IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gregg Township : : v. : No. 1186 C.D. 2017 : Submitted: April 20, 2018 Michelle Grove, :

Appellant :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: June 25, 2018

Michelle Grove (Request e r), pro se , appeals a n order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (trial cour t) denying her Right

- to

- Know Law 1
request for certain footage from security cameras in the Old Gregg School , which is used for municipal offices. In doing so, the trial court reversed the final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that the information requested
from Gregg Township (Township) was disclosable . Request e r contends that the trial court erred in holding that the disclosure of the security camera footage would jeopardize public safety or endanger the physical security of the b uilding. Concluding that the Township’s affidavit did not support either finding of the trial
court, we reverse

.

On December 29, 2016, Requester submitted a written request to the Township for the

1 Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101

- 67.3104.2 12/29/16 security footage of Joel Myers and Doug Bierly
e ntering and exiting the office and the time in between (one continuous recording)

. Reproduced Record at 3 (R.R. __). On January 23, 2017 , the Township denied the request, asserting that the requested security footage was exempt from disclosure for
the stated reason that its release “ would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety... [,]” and would “ create [ ] a reasonable likelihood of endangering the safety or the physical security of a building

... . ” Section 708(b)(2) and (3) of the Right

- to

- Know Law, 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(2) , (3).

Requester appealed to the OOR arguing, among other things, that the Township had previously granted her requests for security footage and that release
of the requested information would not threaten either the public safety or the building’s security . In response, the Township reiterated its reasons for denying the request and submitted a sworn attestation of Jennifer Snyder (Snyder a ffidavit) , the Right

- to

- Know Officer for the Township, which stated, in re levant part:

18. [T] he Township relies on the relevant security cameras to ensure safety and verify that the public uses the Old Gregg School in an appropriate manner.
19. The Township installed the security cameras after a security assessment by local sec urity officials, including a police lieutenant and the current Sheriff of Centre County....
20. After the aforementioned security assessment, the Township proceeded to install security cameras for safety and security reasons.
21. While some of the security c ameras are conspicuous to passive users of the building, other security cameras are not necessarily obvious to passers

- by.
22. What is more, the extent to which the security cameras can capture the activities in the Old Gregg School is unknown3 to the publi c, meaning, for example, that users of the Old Gregg School are unaware of the width of the camera lenses’ angles.

R.R. 17

- 18.
T he OOR issued a final determination granting Requester’s appeal. The OOR explained that the area described in the request , i.e. , the front of the Old Gregg School, was public . Further, the Township ’s affidavit did not demonstrate how knowledge of the security camera’s location in this public area would be reasonably likely to pose a threat.

T he Township filed a petition for rev iew with the trial court, asserting various exceptions under the Right

- to

- Know Law. By order of July 26 , 2017, the
trial court reversed the OOR’s final determination , holding that the security footage was exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(2) and (3) of the Right

- to

- Know
Law , 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(2), (3). The trial court explained :

[t] he public is permitted to access the building during certain daytime hours but the building is closed at night, with surveillance cameras providing the only security. It is reasonably likely the disclosure would threaten public safety at the Old Gregg School by exposing the scope of the surveillance coverage that is unknown to the general public.
* * * [ Additionally , t ]he building is home to the municipal offices and numerous groups and needs to be properly monitored. Building security would be impaired and threatened by having the surveillance coverage exposed and could endanger the safety of those people using the building.
Trial Court Op., 7/26/2017, at 4. Request e r appealed to this Court. 2

2 This Court’s review in a Right

- to

- Know Law appeal determines “whether the trial court committed an error of law and whether its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.”4 On appeal, Request e r raises eight issues for consideration by this
Court. 3 Most of Request e r ’s issues have not been developed in the argument section
of h er brief and, thus, will not be addressed. The relevant question Requeste r has preserved for appeal is whether the security footage she requested is exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(2) and (3) of the Right

- to

- Know Law. Requeste r
argue s that disclosure of the limited footage she requested is not “reasonably likely” to jeopardize public safety. Re queste r Brief at 14.

We begin with a review of the Right

- to

- Know Law, which requires local agencies to provide access to public records upon request. See Section 302(a) of the Right

- to

- Know Law, 65 P.S. §67.302(a) (“A local agency shall provide public records in accordance with this act.”). Records in the possession of a local agency

Paint T ownship v. Clark , 109 A.3d 796, 803 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). The statutory construction of the Right

- to

- Know Law is a question of law , for which our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo

. Hearst Television, Inc. v. Norris , 54 A .3d 23, 29 (Pa. 2012).
3 They are : (1) Does [ Requester ] publish tax lists indicating which residents have and have not paid taxes? (2) Is it relevant that [ Requester ] maintains a website providing public records relating to the [T] ownship? (3) Is the disclosure of sur veillance video from the hall “reasonably likely” to threaten public safety? (4) Is it relevant that the cameras in the hall are in public view? (5) Is it relevant that surveillance footage of the hall had been disclosed on multiple occasions in the months leading up to this request? (6) Is it relevant that [ Requester ] was permitted into the secure office to video record directly from the surveillance monitor in those instances? (7) Is it relevant that the footage requested was from a non

- public, non

advertised meeting bet ween two Supervisors? (8) Is it relevant that [ Requester ] was present in the hall during this meeting and overheard the discussion that took place and the decisions that were made by the two Supervisors ? Requester Brief at 9.5

are presumed to be a public record unless exempt under Section 708 of the Right

- to

Know Law , 65 P.S. §67.708 ; pro tected by a privilege ; or exempt from disclosure
under a f ederal or s tate law or judicial order. Section 305 (a) of the Right

- to

- Know Law, 65 P.S. §67.305(a). The local agency has the burden of proving that a record is exempt by a preponderance of the evi dence. Section 708(a)(1) of the Right

- to

Know Law, 65 P.S. §67.708(a)(1).

Section 708(b)(2) exempts from disclosure records “maintained by an agency in connection with ... law enforcement or other public safety activity that, if disclosed, would be reason ably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety or preparedness or public protection activity[.]” 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(2) (emphasis added)

. T o satisfy this exemption, the local agency must prove that (1) the record at
issue relates to a law enforcement or public safety activity; and (2) disclosure of the record would be “reasonably likely” to threaten public safety or a public protection activity. Carey v. Department of Corrections , 61 A.3d 367, 374

- 75 (Pa. Cmwlth

. 2013). “In interpreting the ‘reasonably likely’ part of the test, as with all the security

related exceptions, we look to the likelihood that disclosure would cause the alleged harm, requiring more than speculation.” Id

. at 375.

Similarly, Section 70 8(b)(3) of the Right

- to

- Know Law exempts from public access “[a] record, the disclosure of which creates a reasonable likelihood of endangering the safety or the physical security of a building , public utility, resource, infrastructure, facility or informa tion storage system....” 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(3) (emphasis added)

. “ For this exemption to apply, ‘ the disclosure of ’ the records, rather than the records themselves, must create a reasonable likelihood of endangerment to the safety or physical security of ce rtain structures or other entities, including infrastructures. ” Smith on behalf of Smith Butz, LLC v. Pennsylvania6

Department of Environmental Protection , 161 A.3d 1049, 1062 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). Again, “‘[r] easonably likely ’ has been interpreted as ‘ requ iring more than speculation. ’ ” Id. at 1062

- 63 (citing Carey , 61 A.3d at 375).

The Township urges that we affirm the trial court, arguing that its security cameras are “the only realistic means of ensuring public safety at the Old Gregg School, and that th e security system is the result of a security audit performed by law enforcement personnel.” Township Brief at 14. T he locations of some

sec urity cameras are confidential because they have been placed in inconspicuous places throughout the building. Even where cameras are visible , the width of the
len s is not obvious t o a passerby

. The Township contends that the release of even limited security footage would expose vulnerabilities in the surveillance system and , thus, endanger public safety. 4 Town ship Brief at 7

.

