Right-to-Know Law Access to Search Warrants Criminal Investigative Exception
Butler v. Dauphin Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office, PICS Case No. 17-0970 (Pa. Commw. June 13, 2017) Simpson, J. (14 pages).
State agency obligated to request payment of fee upon RTKL requester's request for certified copies of disclosed records, but requester not entitled to relief on his request for certified copies where agency's affirmation of true and correct nature of records was functional equivalent of RTKL's "certification." Order of the trial court affirmed.
Cleveland Butler appealed from the order of the trial court upholding the final determination of the district attorney of Dauphin County, which granted access pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law. Appellant submitted a RTKL request to the DA office seeking all search warrants and inventory lists in his criminal matter, and specifically requesting certified copies. The DA office's open records officer denied access under the criminal investigative exception and the minor's identity exception. The appeals officer granted the appeal and directed disclosure, ruling that the sought records were not criminal investigative materials because they were public under the rules of criminal procedure, and that the minor's identity exception did not apply because the minor testified in open court. However, the DA office did not certify the records it produced.
Appellant filed a petition for review in the trial court, asserting his entitlement to certification of the records or some other assurance of their completeness, and complaining that the response did not explain how the records were obtained. The DA office asserted it complied with its duties under the RTKL, and affirmed that the disclosed records represented true copies of the documents found in the files related to appellant's criminal case. The trial court denied appellant's petition, agreeing that the DA office met its RTKL obligations, and ruling that certification was not required under the RTKL and could only be obtained by paying the appropriate fee.
On appeal from the trial court, appellant argued that the trial judge erred in not recusing himself because he was the district attorney at the time of appellant's arrest and therefore had significant involvement in the criminal case to which appellant's request related. Appellant again contended that he was entitled to a certified copy of the records, and to an affidavit regarding the search for the records and the completeness of the disclosure.