Case ID: a3d_198/html/0336-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Respondent v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner
    No. 406 MAL 2018
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    December 3, 2018
    ORDER
   AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. Did the Commonwealth Court err in holding that the use of in camera review is inappropriate when the public-safety exemption is claimed and should be reserved for cases involving assertions of attorney-client privilege, the work-product protection, and the predecisional-deliberation exception?
b. Given the standard understanding of plenary review, did the Commonwealth Court err when it reversed the OOR findings of fact without reviewing all of the evidence that OOR reviewed to make those findings?
c. Did the Commonwealth Court err in finding that the Burig Affidavit, on its face, provided sufficient evidence of a threat to public safety to justify each of the redactions to PSP's social media-monitoring policy - including the redaction of the "definitions" section and the provisions regarding social-media research on prospective employees?

The Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of petitioner is GRANTED.