Court Opinion

ID: 9387577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 15:06:31.62911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.569825
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stephen White,                                  :
                              Petitioner        :
                                                :
                       v.                       :    No. 574 C.D. 2021
                                                :    Submitted: March 18, 2022
Pennsylvania Department of                      :
Corrections (Office of Open Records),           :
                         Respondent             :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
               HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                      FILED: April 18, 2023

      Stephen White (Requester), pro se, petitions for review of the Final
Determination issued by the Office of Open Records (OOR) that denied his appeal
of the Department of Corrections’ (Department) denial of his Right-to-Know Law1
(RTKL) Request seeking test results performed on specific items confiscated from
his cell during an investigative search. The OOR determined the test results are
related to a noncriminal investigation, which resulted in Requester receiving a
misconduct by the Department, and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section
708(b)(17) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17). For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
I.    BACKGROUND
      Requester filed the Request, which was received by the Department on
February 5, 2021, seeking “the results of paperwork, a book and candy tested,”
which Requester stated were confiscated to be “tested for substances related to
cannibanoid (K2) [sic].” (Certified Record (C.R.) Ex. 1 at 7.) Requester sought “the
results of these test [sic] and the result of any Legal work and prayer book.” (Id.)
The Department’s Agency Open Records Officer (AORO) issued a letter on
February 9, 2021, denying the Request. (Id. at 10.) The AORO determined that the
requested records were exempt from public disclosure under Section 708(b)(1)(ii),
the personal security exception; Section 708(b)(2), the public safety exception;
Section 708(b)(16), the criminal investigation exception; and Section 708(b)(17),
the noncriminal investigation exception of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(1)(ii), (2),
(16)-(17). (C.R. Ex. 1 at 10-11.)
      Requester filed a timely appeal of the denial to the OOR. (Id. at 2.) With his
appeal to the OOR, Requester submitted a “Concise Statement,” wherein he stated
he was issued a misconduct for possessing an illegal substance while incarcerated in
state prison. (Id. at 3.) He further stated he was questioned by an agent of the Bureau
of Investigations and Intelligence (BII), who indicated the confiscated items would
be sent for testing. (Id.) Requester also attached a misconduct that was issued to his
appeal. (Id. at 6.)
      In opposition to Requester’s appeal, the Department submitted a position
statement and signed declaration by James C. Barnacle,2 the Director of the BII, who
oversees “criminal and noncriminal investigations pertaining to allegations of staff
and inmate misconduct within the Department.” (C.R. Ex. 3 at 7 ¶ 2.) As it did in

      2
          (See C.R. at Exhibit 3, Page 007-012.)

                                                   2
its denial, the Department argues the requested records were protected by the
personal security, public security, criminal investigation, and noncriminal
investigation exceptions in Section 708(b)(1)(ii), (2), (16), and (17) of the RTKL.
In the position statement, the Department stated, in relevant part, “[t]he records
sought, if they exist, would be part of a BII investigation.” (Id. at 4.) The
Department also noted that OOR found BII investigative records exempt from public
access in prior final determinations. (C.R. Ex. 3 at 2.) The Department argued that
the records are exempt under the noncriminal investigation exception of the RTKL
because, pursuant to its regulations, “the Department is tasked with operating its
‘institutions and programs to provide protection to the community, a safe and
humane environment and opportunities for rehabilitation for inmates’” and have
created several policies in this regard. (Id. at 5 (quoting 37 Pa. Code § 91.2).)
      In Director Barnacle’s affidavit, he explained that “[i]t is not the policy of BII
to confirm or deny whether it or any other agency . . . has conducted any particular
investigations based on alleged complaints” because such acknowledgement “is
enough to physically endanger individuals involved in the underlying matter under
investigation or to cause the destruction or tampering of evidence or testimony
related to the investigation.” (Id. at 7-8, ¶¶ 6-7.) Director Barnacle’s affidavit
explains BII’s investigation process, stating that after a complaint is received against
either an inmate or corrections officer, Department staff is assigned to investigate
and the matter may be referred to the Pennsylvania State Police for investigation.
(Id. at 8, ¶¶ 10-11.) Director Barnacle’s declaration further explains, in detail, how
disclosure of the requested records could be harmful to many individuals, including
the inmate, corrections officer, the complainant, and other staff, among others. For
example, he states:

                                           3
14. Public disclosure of the contents of investigational records to
unauthorized individuals would deprive the complainant, the affected
inmate and/or staff, and/or the alleged abuser of the right to an impartial
review of the underlying matter. Staff, inmates, or others who may be
adversely interested in the investigation would be aware of its existence
and the allegations and would be likely to subject the witnesses,
complainant, or alleged victim/abuser or reviewing investigator to
threats, manipulation, abuse[,] or other pressure to obtain a particular
result.

15. Public disclosure of investigational records is reasonably likely to
result in retaliation by inmates and/or staff whose alleged misbehavior
is described in a complaint. Such individuals would be reasonably
likely to identify, harass, threaten[,] or retaliate against the inmate or
other person who filed the complaint in order to coerce the inmate or
complainant to withdraw the complaint or change their testimony.

16. Moreover, such individuals would be put on notice to change
behavior or destroy evidence related to the investigation, thereby
jeopardizing the ability of the Department investigator to gather all
relevant facts and reach an impartial or just conclusion with regard to
the merits of the complaint.

....

20. Public availability of investigational records would hinder the
Department’s ability to secure administrative or civil sanctions or
pursue criminal charges in appropriate cases.

....

27. If public disclosure of investigation records is established, staff and
inmate investigation procedures will no longer be effectively utilized.

28. Inmates in many cases would rather suffer through abusive,
dangerous[,] or otherwise adverse conditions, rather than file a
complaint that will result in public exposure of personal or sensitive
information.

29. A prison system that does not possess a safe and confidential means
for inmates and/or staff to submit complaints or for those complaints to
be investigated will be unable to detect and address dangerous
conditions or behavior.

                                    4
      30. Abusive behavior will persist and grow and trust between inmates
      and staff will erode.

      31. The result will be a more dangerous facility for inmates and staff
      alike.

      32. The requested records are records maintained by the Department
      in connection with its official law enforcement function of supervising
      the incarceration of inmates.

      33. The disclosure of the requested records would threaten public
      safety and the Department’s public protection activities in maintaining
      safe and secure correctional institutions by allowing inmates or others
      to access information that will interfere with essential noncriminal and
      criminal investigations.

(Id. at 8-11, ¶¶ 14-16, 20, 27-33.)
      Based upon the parties’ submissions, the OOR issued its Final Determination
denying Requester’s appeal on April 12, 2021. The OOR found that the Department
met its burden of proving that the noncriminal investigation exception applied. In
doing so, the OOR discussed Director Barnacle’s declaration and the Department’s
regulations, which require that the Department “provide protection to the community
[and] a safe and humane environment and opportunities for rehabilitation for the
inmates.” (Final Determination at 6 (quoting 37 Pa. Code § 91.2).) The OOR
explained that “[a] clear function of providing a safe environment for the inmates is
the Department’s ability to conduct investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by
inmates.” (Id.) The OOR continued:

      Requester provided a copy of a disciplinary form, often referred to as a
      misconduct, issued against [] Requester by the Department due to a
      violation of Department policy. . . . This form, as well as the language
      of the Request, provides the OOR with sufficient evidence that an
      investigation occurred and that the records requested relate to that
      investigation. . . . Therefore, based on the evidence provided, along
      with the language of the Request itself, the responsive records are

                                         5
       related to a noncriminal investigation and are exempt from disclosure
       under Section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL.

(Id. at 6-7 (internal citation omitted).) Given its disposition, the OOR did not address
the Department’s claims that other RTKL exceptions applied. (Final Determination
at 7 n.2.)
       Requester now petitions this Court for review of the OOR’s Final
Determination.

II.    PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
       On appeal,3 Requester argues the test results are exculpatory evidence, which
must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 573(B)(1)(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Criminal Procedure, Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(a).4 (Requester’s Amended Brief (Br.)
at 11.) Requester also argues that this was a criminal investigation because BII
Agent read him his Miranda rights5 and “threatened to file criminal charges” if the

       3
          “[A] reviewing court, in its appellate jurisdiction, independently reviews the OOR’s
orders and may substitute its own findings of fact for that of the agency,” and “[is] entitled to the
broadest scope of review.” Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs., 990 A.2d 813, 818, 820 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2010), aff’d, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013).
        4
          The Rule provides, in pertinent part:

       In all court cases, on request by the defendant, and subject to any protective order
       which the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall
       disclose to the defendant’s attorney all of the following requested items or
       information, provided they are material to the instant case. The Commonwealth
       shall, when applicable, permit the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy or
       photograph such items.

               (a) Any evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or
               to punishment, and is within the possession or control of the attorney for the
               Commonwealth.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(a).
      5
        Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

                                                 6
tests yielded positive results for controlled substances. (Id.) Requester further
argues that Director Barnacle’s declaration “is completely frivolous and without
merit,” (id. at 12), although he does not explain how, and “[i]f the Department . . .
is allowed to declare an exemption for a negative drug test result, correctional
officers will be allowed to declare all drug tests positive for no other reason than to
retaliate against an inmate.” (Id.) Requester maintains that he “would like to be
crystal clear that he is in no way interested in any investigative process, procedures,
or standard operating guidelines.” (Id.) Requester’s “only interest is the drug test
result that proves he is not guilty of possession and distribution of a controlled
substance as well as the return of his legal documents and Muslim study guide.” 6
(Id. at 12 (emphasis in original).) Requester further argues that disclosure is
necessary to further the purpose of the RTKL.
       The Department primarily reasserts its arguments presented before the OOR,
that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under the noncriminal
investigation exception of the RTKL. (Department’s Br. at 10.) Pursuant to its
regulations, the Department asserts that it “has created several policies to instruct
staff, inmates, and outsiders on prison rules, guidelines, security, etc.” and that the
requested records “pertain[] to the results of drug testing conducted on various
confiscated items, performed as part of a BII investigation.”                   (Id. at 11-12.)
According to the Department, the requested records are “maintained by the
Department in connection with its official law enforcement function of supervising

       6
         We note that Requester’s interest in obtaining the requested records is irrelevant to this
RTKL appeal. See Hunsicker v. Pa. State Police, 93 A.3d 911, 913 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). See also
Sections 301 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.301 (providing “[a] Commonwealth agency may not deny
a requester access to a public record due to the intended use of the public record by the requester
unless otherwise provided by law”), and Section 703(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.703(b)
(providing “[a] written request need not include any explanation of the requester’s reason for
requesting or intended use of the records unless otherwise required by law”).

                                                7
the incarceration of inmates in a safe and secure manner,” and as explained in
Director Barnacle’s declaration, “BII investigations often lead to noncriminal
actions by the Department.” (Id. at 13.) The Department further argues that
Requester’s own evidence, namely the misconduct issued against him, demonstrates
that the test results were used as part of a noncriminal investigation. (Id.)
      The Department also asserts that disclosure of the requested records would
jeopardize the safety of inmates, staff, and others within the prison system, thus
hindering a “clear function” of the Department – the maintenance of a safe
environment. (Id.) The Department claims it would be unable to effectively utilize
its policies because it would be unable to detect and address dangerous conditions
and behaviors within the Department as those adversely interested by an
investigation would be aware of its existence and likely subject those involved to
threats, manipulation, abuse, or other pressure to obtain a particular result. (Id.)
      The Department further asserts that Requester offers no competent evidence
to support his assertion that Director Barnacle’s averments in his declaration are
frivolous. (Id. at 12.) To the extent Requester argues the requested records will
show he is not guilty of any misconduct, the Department asserts that Requester’s
status and the reason for the request are irrelevant to whether the records are
accessible under the RTKL. (Id. at 14.) Finally, the Department contends Requester
did not assert the argument about the test results being exculpatory evidence under
Rule 573 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure before the OOR and
therefore that argument is waived. (Id. at 14 n.1.)

                                           8
III.   DISCUSSION
       Under the RTKL, Commonwealth agencies are required to “provide public
records” to requesters “in accordance with [the RTKL].” Section 301(a) of the
RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.301(a). The term “public record” is defined as:

       [a] record, including a financial record, of a Commonwealth . . . agency
       that: (1) is not exempt under [S]ection 708; (2) is not exempt from
       being disclosed under any other Federal or State law or regulation or
       judicial order or decree; or (3) is not protected by a privilege.

Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102. Records possessed by a Commonwealth
agency are presumed to be public records, but this “presumption shall not apply if:
(1) the record is exempt under [S]ection 708; (2) the record is protected by a
privilege; or (3) the record is exempt from disclosure 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). The Commonwealth agency has the burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the record is exempt from public access. 65 P.S.
§ 67.708(a)(1). In this case, the Department bears the burden of proving that the
requested records are not public records disclosable under the RTKL because the
records are exempt as a record of noncriminal investigation under Section
708(b)(17) of the RTKL.
       The noncriminal investigation exemption of the RTKL, 65 P.S.
§ 67.708(b)(17), exempts from public disclosure,

       (i) Complaints submitted to an agency.

       (ii) Investigative materials, notes, correspondence[,] and reports.

       ....

       (vi) A record that, if disclosed, would do any of the following:

                                           9
             (A) Reveal the institution, progress or result of an agency
             investigation, . . . .

65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17)(i)-(ii), and (vi)(A). This Court has determined that the term
“investigation” means “a systematic or searching inquiry, a detailed examination, or
an official probe.” Dep’t of Health v. Off. of Open Recs., 4 A.3d 803, 811 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2010). For this exemption to apply, an agency’s inquiry, examination, or
official probe must be conducted as “part of the agency’s official duties.” Id. at 814.
“As such, in order for an agency to conduct any type of investigation, the
investigation would necessarily be a part of the agency’s official duties.” Id.
      Based upon the evidence presented, the OOR did not err in concluding the
Department satisfied its burden in establishing the test results were exempt from
public disclosure under the noncriminal investigation exemption. As the OOR
noted, Requester’s own documentation submitted in support of his appeal, supports
this conclusion. The evidence establishes that on July 16, 2020, Requester received
a Class I Misconduct for possession or use of a dangerous or controlled substance.
(C.R. Ex. 1 at 6.) The Misconduct Report provides that, based on information
received by a confidential informant, Requester was in possession of and distributing
K2 Synthetic cannabinoids, and correctional officers performed an investigative
search of Requester’s cell. (Id.) During the search, the correctional officers
confiscated a binder of legal material from Requester, which “tested positive with
the ion scan for Carfentanyl/F5-MDMB-PICA (K2).” (Id.) Additional field testing
was performed on the item “with the NARK II Synthetic Cannabinoids test kit Lot
#201710002 that produced a positive result.” (Id.) Thus, the Misconduct Report
establishes that the testing performed on various items confiscated from Requester’s
cell, and the testing results, relate to the investigation into Requester’s alleged

                                          10
violation of Department rules and regulations, namely possession or use of a
dangerous or controlled substance.
      Department regulations provide “[i]t is the goal of the Department to operate
its institutions and programs to provide protection to the community, a safe and
humane environment and opportunities for rehabilitation for the inmates.” 37 Pa.
Code § 91.2. To effectuate the goal of the Department, it has many policies
governing the operation and treatment of inmates. Relevant to this case is DC-ADM
801, which provides, in relevant part, “[e]very inmate under the jurisdiction of the
Department is expected to follow Department rules and regulations. If an inmate
violates Department rules and regulations, the violation shall be reported and
disposed of either by an informal or formal process.[]” DC-ADM 801, Section
1(A)(1) (footnote omitted).7 In short, the requested records relate to a Level I
Misconduct for possession or use of a dangerous or controlled substance issued
against Requester pursuant to DC-ADM 801, which was issued pursuant to an
internal, Department noncriminal investigation.
      Requester argues the noncriminal investigation exception does not apply
because the requested records relate to a criminal investigation. (Requester’s Br. at
12.) Because a record is exempt from disclosure under one exception does not mean
it cannot be exempt under another exemption. Furthermore, even if the record is
determined to be related to a criminal investigation, Requester would not prevail as
it would be protected by Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL.
      Requester also asserts that the requested records are exculpatory evidence
pursuant to Rule 573(B)(1)(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(1)(a). Even assuming this issue is not waived for failing to

      7
      Department Policy DC-ADM 801 can be found at https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/
Documents/DOC%20Policies /801%20Inmate%20Discipline.pdf (last visited April 17, 2023).

                                         11
assert it before the OOR, Rule 573(B)(1)(a) is inapplicable to this proceeding
because the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure “govern criminal
proceedings.” Rule 100(A) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Pa.R.Crim.P. 100(A).8
       Finally, Requester argues Director Barnacle’s affidavit is “completely
frivolous and without merit.” (Requester’s Br. at 12.) However, Requester fails to
offer any evidence to support his assertion, and the Court, upon its own review,
discerns no such evidence. Moreover, as discussed above, the evidence presented
by Requester alone is sufficient to find the test results are related to a noncriminal
investigation conducted by BII, which resulted in Requester receiving a misconduct
for violating Department policies and rules.

IV.    CONCLUSION
       Based on the foregoing reasons, the test results of the items confiscated from
Requester’s cell, which resulted in him being issued a misconduct for violating
Department policies and rules, are exempt from disclosure under the RTKL as
related to a noncriminal investigation performed by BII. Accordingly, the OOR’s
Final Determination is affirmed.

                                               __________________________________________
                                               RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

       8
          In a related argument, Requester argues that the Department should not be able to
withhold the drug test results because there is no way to confirm the results and it would be possible
for a correctional officer to retaliate against an inmate. (Requester’s Amended Br. at 11.) The
Court understands Requester’s argument and shares his concerns. While there may be
administrative processes to obtain the results, the RTKL is not the means to do so.

                                                 12
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANI

Stephen White,                            :
                        Petitioner        :
                                          :
                  v.                      :   No. 574 C.D. 2021
                                          :
Pennsylvania Department of                :
Corrections (Office of Open Records),     :
                         Respondent       :

                                     ORDER
      NOW, April 18, 2023, the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records,
entered in the above-captioned matter, is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                        __________________________________________
                                        RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge