of services would require, Ardo said.
"There are circumstances that may arise that we would feel merited reimbursement," he said. "We will continue to monitor the situation."
[York] Daily Record/Sunday News
Should you walk into York's City Hall and glimpse a new sign that refers to the revamped Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law, pay attention to the wording that mentions the availability of police records.
"Pennsylvania's Right-To-Know Law has changed. Police Reports and other records relating to police investigations are not available to the public," the sign states.
While technically accurate, the sign's wording should be clarified in how the open records law refers to police incident reports, which are public, and the more detailed investigative reports that remain closed, said Teri Henning, general counsel for Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
"The only change in the law is that traffic reports are now public," she said. "I think the sign needs to be more clear so that people know what they can and can't get."
On Jan. 1, an updated version of the state's right-to-know law took effect, stating that records are presumed open unless they fall under a list of exemptions in the law.
Each day, Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records receives roughly 50 calls and e-mails from residents inquiring about a particular record, officials with questions on how to follow the law and those who ask for services not covered by the department, said Terry Mutchler, executive director of state's office of open records.
"Everyone knows there will be growing pains with this new law," she said. "There will be mistakes of interpretation and that is to be expected at the beginning. I'm encouraging patience."
For example, Mutchler said, she's received inquiries from some agencies that were not clear if they should respond to multiple requests for information for a particular record, or to just answer one request.
One mistake in interpretation of the law came recently in the form of letter from a prison inmate who asked the office of records for help in attaining early release, Mutchler said.
"We anticipate a lot of confusion and it will straighten itself out," she said.
In the case of the sign that hangs in York's City hall, near the York City Police headquarters, the apparent confusion is with the definition of police report.
"The key statement is 'relating to police investigations,'" said Don Hoyt, the city's assistant solicitor. "Investigative reports were never public record and that has not changed under the new law."
York City Police Complaint Investigation Reports that include information such as race, sex, age, height and Social Security information are not open to the public under the new or old state right-to-know law, he said.
"None of (that information) is appropriate for public disclosure," Hoyt said.
Police incident reports, which offer basic information about an event -- such as where an incident took place -- remain open under the new law, Henning said. The new law does exempt some information, such as Social Security numbers, from release.
Hoyt said that any information contained in a York City Police investigation report is not open to the public, save for basic data that is culled from those records and included on the incident report.
The city police log online includes information that might focus on one or two aspects of an event -- for example, in the case of robbery, the log might list where it took place but exclude other details. Henning said an incident report, while providing basic information, should include "the who, what, when and where."
York is not the sole entity that has interpreted the new right-to-know law in a way that could be in need of clarification.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who last year signed the open records law, had issued a management directive that would have allowed state agencies to charge for record retrieval and redaction, said Chuck Ardo, a Rendell spokesman.
The request for reimbursement would come only if a significant amount of time would be spent by a state employee to gather the records, he said.
Rendell has since shelved his directive and would not impose any fees until it could be determined how much time and effort those kinds of services would require, Ardo said.
"There are circumstances that may arise that we would feel merited reimbursement," he said. "We will continue to monitor the situation."
