Opinion
No. 1008 C.D. 2014
01-26-2015
Ryan Bagwell, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
In our memorandum opinion dated November 20, 2014, in the above-captioned matter, we ordered the Office of Attorney General (OAG) to file under seal with this court the communications between the OAG and the Special Investigative Counsel for Pennsylvania State University (Louis Freeh and the Freeh Group) that Ryan Bagwell (Requestor) sought to determine whether those documents were properly found by the OAG's Right-to-Know Law Appeals Officer's (Appeals Officer) to be exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b) of the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) and other laws that prevent disclosure of investigative materials.
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §67.708(b).
Specifically, those documents at issue were not disclosed by the Appeals Officer because the records sought were exempt because they were: (1) Complaints of potential criminal conduct (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)(i)); (2) Investigative materials, notes and correspondence (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)(ii)); (3) Records made confidential by law or court order (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)(iv)); (4) Victim information (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)(v)); and (5) Revelation of the Institution, Progress or Result of a Criminal Investigation (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)(vi)). --------
Because we were unable to conduct meaningful appellate review without examining the documents at issue, we ordered the OAG to file the requested documents under seal to determine whether they fell within the exceptions set forth in the Appeals Officer's determination.
The OAG has complied with our request and we have reviewed the documents at issue, to wit:
• Five (5) email exchanges dated November 30, 2011 and December 1, 2011, December 6, 2011, re: investigative report;
• One (1) email exchange dated December 17, 2011, regarding cooperation of parties to proceed;
• Three (3) email exchanges dated March 11, 2012, re: investigative review of evidentiary materials;
• Two (2) email exchanges dated March 21, 2012 and April 2, 2012, re: information obtained related to allegations of criminal conduct;
• Two (2) email exchanges dated April 11, 2012, re: seized investigative materials;
• Four (4) email exchanges dated April 12, 2012 and April 13, 2012, re: seized investigative materials;
• Email dated April 13, 2012, re: seized investigative materials;
• Three (3) email exchanges dated April 30, 2012 and May 1, 2012, re: investigative documents;
• Two (2) email exchanges dated January 5, 2012, re: victimization;
• Two (2) email exchanges dated February 17, 2012, re: profile;
• Two (2) email exchanges dated February 17, 2012, re: hiring practices;
• Email exchange dated March 21, 2012, re: email exchange regarding receipt of certain information;
• Email dated April 9, 2012, re: timesheet; and
• Email dated April 30, 2012, re: attorney representation.
As a result of our review of those documents, those documents are exempt from disclosure under the investigative exceptions contained in Section 708(b) of the RTKL and/or the Criminal History Record Information Act, 18 Pa. C.S.A. §§9101-9183. Accordingly, the Office of the Attorney General's Right-to-Know Law Appeals Officer's Order in this matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge Judge Cohn Jubelirer did not participate in the decision of this case. ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2015, the Office of the Attorney General's Right-to-Know Law Appeals Officer's Order in this matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge