balancing public officials’ privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their publicly-funded cell phone records against competing factors • that favored public disclosure of those records in a newspaper, and finding that such public disclosure was not warranted
How later courts described this case
- balancing public officials’ privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their publicly-funded cell phone records against competing factors • that favored public disclosure of those records in a newspaper, and finding that such public disclosure was not warranted
- concluding that the privacy right in a home address is “pertinent to a person’s personal security”
- recognizing availability of in camera review in appropriate cases
- identifying home addresses as personal information, which if revealed, could “potentially impair the personal security of the ... employees”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I have some differences with its reasoning.
Primarily, I would accord more weight to the public’s interest in disclosure of what is facially a public record. While the majority describes such interest as “weak, perhaps non-existent,” Majority Opinion at 269, 961 A.2d at 118, my thoughts are more in line with that of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which explained:
At first glance, the question of whether the public should have access to the toll-billing telephone records of public officials under the Right-to-Know Law seems to answer itself. The public has paid for the telephone calls; the numbers called have been recorded on the bill that the public body has paid; the public should have the right to learn the identity of the person called by the public official.
North Jersey Newspapers Co. v. Passaic County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 127 N.J. 9 , 601 A.2d 693 (1992). The court proceeded to emphasize the policy of openness in government and the interest of the citizenry in discovering abuses. See id. at 697. Although the New Jersey court ultimately determined that the telephone records at issue were not public records under New Jersey’s then-prevailing narrower definition, again, I agree with its treatment of the public interests involved. Indeed, after considering the competing public and private interests in issue, as well as the common-law right to access, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not establish a bright-line rule flatly requiring blanket redactions. Rather, it directed that relevant records were to be made available upon a specific showing that the public need outweighs the governmental policies of confidentiality in telephone communications and executive privilege. See id. at 698. The court also recognized the availability of an in camera review procedure *270 in appropriate cases. See id. at 697; accord LaValle v. OGC, 564 Pa. 482 , 498 n. 14, 769 A.2d 449 , 459 n. 14 (2001). 1
I would adopt the New Jersey approach and join the result in the present case, because I find a sufficient specific showing to be lacking.
. I also differ with the majority's finding that disclosure would be “arbitrary” in light of suggested differences between land-line and cell phone bills. See Majority Opinion at 268, 961 A.2d at 117. The Pennsylvania Right to Know Act broadly defines public records as records "dealing with” the receipt or disbursement of funds or its use of equipment. See 65 P.S. § 66.1. There is no basis in the statutory language for limiting public access based on the fact that information in an agency's hands might not have reached it merely because some other medium might have been employed.