# J. Bentley v. Allegheny County Police Dept.

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · June 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10747037

## Case

- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 24, 2021
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Crompton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10747037

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding witness statements used by prosecution are investigative

## Opinion text

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James Bentley, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 936 C.D. 2020
: Argued: May 10, 2021
Allegheny County Police Department :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CROMPTON FILED: June 24, 2021

James Bentley (Requester) appeals from an order of the Allegheny
County (County) Court of Common Pleas (Trial Court) that affirmed the County
District Attorney (DA) Appeals Officer’s final determination denying his request for
police motor vehicle recordings (MVRs) under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).1
The County Police Department (County PD) protected the MVRs under Section
708(b)(16) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16), and the Criminal History Record
Information Act, 18 Pa. C.S. §§9102-9106 (CHRIA). As the record is insufficient to
evaluate the MVRs’ investigative nature under Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove,
161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017), we vacate the Trial Court’s order and remand the matter
for additional factfinding and explanation to enable effective appellate review.
1
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101-67.3104.
I. Background
Requester submitted a RTKL request seeking copies of: “cop car videos
with report for incident at 312 Elliot Rd. Monroeville on 8/15/2007 around 6 p[.]m[.]”
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 22a. Though the denial is not in the record, there is no
dispute that County PD initially denied access based on lack of responsive records.
Requester appealed that denial to the Office of Open Records (OOR),
appending to his appeal an affidavit prepared by the Police Chief in Monroeville,
Kenneth Cole (Police Chief), in December 2019, in response to Requester’s
separate RTKL request to the Monroeville Police Department (Police Chief
Affidavit). R.R. at 59a-60a. Police Chief attested that the Monroeville Police
Department responded to an incident at the stated address which involved a
homicide. Police Chief explained that the Monroeville Police Department copied
the MVRs from the two responding police vehicles onto discs and provided those
discs to the County PD because it was conducting the homicide investigation.
After reviewing the Police Chief Affidavit, County PD acknowledged
it possessed copies of the MVRs; however, it asserted that the records were exempt
from disclosure under Act 22 of 2017, 42 Pa. C.S. §67A03 (relating to requests for
law enforcement audio recordings or video recordings)2 and the criminal investigation
exception in Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL. County PD submitted an affidavit
from Patrolman Louis Blouth, Jr., (Patrolman), who handled its RTKL requests,
regarding his prior unsuccessful search for and subsequent discovery of responsive
records (PD Affidavit). He attested that the records were in County PD’s file for a
closed homicide investigation for which the perpetrator was currently incarcerated.

2
Act of July 7, 2017, P.L. 304. Act 22 creates an exclusive means of accessing MVRs
created by law enforcement, requiring the submission of any requests for such records within 60
days of recording.

2
After soliciting additional information from both parties,3 OOR
determined that Act 22 of 2017 did not apply to the MVRs at issue. See OOR
Final Determination, OOR Dkt. AP-2020-0143 (issued Apr. 3, 2020), R.R. at 30a-
37a. However, OOR did not analyze the criminal investigation exception in
Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL for lack of jurisdiction over law enforcement
records.4 See Section 503(d)(2) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.503(d)(2). Thus, OOR
transferred the appeal to the appeals officer for the County (DA Appeals Officer).
On April 8, 2020, the DA Appeals Officer affirmed the denial, citing
only the criminal investigation exception under the RTKL. Based on the affidavits,
he concluded that the MVRs qualified as records related to a criminal investigation
under the exception because they pertained to a closed homicide investigation and
were thus properly withheld on that ground. R.R. at 16a-17a.
Before the Trial Court, the factfinder here,5 County PD also asserted
CHRIA, specifically, 18 Pa. C.S. §9102, as a statutory exemption. Requester
maintained that County PD did not establish the video footage on the MVRs
qualified as investigative material under our Supreme Court’s decision in Grove.

3
Although OOR noted that Requester asserted the video footage was shown in the public
domain on a television program, there was no evidence to support that assertion. Indeed, during
argument before this Court, Requester conceded he lacked any basis to pursue that argument.

4
Because OOR is not a criminal investigative or law enforcement entity, it lacks
jurisdiction to evaluate the criminal nature of records. Off. of Open Recs. v. Pa. State Police, 146
A.3d 814 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (single j. op.).
5
“A court reviewing an appeal from an [appeals] officer is entitled to the broadest scope
of review, a review of the entire record on appeal along with other material, such as a stipulation
of the parties, or an in camera review of the documents at issue, and we may further supplement
the record through hearing or remand.” Pa. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. v. Darlington, 234 A.3d 865,
871 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (citation omitted).

3
As neither party intended to call any witnesses, the Trial Court set a
briefing and argument schedule. R.R. at 42a. The Trial Court also held a hearing
where the County PD submitted evidence in the form of the two affidavits (PD and
Police Chief) and the final determinations issued by OOR and the DA Appeals
Officer. During the hearing, Requester stipulated to the facts presented by County
PD in its brief and to the basic facts set forth in the two affidavits.
After conducting in camera review of the MVRs and reviewing the
parties’ briefs, the Trial Court entered the following order:

AND NOW, to wit, this 26th day of August, 2020, after hearing and
in camera review of the records in question, I find that they are
exempt under 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16)(ii); [Section 305(a)(3) of the
RTKL,] 65 P.S. §67.305(a)(3); and 18 Pa. C.S. §9106(c)(4). The April
8, 2020, decision of the [County DA] Open Records Appeals Officer
is affirmed and [Requester’s] Petition for Review is denied.
Trial Ct. Order, 8/26/20, R.R. at 80a. Requester appealed the order to this Court
and filed a statement of errors complained of on appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Primarily, Requester argued that the evidence was insufficient to protect the MVRs
in their entirety, such that the result was contrary to that in Grove. He also
complained that the Trial Court did not issue findings of fact or conclusions of law
in accordance with Section 1302(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.1302(a).
The Trial Court issued its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),6
reasoning the MVRs were protected as investigative based on our decision in Port
Authority of Allegheny County v. Towne, 174 A.3d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). The
Trial Court concluded that the records were exempt based on its in camera review.

6
The Trial Court reasoned that its opinion issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) cured
any alleged deficiencies under Section 1302 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.1302, because its opinion
contained findings and explained the rationale underlying its decision.

4
Specifically, the Trial Court explained the MVRs at issue here

began when the Monroeville police arrived to investigate a homicide.
The footage was taken from police vehicles positioned outside the
residence of the homicide in Monroeville. The MVRs depict
Monroeville police preserving the scene and County detectives
processing the scene. They also depict the victim and the defendant
being taken from the scene.

Trial Ct., Slip Op., 11/25/20, at 3, R.R. at 92a-96a. The Court distinguished the
MVRs at issue here from those in Grove in that the Monroeville Police Department
intentionally recorded police activity when it responded to a reported homicide,
and then provided the recordings to County PD to aid its investigation. Instead, the
Trial Court likened the MVRs in this case to the bus video in Towne, where the
video was maintained for purposes of investigating an accident claim.
After briefing and argument, the matter is ready for disposition.
II. Contentions
On appeal,7 Requester argues that the County PD did not meet its
burden of proof, which the courts construe narrowly to require disclosure of any
public aspects of the MVRs. He also challenged the sufficiency of the Trial
Court’s findings and conclusions in support of the agency’s denial of access.
County PD counters that these circumstances differ from Grove such
that the Trial Court properly withheld the MVRs in their entirety. It posits that
Towne is more germane because County PD obtained the MVRs for its homicide
investigation, which suffices to establish their investigative purpose.

7
This Court’s “review of a trial court’s order in a[n] RTKL dispute is ‘limited to
determining whether findings of fact are supported by competent evidence or whether the trial
court committed an error of law, or an abuse of discretion in reaching its decision.’” Borough of
Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173, 178 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (citations omitted).