Snyder’s affidavit established that cameras were installed for security of the building. The question is whether the affidavit established that disclosure of
the requested security camera footage would be “reasonably likely” to threaten public safety or the security of the building

.

First, the Snyder a ffidavit is silent as to what i s depicted on the

r equested camera footage. Second , the a ffidavit refers generally to all the security cameras at the Old Gregg School and does not explain why the disclosure of specific footage from one camera will jeopardize the building ’ s security and the public safety

. Third , the affidavit does not explain how the Township uses the cameras to enhance public and building safety ; for example, the affidavit does not state whether

4 The State Association of Township Supervisors has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Township.7

the cameras are monitored contemp o raneously

. Finally , the a ffidavit does not
address whether any of the information requested can be redacted

.

Snyder ’s affidavit offers conclusory statements that both public safety and building security will be jeopardized. Without explaining details, the affidavit provides no more than speculation. This does not suffice

.

T he Township acknowledges that it has allowed Requester to view security footage in t he past

. The Township argues that this prior act does not preclude it from asserting the exemption this time. We agree that a prior disclosure, whether done accidentally or intentionally, does not require repeated disclosure of similar information. A go vernment agency may correct mistakes; it is not forever bound to repea t them. Nevertheless, t he Town s hip’s prior disclosure undermines its
claim that another disclosure would be dangerous. The Township does not assert , for example, that its prior disclosure has harmed the public safety or compromise d building security in any way

.

The Township complains that Requester publishes public record s on the internet . This is not a valid reason to deny the request. See Section 302 (b) of the Right

- to

- Know Law, 65 P.S. §67.302 (b) (A local agency “may not deny a request e r access to a public record due to the intended use of the public record by the request e r unless otherwise provided by law.”); see also Hunsicker v. Pennsylvania State Police , 93 A. 3 d 911, 913 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) ( stating that “the reason for the request, good or bad, [is] irrelevant as to whether a document must be made accessible....”). Further, if this camera footage is already available online , then the Township needed to show how t he addition of new footage would undermine building security and public safety.8 T he State Association of Township Supervisors, a micus curiae , directs
this Court to Gilleran v. Township of Bloomfield , 149 A.3d 800 (N.J. 2016) , which considered New Jersey ’s version of our Right

- to

- Know Law. In Gilleran , the requeste r sought 14 hours of video footage from a security camera located on the
second floor of the Town Hall that was adjacent to the police station. The township

assert ed that the r ecording was protected under the security exclusions of New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act

. 5 It noted that the cameras would likely show
confidential informants or domesti c abuse victims going to the police station

. A divided panel of the New Jersey Supreme Court h eld that “wholesale release” of the videotape product of a single security camera or a “combination of cameras from a government facility’s security system would reveal information about a system’s operation and also its vulnerabilities

. ” Id . at 81 0 . The dissent agreed with th is logic
but concluded that the majority’s holding could not be squared with the plain language of the statute.

Gilleran provides little instructive value. First, it construes a statu t e that is similar but not identical to Pennsyl vania’s Right

- to

- Know Law. Second , it is distinguishable because the instant case does not involve a “wholesale release” of videotape product

. Requester has sought limited camera footage, not 14 hours of

5 N.J. S TAT

. A NN . §§ 47:1A

- 1

- 13

. Under Section 47:1A

- 1.1, a government record does not include the following information: * * *
emergency or secu rity information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein; security measures and surveillance techniques which, if disclosed, would create a risk to the safety of persons, property, electronic data or software; * * * N.J. S TAT

. A NN . § 47:1A

- 1.1

.9

footage. She seeks footage from one camera, not a combination of multiple camera s

. Simply, the Township did not meet its burden of showing more than speculation that the discrete information sought by Requester will undermine the building’s security and public safe t y.

For the above stated reasons, we re verse the trial court’s order.

______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge
Senior Judge Colins dissents.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gregg Township : : v. : No. 1186 C.D. 2017
: Michelle Grove, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25 th day of June, 2018, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County dated July 26, 2017 , in the above

- captioned matter
is REVERSED.

______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge