Court Opinion

ID: 9892307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 14:11:08.936099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:40.020171
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Office of                       :
Attorney General,                            :
                  Petitioner                 :
                                             :
      v.                                     : No. 600 C.D. 2022
                                             :
Michael Mellon,                              :
                       Respondent            : Submitted: May 5, 2023

BEFORE:        HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
               HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
               HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE CEISLER                                                FILED: October 23, 2023

      The Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (OAG) petitions this Court
for review of the May 18, 2022 Final Determination of the OAG’s Appeals Officer,
which addressed a records request submitted by Michael Mellon, Esq. (Requester)
pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).1 In the Final Determination, the
OAG’s Appeals Officer affirmed in part and reversed in part an RTKL Officer’s
decision to withhold a portion of the records requested. Upon review, we affirm.

                                        I. Background
      Requester submitted a request pursuant to the RTKL on February 11, 2022,
seeking the following from the OAG:
      In electronic format: all investigation policies and procedures for the
      [OAG] Bureau of Narcotics Investigation [(BNI)], including but not
      limited to all policies and procedures that detail the handling of
      confidential informants, narcotics surveillance investigations, joint

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
       jurisdiction investigations, and all police paperwork samples used to
       create an investigative file.

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1a. In a reply dated February 18, 2022, the RTK
Officer notified Requester that it was invoking a 30-day extension to respond
pursuant to Section 902 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.902.2 R.R. at 2a.
       On March 21, 2022, the RTKL Officer granted the request in part and denied
it in part. Id. at 5a. In doing so, the RTKL Officer explained that some of the
requested records contained “information regarding the specific investigative
techniques and procedures that [BNI] agents use to carry out their duties in the
interest of public protection,” and were therefore “withheld in their entirety” under
Section 708(b)(2) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2).3                   Id.   Other records,
according to the RTKL Officer, included policies and procedures that “exist only in
draft form,” and were therefore exempt from disclosure in their entirety under the
RTKL’s exception for an agency’s “predecisional deliberations,” 65 P.S.
§ 67.708(b)(10)(i)(A).4 Id. at 5a. The RTKL Officer explained that all non-exempt

       2
          Under certain circumstances, Section 902 permits an agency to extend its five-day
response time to a right-to-know request by 30 days, with written notice to the requester. 65 P.S.
§ 67.902.

       3
        Section 708(b)(2) of the RTKL, commonly known as the public safety exception, exempts
from access:

       A record maintained by an agency in connection with the military, homeland
       security, national defense, law enforcement or other public safety activity that, if
       disclosed, would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety or
       preparedness or public protection activity or a record that is designated classified
       by an appropriate Federal or State military authority.

65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2).

       4
           Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) of the RTKL exempts from access:

(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                2
records requested would be provided after the payment of applicable fees. Id. at 6a.
The response did not specify the total amount of records responsive to the request,
or how many records were to be withheld.
       Unsatisfied with this result, Requester elected to challenge the RTK Officer’s
decision by filing an appeal with the OAG’s Appeals Officer on April 5, 2022. Id.
at 8a. While acknowledging that “any draft policies that may currently exist were
properly omitted from the response,” Requester argued that “the blanket denial to
the request for any substantive policies and procedures based on the public safety
exception, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2)[,] was incorrect.” Id. Such information, Requester
argued, “does not reveal any secrets or tactics regarding a narcotics surveillance or
any other type of investigation[,]” and noted that the Philadelphia Police Department
makes similar records available online in unredacted form.                 Id. at 21a, 23a.
Requester further argued that public access to such information is vitally important,
as it reveals to the public that the law enforcement agency “is directing its officers
to follow the current law or not . . . and [to] follow their own internal procedures.”
Id.
       The RTKL Officer responded in opposition to Requester’s appeal via a letter
brief on May 6, 2022. Therein, the RTKL Officer maintained that release of the
withheld records “would essentially provide the criminal element with a ‘how-to’

       The internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency, its members, employees or
       officials or predecisional deliberations between agency members, employees or
       officials and members, employees or officials of another agency, including
       predecisional deliberations relating to a budget recommendation, legislative
       proposal, legislative amendment, contemplated or proposed policy or course of
       action or any research, memos or other documents used in the predecisional
       deliberations.

65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(10)(i)(A).

                                              3
manual for the processes and procedures agents utilize to carry out their legislatively
mandated mission to enforce the Pennsylvania Controlled Substance, Drug, Device
and Cosmetic Act[5] and conduct comprehensive and covert investigations into major
drug trafficking networks and organizations.” Id. at 30a. The RTKL Officer
disputed that the records withheld were comparable to the Philadelphia Police
Department records discussed by Requester, explaining that OAG’s Criminal Law
Division “has a more targeted investigative approach,” often involving
“comprehensive and largely covert investigations into the illegal, clandestine
activities of drug traffickers throughout the Commonwealth.” Id. at 27a. Included
for the OAG’s Appeals Officer’s in camera review was a copy of the records
withheld, which were 560 pages in length, along with a privilege log that briefly
stated the basis for withholding them. Id. at 33a-39a.
      In addition, the RTK Officer submitted an unsworn affidavit by Mark A.
Serge, Esq., Chief Deputy Attorney General (CDAG) of the OAG’s Drug Strike
Force Section. Id. at 58a. The CDAG explained that the exempt records fell into
three categories, which he identified by the numbers that the OAG assigns to its
internal directives. Id. at 62a. They are as follows:
      •        Directives 400 through 415 set forth the “internal process and
      procedures” used by OAG agents and technical services personnel
      while using “the various tools of electronic surveillance,” such as pen
      registers, trap and trace devices, and devices used to conduct both
      consensual and non-consensual interceptions of communication. Id.
      The CDAG opined that dissemination of these directives “would
      provide the criminal element and targets of an investigation with a

      5
          Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 780-101 – 780-144.

                                               4
knowledge of those tools and equipment . . . and would allow them to
defeat the use of these tools,” thereby endangering law enforcement
officers and the general public. Id. at 62-63a.
•     Directives 505, 506, 510, 51 l, 512, 513, 516, 519, 524, 527, 528,
529, 53l, and 532 set forth the operations of OAG agents who conduct
undercover investigations of drug trafficking as well as other criminal
activity. Id. at 63a. The CDAG called particular attention to Directive
512, which governs “informant procedures,” and Directive 519, which
sets forth the procedure for so-called reverse-undercover operations.
Id. If such details are made publicly available, the CDAG argued, it
would enable investigation targets to know “what to look for” when
agents conduct covert operations, including how money is handled and
what fictitious information is used. Id. at 64a-65a. Other 500-level
directives set forth instructions regarding the amount of money used in
investigations, how such money is to be handled and transported, the
construction of evidence rooms, the level of security used therein, and
the conditions under which money, drugs, and other evidence is
handled and stored. Id. at 65a. According to the CDAG, the release of
such information to the public would permit drug offenders and other
criminals to “use this knowledge to their advantage in targeting agents
and/or offices where evidence and/or money is held,” thus placing
agents, OAG personnel, and the general public in danger. Id. at 65a.
The CDAG added that evidence rooms and other OAG facilities have
already been the target of multiple break-ins by criminals, some of
which resulted in the successful theft of evidence. Id.

                                   5
       •      Directives 800 through 805 govern the OAG’s use-of-force
       policies. Id. at 63a. According to the CDAG, the dissemination of such
       policies would “allow the criminal element to be better prepared to
       offset the use of force” and “to neutralize and/or outgun BNI agents as
       [they] carry out their duties.” Id. at 66a. The CDAG provides the
       example of Directive 801, which “specifically sets forth the types of
       firearms and ammunition that are authorized to be used by agents.” Id.
In the CDAG’s view, releasing the foregoing 36 directives to Requester would have
“an adverse effect on [OAG] agents’ ability to protect themselves,” their law
enforcement partners, individuals cooperating with law enforcement, and the public
generally. Id.
       The OAG’s Appeals Officer subsequently issued her Final Determination on
May 18, 2022,6 thereby granting Requester’s appeal in part and denying it in part.
Id. at 72a. The OAG’s Appeals Officer agreed with the OAG that “portions of the
responsive records that do identify specific equipment, locations, timing or
techniques should be withheld in part under the public safety exemption.” Id.
However, her in camera review of the responsive documents led the OAG’s Appeals
Officer to conclude that “many directives [could] be released with redactions to
protect specific information that is reasonably likely to harm or threaten the OAG
agents’ public safety activities.” Id. at 71a. Accordingly, the OAG’s Appeals
Officer compiled a list of specific redactions to be made, which would exempt from
release approximately 56 pages of materials. Id. “[A]ll other remaining sections

       6
         To allow for in camera review, Requester agreed to additional time for the Final
Determination’s issuance pursuant to Section 1101(b)(1) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101(b)(1)
(providing that an appeal’s officer final determination shall be mailed to the requester and the
Office of Open Records within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal, unless the requester agrees
otherwise). R.R. at 69a.

                                               6
and attachments” of the 36 directives were to be released to Requester. Id. In
response, the OAG appealed the Final Determination to this Court.7

                                          II. Issues
       On appeal, the OAG argues that it “has demonstrated by a preponderance of
the evidence that the disclosure of the requested documents [would] pose a threat to
public safety,” and that the OAG is thereby permitted to withhold the records from
release under the RTKL’s public safety exception. Accordingly, the OAG asks this
Court to reverse the OAG’s Appeals Officer’s Final Determination and to reinstate
the previous ruling by the RTKL Officer.

                                      III. Discussion
       Section 708(b)(2) of the RTKL, commonly known as the public safety
exception, exempts records from public access that are “maintained by an agency in
connection with the military, homeland security, national defense, law enforcement
or other public safety activity that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to
jeopardize or threaten public safety or preparedness or public protection activity
. . . ” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2). In order for an agency to withhold a record under the
public safety exception, the agency must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that (i) the record at issue relates to a law enforcement or public safety activity; and
(ii) “disclosure of the record would be ‘reasonably likely’ to threaten public safety
or a public protection activity.” Allegheny Cnty. Dist. Att’y’s Off. v. Wereschagin,
257 A.3d 1280, 1294 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). When an agency opposing disclosure
offers an affidavit, we consider whether the affidavit (i) includes detailed
information describing the nature of the records sought and (ii) connects the nature

       7
         “This Court exercises a de novo review of appeals officers’ decisions [under the RTKL]
pertaining to Commonwealth agencies.” Meguerian v. Off. of the Att’y Gen., 86 A.3d 924, 927
n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

                                              7
of the various records to the reasonable likelihood that disclosing them would
threaten public safety in the manner described, such that (iii) disclosure would
impair the agency’s ability to perform its public safety functions. Carey v. Pa. Dep’t
of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 376 (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.
      The question of whether a record or document is exempt from disclosure is a
factual one. Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs., 75 A.3d 453, 476 (Pa. 2013). Under the
RTKL, this Court serves as the ultimate finder of fact and is to conduct a full, de
novo review of an appeal from a decision by a RTKL appeals officer. Id. at 474.
However, the RTKL also permits this Court to adopt the factual findings and legal
conclusions of an appeals officer when appropriate. Id.
      On appeal to this Court, the OAG maintains that disclosure of the
aforementioned documents “would implicate public safety,” as confirmed by the
CDAG’s affidavit. OAG’s Br. at 18. The OAG maintains that the affidavit “contains
the necessary facts to support the OAG’s position pursuant to the legal standard set
forth by this Court.” Id. at 18-19. Furthermore, OAG argues, where the author of
an affidavit bases his or her conclusions on “extensive criminal law enforcement
experience, this should ordinarily be sufficient to support the agency’s burden of
proof.” Id. at 18 (citing Adams v. Pa. State Police, 51 A.3d 322, 325 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2012)). Accordingly, the OAG concludes that the 36 directives in question should
remain withheld in their entirety. Id. at 19.

                                          8
       Based on our in camera review of the 560 pages8 of documents in question,
we conclude that they must be released in accordance with the OAG’s Appeals
Officer’s instructions. The 36 directives that the RTKL Officer withheld in their
entirety contain statements of general purpose, policy objectives, general discussions
of law enforcement practices with which the public is already familiar, and other
information that does not fall under any RTKL exception. In stark contrast to the
RTKL Officer’s overbroad approach, the redactions set forth in the OAG’s Appeals
Officer’s Final Determination precisely identify information exempt from release
under the public safety exception while carefully preserving the public’s right to
access any materials that are not exempt.9
       In its Brief to this Court, the OAG fails to provide any reason why the public
safety exception applies to those portions of the records ordered released by the
OAG’s Appeals Officer. Indeed, the OAG’s arguments omit any discussion of the
OAG’s Appeals Officer’s careful redactions and appear to address only the dangers
of releasing all 36 directives in unredacted form. The CDAG’s affidavit, on which

       8
          After the OAG’s Appeals Officer issued her Final Determination, the OAG discovered
that a redacted copy of Directive 527, which comprises 30 pages of the records in question, was
previously released to another RTKL requester. OAG’s Brief at 9 n.6. Thus, the OAG has released
that document in its previously redacted form. See id., Exhibit 1. As the redactions in the released
version are considerably more extensive than the redactions ordered in the Final Determination,
however, Directive 527 still forms a part of this Court’s in camera examination.

       9
         For example, Directive 800 is the first in a series of directives that discuss the OAG’s
use-of-force policy. The CDAG argues that, if released, the 800-level directives would “allow the
criminal element to be better prepared to offset the use of force” and “to neutralize and/or outgun
BNI agents as [they] carry out their duties.” R.R. at 66a. However, Directive 800 contains several
pages of general information, such as definitions of widely known terms and a discussion of why
the use of force is sometimes necessary. The OAG’s Appeals Officer ruled that such information
could be released to the public, while a passage providing specific instructions to agents is
redacted. As discussed above, the OAG fails to explain why the OAG’s Appeals Officer’s
redaction is insufficiently tailored to protect information exempt from release under the public
safety exception.

                                                 9
the OAG relies exclusively for its factual assertions, was written before this case
even reached the OAG’s Appeals Officer; consequently, the affidavit, too, fails to
take into account the specific redactions outlined in the Final Determination.
      The OAG is correct that an affidavit based on “extensive experience in
investigations of crimes and criminal organizations” can meet an agency’s burden
of proof. Adams, 51 A.3d at 325. In this case, however extensive the CDAG’s law
enforcement experience may be, his averments fail to connect the records ordered
released by the OAG’s Appeals Officer “to the reasonable likelihood that disclosing
them would threaten public safety.” Carey, 61 A.3d at 376. Consequently, the OAG
has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the public safety
exception applies to those portions of the records ordered released by the OAG’s
Appeals Officer.

                                  IV. Conclusion
      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the OAG’s Appeals Officer’s Final
Determination.

                                         ____________________________
                                         ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

                                         10
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Office of               :
Attorney General,                    :
                  Petitioner         :
                                     :
      v.                             : No. 600 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Michael Mellon,                      :
                  Respondent         :

                                  ORDER

      AND NOW, this 23rd day of October, 2023, the order of the Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney General’s Appeals Officer in the above-captioned matter, dated
May 18, 2022, is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                       ____________________________
                                       ELLEN CEISLER, Judge