Opinion: Court decides you don't need to know
OPINION
The [Scranton] Times-Tribune
Pennsylvania emerged from the dark ages of public disclosure two years ago when the Legislature finally passed an open-records law that lifted the veil of secrecy from most local governments.
Last week, in an opinion that turns on its head the notion of public accountability by public officials, the Commonwealth Court draped that veil of secrecy back over the state police and, by extension, all police agencies in Pennsylvania.
It found that police incident reports - the initial reports filed by police officers after they answer calls - are not public information. Only police blotters - merely a log of police calls - are public information, the court decreed.
The difference is vast. Limiting public disclosure to police blotters effectively denies the public any meaningful information about a police response, other than what police themselves choose to disclose.
Pennsylvania law is clear that police don't have to disclose investigative reports beyond the original incident, in order to protect the integrity of investigations. That's not at issue.
The case decided by the Commonwealth Court arose when the Potter Leader Enterprise filed a right to know request for an incident report involving a harassment case. State police rejected the request on grounds that the incident report included the name of the victim.
The Office of Open Records ruled in favor of the newspaper but was overruled by the Commonwealth Court on appeal by the state police.
It is vital that the Office of Open Records pursue an appeal. Police obviously handle sensitive information, but all police agencies ultimately are responsible to the public. The public, as in any other realm of government, can't assess an agency's performance without access to public information.
Meanwhile, several Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would require 911 emergency call centers to disclose the times of the calls that they receive and the locations of incidents - a response to an open records case brought by another newspaper, the York Daily Record.
They should add to it a specific provision that initial police incident reports unquestionably are public records, even as the Office of Open Records pursues an appeal of the Commonwealth Court decision that enshrines government secrecy.
The [Scranton] Times-Tribune
Pennsylvania emerged from the dark ages of public disclosure two years ago when the Legislature finally passed an open-records law that lifted the veil of secrecy from most local governments.
Last week, in an opinion that turns on its head the notion of public accountability by public officials, the Commonwealth Court draped that veil of secrecy back over the state police and, by extension, all police agencies in Pennsylvania.
It found that police incident reports - the initial reports filed by police officers after they answer calls - are not public information. Only police blotters - merely a log of police calls - are public information, the court decreed.
The difference is vast. Limiting public disclosure to police blotters effectively denies the public any meaningful information about a police response, other than what police themselves choose to disclose.
Pennsylvania law is clear that police don't have to disclose investigative reports beyond the original incident, in order to protect the integrity of investigations. That's not at issue.
The case decided by the Commonwealth Court arose when the Potter Leader Enterprise filed a right to know request for an incident report involving a harassment case. State police rejected the request on grounds that the incident report included the name of the victim.
The Office of Open Records ruled in favor of the newspaper but was overruled by the Commonwealth Court on appeal by the state police.
It is vital that the Office of Open Records pursue an appeal. Police obviously handle sensitive information, but all police agencies ultimately are responsible to the public. The public, as in any other realm of government, can't assess an agency's performance without access to public information.
Meanwhile, several Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would require 911 emergency call centers to disclose the times of the calls that they receive and the locations of incidents - a response to an open records case brought by another newspaper, the York Daily Record.
They should add to it a specific provision that initial police incident reports unquestionably are public records, even as the Office of Open Records pursues an appeal of the Commonwealth Court decision that enshrines government secrecy.
