recognizing that “the redaction of the troopers’ home addresses from the requested documents will go a long way toward quelling concerns expressed about troopers’ families and property being exposed to harm”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “the redaction of the troopers’ home addresses from the requested documents will go a long way toward quelling concerns expressed about troopers’ families and property being exposed to harm”
- noting the agency “failed to produce any evidence” that the redacted information would jeopardize an individual’s security
- affirming the OOR’s granting, in part, of a requestor’s RTKL request to the Pennsylvania State Police for information dating back to January 1, 2005.
- affirming OOR’s order with modification to alter disclosure of records by agency
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge McCullough.
I concur with the Majority’s holding that the July 14, 2010, order of the Office of Open Records (OOR) should be affirmed with modifications, but I diverge from the Majority’s analysis of section 708(b)(l)(ii) of the Right to Know Law (RTKL). 1
The record reflects that a reporter for the Associated Press sent a request to the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) for records involving state troopers who accept supplementary employment outside of the agency. PSP’s supplementary employment records contained the following sensitive information about the trooper and his or her supplemental work: (1) name and social security number; (2) home mailing address; (3) PSP' job duties and work locations; (4) PSP work schedule; (5) name and address of the supplemental employer; and (6) days and hours worked for the supplemental employer, including approximate start and end times. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 26a-27a, 29a-30a.) OOR concluded that the employment records were not exempt from disclosure under section 708(b) of the RTKL; however, OOR authorized PSP to redact the troopers’ home addresses and social security numbers from the records.
The Majority recognizes that troopers may face “potential, and substantial, danger” in their occupations, (Majority Opinion at 10), yet concludes the records requested were not exempt from disclosure under section 708(b)(l)(ii) of the RTKL. The Majority reasons that the evidence submitted in this case did not establish that disclosure of the supplementary employment information would more likely than not result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to the troopers or to their personal security. I disagree.
The RTKL does not require proof that disclosure of a record will result in physical ham to an individual. Rather, section *444 708(b) of the RTKL only requires evidence showing that disclosure is reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual. The evidence here meets that standard.
Bruce Edwards, a state trooper with twenty-five years of experience, stated in his affidavit, (R.R. at 25a-28a), that state troopers are required to provide PSP with specific information regarding their supplemental employment, including their names, home address, official work duties and schedules, the name and address of the supplemental employer, and the times when the trooper is engaged in supplemental employment. Edwards noted that state police officers frequently perform supplemental employment without weapons and body armor. Edwards opined that disclosure of the record request would make it possible for a wrongdoer to identify a specific state trooper and then precisely determine the trooper’s location during off-duty hours, when the trooper and his or her family are most vulnerable. He observed that this information would operate like a “road map” to find an off-duty trooper and would exponentially increase the risk of harm to the trooper and his or her family members. Edwards also stated that state police officers and their families are subjected to threats of physical harm.
Edwards’ averments are corroborated by the affidavit of Captain Janet A. McNeal, who stated the following:
6. ... While engaged in supplementary employment, troopers may be prohibited by their employer from carrying their Department issued weapons, leaving them unarmed, unshielded, and vulnerable.
7. Under these circumstances, advance knowledge of the work location and schedule of any off-duty trooper would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to the personal security of an individual Trooper....
a. This is especially the case where a trooper engages in supplementary employment from his home; revealing this fact alone calls into question the safety of the vulnerable off-duty trooper as well as his family.
b. Moreover in instances were troopers have preestablished supplementary employment schedules, such schedules can be used to identify periods of time when troopers are engaged in supplementary employment, leaving families and property exposed to harm.
8. ... In this case, seemingly innocuous information pertaining to supplemental employment can be used to locate and target a trooper while off-duty as well as to determine the times a trooper’s family or property will be unattended and vulnerable.
(R.R. at 19a-20a.)
Edwards’ and McNeal’s affidavits are more specific than the testimony in Lutz v. City of Philadelphia, 6 A.3d 669 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010), where we concluded that evidence showing general safety and privacy concerns stemming from the release of information contained in police arbitration decisions was insufficient to establish an exemption under 708(b)(l)(ii) of the RTKL. Therefore, I would conclude that PSP’s supplemental employment records are exempt from disclosure under section 708(b)(l)(ii) of the RTKL.
Even though I believe that these records are exempt, I recognize that section 506(c) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.506(c), grants an agency the discretion to make any otherwise exempt record accessible and that section 706 of the RTKL authorizes an agency to redact information from a public record that is not subject to ac *445 cess. 65 P.S. § 67.706. Therefore, the Majority properly modifies OOR’s decision to permit the redaction of location and scheduling information from PSP documents. 2
. In relevant part, section 708(b)(l)(ii) of the RTKL provides as follows
(b) Exceptions. — ... [T]he following are exempt from access by a requester under this act:
(1) A record, the disclosure of which:
(ii) would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual.
65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(l)(ii) (emphasis added).
. I agree with the Majority that the redaction of location information necessarily includes redaction of the name of the supplemental employer, which is a key element of the "road map" that makes it possible to determine the whereabouts of an off-duty trooper. The record reflects that PSP indicated that they would redact the name of the supplemental employer if necessary for security reasons, (R.R. at 6a), and the record demonstrates that such security reasons exist.