5
III. Discussion
The RTKL mandates agency disclosure of public records “consistent
with the [statutory] goal of promoting government transparency . . . .” Easton
Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 232 A.3d 716, 724 (Pa. 2020). Section 102 of the RTKL
defines “record” as:

Information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that
documents a transaction or activity of an agency and that is created,
received or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a
transaction, business or activity of the agency. The term includes a
document, paper, letter, map, book, tape, photograph, film or sound
recording, information stored or maintained electronically and a data-
processed or image-processed document.

65 P.S. §67.102 (emphasis added). “Accordingly, video footage [on MVRs] is a
record.” See Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173, 178 n.3 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2019).
Records in an agency’s possession are presumed public and thus
subject to disclosure unless the records: (1) qualify under an exception contained
in Section 708(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(b); (2) are privileged; or (3) are
exempt “under any other Federal or State law or regulation or judicial order or
decree.” Section 305(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.305(a). RTKL exemptions are
construed narrowly in accordance with the statute’s remedial nature, and “in a
manner that comports with the statute’s objective, ‘which is to empower citizens
by affording them access to information concerning the activities of their
government.’” Grove, 161 A.3d at 892 (citation omitted).
County PD asserted that two exemptions applied here, CHRIA and the
criminal investigation exception in Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL, 65 P.S.
§67.708(b)(16). The Trial Court held the MVRs were exempt on both grounds.

6
Section 708(b)(16) protects “a record of an agency relating to or
resulting in a criminal investigation, including . . . (ii) investigative materials,
notes, correspondence, videos and reports.” 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16) (emphasis
added). When a record, on its face, relates to a criminal investigation, it is
protected by this exception. Pa. State Police v. Kim, 150 A.3d 155, 157-58 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2016); Barros v. Martin, 92 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (per curiam);
Coley v. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Off., 77 A.3d 694 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (holding witness
statements used by prosecution are investigative).
Generally, CHRIA concerns collection, maintenance, dissemination,
disclosure, and receipt of criminal history records. CHRIA prohibits a law
enforcement entity like County PD from disseminating “investigative information”
to any persons or entities other than criminal justice agents and agencies. 18 Pa.
C.S. §9106(c)(4). CHRIA defines “investigative information” as “[i]nformation
assembled as a result of the performance of any inquiry, formal or informal, into a
criminal incident or an allegation of criminal wrongdoing . . . .” 18 Pa. C.S. §9102.
CHRIA and the criminal investigation exception in the RTKL are
often asserted together, and the courts apply the same analysis in determining
whether records qualify as investigative of criminal activity. See Grove; Coley.
A. Burden of Proof under Grove
First, we consider Requester’s assertion that County PD did not meet
its burden of proving the criminal investigative exemptions in CHRIA and Section
708(b)(16) of the RTKL. A local agency must establish a RTKL exception by a
preponderance of the evidence. Section 708(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(a).
“The preponderance of the evidence standard, which is ‘the lowest evidentiary
standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.’” Smith on behalf of

7
Smith Butz, LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 161 A.3d 1049, 1059 n.10 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted).
The litmus test for analyzing the criminal investigation exception is
our Supreme Court’s decision in Grove, and as refined by subsequent case law.
There, our Supreme Court affirmed our holding that the video of MVRs was not
exempt under Section 708(b)(16). It expressly rejected the Pennsylvania State
Police’s (PSP) contention that MVRs are generally exempt, and held, instead, that
the question must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 894.
In analyzing the term “criminal investigation,” the Court employed
statutory construction principles, including consulting the plain meaning of
“criminal investigation.” Id. at 892; see 1 Pa C.S. §1903. Specifically, the Court
held that determining whether a record is investigative in nature requires an
examination of “whether the video aspects [of MVRs] generally depict a systematic
inquiry or examination into a potential crime.” Id. at 893. The Court noted that
recordings of PSP’s routine tasks are not investigative in nature. Despite detailed
affidavits describing the MVR purpose and contents, the Court upheld this Court’s
conclusion that PSP failed to meet its burden of proof.
Relevant here, the Supreme Court squarely rejected PSP’s assertion
that MVRs capturing an investigation of whether a motor vehicle violation
occurred qualify as a “‘criminal investigative record’ exempt from disclosure.” Id.
In evaluating the exception, the Court reviewed PSP’s supporting affidavit in some
detail. It noted the affidavit explained the multiple purposes of MVRs, which
depicted “non-investigative situations, including: ‘directions to motorists in a
traffic stop or at an accident scene, police pursuits and prisoner transports.’” Id.
(citing PSP affidavit). There was also a range of reasons for retaining the MVRs,

8
which was not limited to criminal investigations only, but also extended to civil,
administrative, or disciplinary proceedings. Id. Because the retention and use of
the MVRs varied, the Court emphasized that the type of record (MVR) was not
categorically exempt despite that the recording was made and retained by a law
enforcement agency. Rather, it underscored that the law enforcement agency had
the burden to prove that the protected portions of MVRs depicted a criminal
investigation, such as in-progress crimes, searches of vehicles or persons, field
interviews, interrogations, or intoxication testing. Id. at 894. From PSP’s evidence,
the Court discerned that the “the MVRs at issue [did] not depict the accident itself,”
but instead showed the troopers observing the scene and engaging with drivers and
witnesses. Id. (emphasis added). The Court recognized that PSP issued citations not
based on the video footage, but rather on the statements taken at the scene.
Ultimately, the Court held that only the audio portion of the MVR that
captured the police interviews qualified for protection as criminal investigative
material. Id. at 895. As such, it allowed redaction of the investigative content
(audio portion) of the MVRs and required disclosure of the video footage.
In so ruling, the Court reasoned there must be evidence that the video
footage depicted a criminal investigation. Id. at 894. Critically, the Court
emphasized that “PSP simply does not explain how the video portion of the MVRs
captured any criminal investigation. In fact, PSP concedes the only potentially
investigative information consisted of the verbal statements captured on [one]
MVR, which the [Chapter 13] Court expressly ordered should be redacted prior to
release of the MVRs.” Id. at 895 (emphasis added). The video footage, the Court
noted, depicted no more than what a bystander would observe. Barring additional
explanation, such video footage was not properly withheld.

9
B. Grove Applied
A close reading of Grove reveals a number of factors in addition to
the “bystander” view highlighted by Requester. See Requester’s Br. at 9, 11 (i.e.,
showing “nothing more than what a bystander would observe”). That the MVRs
captured footage that a discerning bystander could observe did not render them
public. To the contrary, the Court considered how the MVR was used and whether
the MVR was useful in showing whether a violation or crime occurred. Thus, the
Court recognized that the reasons for recording and retaining the MVR were
relevant to whether it was investigative.
Pursuant to Grove, the Trial Court was required to evaluate each claim
that a record is exempt as relating to an investigation on its unique facts. Grove,
161 A.3d at 894. Other than the Trial Court’s in camera review, the record in this
case is comprised of two affidavits: (1) the Police Chief Affidavit; and (2) the PD
Affidavit. The Police Chief Affidavit states, in pertinent part:

4. [t]he video recordings in question were recorded by the in-car video
system of the [Monroeville] Police Department and relate to a
homicide investigation conducted by [County PD].
5. The video recordings in question were downloaded onto CDs from
the video recording system hard drive and provided to [County PD] as
the lead investigative agency for this incident on August 15, 2007.

R.R. at 59a-60a. The PD Affidavit states, in pertinent part:

6. Given [the information in the Appeal file] we were able to locate
and recall the file. Upon receipt, we did in fact locate two discs
containing in[-]car camera police recordings of the first responding
police vehicles to the crime scene. These police recordings are part of
[County PD’s] criminal investigative file and, had they been identified
upon initial request, would have been denied accordingly.

10
7. Upon reviewing the file I further learned that the defendant in this
case, John Mullarkey, was charged with and convicted by jury of
Murder of the First Degree and was sentenced to life in prison without
the possibility of parole on June 29, 2009.

8. It further appears that a [Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S.
§§9541-9546] petition is currently active on appeal in Pennsylvania’s
Superior Court.

R.R. at 28a-29a.
County PD maintains that the circumstances in this case are closer to
those in Towne, which involved a noncriminal investigation, than to those in Grove.
We disagree.
In Towne, the records requested were videos from a Port Authority
bus. The Authority asserted the noncriminal investigation exception in Section
708(b)(17) of the RTKL, for which the courts use similar standards when
analyzing whether the record qualifies as investigative, based on its content or
purpose. Notably, the evidence in Towne reflected that the videos were only
retained because there was an incident depicted on video, and the video was
therefore related to the Authority’s noncriminal investigation of the incident.
The Authority argued that the bus video was an investigative record
because it was downloaded for purposes of an investigation into a civil claim.
Crucially, we held the Authority established that the bus video was used in and
created solely for the purpose of doing an investigation. We distinguished the bus
video in Towne from the MVRs in Grove as follows:

Specifically, unlike the MVRs in Grove, which an affidavit indicated
were also used to document troopers’ performance of their duties and
interactions with members of the public, the Authority’s affidavits
indicated that the sole purpose of the recordings was for use in
investigations. This brings us to the somewhat intertwined issue of
the relatedness between the noncriminal investigation and the
Authority’s recordings.

11
Towne, 174 A.3d at 1173.
In this case, the Trial Court explained that the difference between the
videos in Grove and Towne was the purpose of the video, i.e., the reason it was
created or maintained. Specifically, the Trial Court stated: “The distinction
between Grove [II]. . . and Towne . . . is the purpose of the video. . . . in Towne the
affidavits indicated that the sole purpose of the recordings was for use in
investigations.” Trial Ct., Slip Op. at 4 (emphasis added) (quoting Towne, 174
A.3d at 1173).
However, in contrast to Towne or Grove, the record on appeal here
contains scant evidence about either the content or the purpose of the MVRs. The
PD Affidavit states only that the MVRs were of the first responding police vehicles
and part of County PD’s investigative file. See PD Affidavit, ¶6, R.R. at 28a.
While the PD Affidavit identifies the crime, it does not describe the content of
video footage or how the footage related to the investigation. This is in stark
contrast to Grove in which the affidavits outlined the purpose of the MVRs and
described the content of the footage, and the general use of MVRs.
The Police Chief Affidavit also did not describe the content. It states
simply that the MVRs are part of the “in-car camera system operated by the Police
Department [(Monroeville)] [, which] stores video recordings on the system hard
drive for a period not in excess of ninety (90) days, before the video recordings are
over-written with new video recordings for more recent time periods.” Police
Chief Affidavit, ¶7, R.R. at 59a.
In addition to the affidavits, the Trial Court had the benefit of
reviewing the MVR contents in camera. However, the Court’s description of the
content consists of the following:

12
[The MVRs] began when the Monroeville police arrived to investigate
a homicide. The footage was taken from police vehicles positioned
outside the residence of the homicide in Monroeville. The MVRs
depict Monroeville police preserving the scene and County detectives
processing the scene. They also depict the victim and defendant being
taken from the scene.
Trial Ct., Slip Op. at 3. In order for this Court to assess whether the Trial Court’s
order is consistent with the standards in Grove, more description is necessary so
we may discern how the video footage the Trial Court viewed differs from what a
bystander may observe, or whether there were any witnesses or bystanders onsite.
As in Grove, this Court requires additional explanation of how the MVRs at issue
are investigative.
Though the Trial Court states the MVRs here were solely used to
investigate the homicide, the current record does not contain sufficient evidence of
that fact. Unlike the record in Grove, the record on appeal before this Court,
serving in our appellate capacity, contains no evidence regarding the reason for the
MVRs, how the MVRs are used generally, or whether the video footage captured
on the MVRs at issue was used here in investigating the homicide.
Grove teaches us that a statement that records were placed in a
homicide investigation file is not dispositive as to the investigative nature of the
records at issue. Stated differently, that the MVRs were found in an investigation
file does not definitely mean they were utilized in the criminal investigation.
Grove. Yet, the Trial Court appears to heavily rely on the fact that County PD
eventually located the MVRs sought in its homicide investigative file.
Moreover, when applying the exemptions under the RTKL, in
addition to narrowly construing them, our highest Court consistently mandates
maximal disclosure, such that “when a record contains information which is
subject to access along with information which is not subject to access and the two

13
cannot be physically separated, ‘the agency shall redact from the record the
information which is not subject to access, and the response shall grant access to
the information which is subject to access.’” Easton Area Sch. Dist., 232 A.3d at
731 (plurality op.) (quoting Section 706 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.706, relating to
redaction;8 majority held agency failed to meet burden of proof and “video itself is
a public record subject to disclosure”).
Mindful that the Supreme Court stringently applies exemptions from
disclosure, and favors public access when the protected nature of the records is not
established by the record, this Court deems the record before us insufficient to
adequately assess whether the entirety of the video footage on the MVRs is exempt
as the Trial Court concluded. See Off. of the Governor v. Davis, 122 A.3d 1185
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (en banc); Coley (vacating and remanding in part for trial court
to describe immunity agreement in more detail to enable this Court’s assessment of
Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL). Nonetheless, this Court recognizes that “records
reviewed in camera [may constitute] sufficient evidence for an agency to meet its
burden of proof.” Davis, 122 A.3d at 1194.
On the submitted record, the purpose or use of the MVRs is not
altogether clear. Further, to the extent that the Trial Court’s order relied on the
content of the MVRs viewed in camera, the record is insufficient for this Court to
conduct effective appellate review. As such, a remand to the Trial Court to make

8
Section 706 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.706, provides in pertinent part:

If the information which is not subject to access is an integral part of the public
record, legislative record or financial record and cannot be separated, the agency
shall redact from the record the information which is not subject to access, and the
response shall grant access to the information which is subject to access. The
agency may not deny access to the record if the information which is not subject
to access is able to be redacted.

14
additional findings regarding the investigative nature of the video footage based on
its review and to supplement its rationale for applying the exemptions as it did here
is appropriate. See, e.g., Suber-Aponte (reversing in part and remanding for further
explanation of what footage was protected).
On remand, the Trial Court shall issue additional findings, including a
more detailed description of the video footage at issue, and supplement its rationale
in support of the criminal investigative exemptions (Section 708(b)(16) and CHRIA)
consistent with Grove. See Am. C.L. Union of Pa. v. Pa. State Police, 232 A.3d 654,
671 (Pa. 2020) (vacating and remanding to this Court as the Chapter 13 court). As
the Chapter 13 court, the Trial Court “is the ultimate finder of fact under the RTKL,
[so] it would be inappropriate for us to step into its place.” Id. at 671. Consistent
with its role as factfinder, “the [Trial] [C]ourt also retains discretion to further
develop the record” as it deems fit. Id. However, at a minimum, the Trial Court
shall ensure that the record on appeal complies with Section 1303(b) of the RTKL,
which provides: “The record before a court shall consist of the request, the agency’s
response, the appeal filed under [S]ection 1101, the hearing transcript, if any, and
the final written determination of the appeals officer.” 65 P.S. §67.1303(b).
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Trial Court’s order and
remand the matter to the Trial Court for further factual findings and description of
the records viewed in camera, including how various aspects of the video footage
meet the standards for investigative nature under Grove.

______________________________
J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

Judge Wojcik did not participate in the decision of this case.

15
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James Bentley, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 936 C.D. 2020
:
Allegheny County Police Department :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of June 2021, the order of the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for
additional findings and legal conclusions in accordance with the accompanying
opinion.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.

______________________________
J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10747037. Public record. Not legal advice.