R. D. Weaver v. PA State Police (Opinion Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ronald D. Weaver, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania State Police, Respondent : : : : : : : No. 1561 C.D. 2007 Submitted: December 14, 2007 OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED: February 26, 2008 Ronald D. Weaver (Weaver), pro se, petitions the Court for its review of the July 19, 2007 order entered by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) denying Weaver's request under the statute commonly known as the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), Act of June 21, 1957, P.L. 390, as amended, 65 P.S. §§66.1 - 66.9, for copies of various police files and reports related to his felony charges in 1984.1 The question presented is whether Weaver is entitled to the requested documents under the RTKL and has a constitutional right to the documents containing information that led to Weaver's prosecution. 1 The Court's review of an agency decision is to determine whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Parsons v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 893 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 668, 916 A.2d 635 (2007). On June 4, 2007, Weaver, a state inmate at SCI-Somerset, filed three requests with the PSP for the following documents: Reports, notes, and statements concerning the interviews of Randy Mann, Jeffrey Egolf, Timothy Egolf, Jeffrey Funk and others from Mercersburg, PA conducted on October 22, 1984, by State Police Trooper Black concerning the charges lodged against Requester, along with copies of the subpoenas served to appear at the trial held on October 23, 1984, as witnesses for the Commonwealth at Criminal No 143 of 1984 in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. Logs, reports, and statements resulting from the telephone conversations between the State Police barracks at Chambersburg and Julie Daley and/or Gloria Benton on February 24, 1984, made from the requester's telephone at 122720 Pittman Road, Mercersburg, PA, and the same from the telephone conversations made to the State Police on March 2, 1984, from Requester's telephone while a burglary was in progress at the Requester's residence along with the times of the telephone calls. Statements taken, results and findings of Internal Affairs investigations concening Trooper Paul D. Weachter's concealing of information concerning the innocence of Requester. One investigation was conducted in 1990 and/or 1991 prior to Trooper Weachter being retired from the PA State Police. Trooper Weachter was listed as the arresting officer and as part of the prosecution of Requester in Criminal No 143 of 1984 in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 2 RTKL Request Forms, June 4, 2007. 2 The PSP notes that the Internal Affairs investigation report has been destroyed pursuant to the PSP Record Retention and Disposition protocols, which limit the retention of such reports to a ten-year period. Respondent's Brief, p. 6 n3. 2 By letter dated June 21, 2007, the PSP, through its RTKL Official denied the requests stating that the requested documents fell within the investigative exception to the general definition of "public record" under the RTKL. Weaver timely filed Exceptions and argued that he should have access to the documents for the following reasons: 1) the documents contain information the PSP used or withheld from Weaver and the jury; 2) the documents determined Weaver's personal and protected rights and therefore are not subject to the investigative exception; 3) the PSP ignored that the denial would affect Weaver's ability to protect his reputation interest; 4) Weaver has the right to protect his reputation under Sections 1 and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and has the right to receive adverse information in a criminal prosecution under Section 9; 5) if the RTKL is used to deny the requests, then it is in violation of the equal protection and due process rights under the United States Constitution; 6) Weaver requested specifically identified documents; 7) the documents do not reflect the predecisional internal deliberative process of the PSP; and 8) the documents are being withheld to cover up the criminal conduct of the PSP during the investigation and prosecution of Weaver in 1984. On July 19, 2007, the PSP s RTKL Exceptions Official issued a final determination affirming the denial. The Exceptions Official stated that the term "public record" under the RTKL does not include documents that would "disclose the institution, progress or result of an investigation undertaken by an agency." PSP Final Determination, p. 7, Conclusions of Law 4 - 5. The official concluded that the documents sought by Weaver would disclose "the initiation, progress, or result" of official PSP investigations. Id. at 7, Conclusion of Law 6. 3 Weaver argues that the documents he requested are public records because they are similar to police blotters, which he asserts are a chronological compilation of original records regarding information related to investigations, and that they are the equivalent of incident reports and therefore discoverable under the RTKL. He states that police blotters and incident reports are not considered to be investigative information. He cites, among other cases, Tapco, Inc. v. Township of Neville, 695 A.2d 460 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (stating that information related to police investigations are outside the definition of public record under the RTKL). The PSP disputes that the requested documents are similar to police blotters or incident reports, and it states that the documents sought pertain to PSP criminal and internal disciplinary investigations closed years ago. The PSP found that "any documents, reports, or witness statements pertaining to Weaver's criminal case would disclose the initiation, progress, or result" of official PSP investigations. PSP Final Determination, p. 5. The PSP concluded that the objectively investigative nature of the documents in addition to Weaver's repeated description of them as "investigation reports" in his petition for review were sufficient to find that the documents fell within the investigative exception. The RTKL defines a public record as "any minute, order or decision by an agency fixing the personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations of any person or group of persons[.]" 65 P.S. §66.1. The RTKL also provides that: the term "public records" shall not mean any report, communication or other paper, the publication of which would disclose the institution, progress or result of an investigation undertaken by an agency in the performance of its official duties[.] Id. 4 The PSP is correct in concluding that the requested documents fall within the investigative exception under the RTKL. Weaver's argument fails because reports, statements and notes of witness interviews, telephone conversations and Internal Affairs investigation are, unlike police blotters or incident reports, records of official investigations that are outside the definition of public record. Commonwealth v. Mines, 680 A.2d 1227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (holding that documents such as police statements, affidavits, reports and photographs are not public records). Further, the exclusion applies to records related to completed investigations. Id.3 Weaver nonetheless argues that the investigative exception does not apply because the requested documents were used to convict him and therefore represented decisional documents in fixing his personal rights. This argument is irrelevant, however, because the investigative exception would still protect the documents from disclosure regardless of whether they satisfied the general definition of a public record. In Pastore v. Insurance Department, 558 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989), the Court rejected the argument that the RTKL should be interpreted to allow inspection of investigative information when it affects personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations. It reasoned that such an interpretation erroneously conflates "the terms of the definition of public records with the terms of the investigations exception to that definition." Id. at 912 (emphasis in original). Moreover, in Amro v. Office of Attorney General, Bureau 3 The public policy considerations underlying the investigative exception are well known and further discussion here is not warranted. For discussion, see Barton v. Penco, 436 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. 1981). 5 of Narcotics Investigation & Drug Control, 783 A.2d 897 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), the Court held that the documents requested in the criminal file there fell within the investigative exception and were not subject to disclosure even assuming that the petitioner's criminal file meets the definition of a public record. That reasoning applies here. Also, Amro lends no support for Weaver's argument under Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution4 in that the Court held that Section 9 applies to criminal proceedings only, and further the petitioner had not alleged that the criminal investigation resulted in a criminal prosecution or that one was about to commence against him. While Weaver may have alleged that the documents related to a criminal prosecution against him, the PSP nevertheless established that they were not subject to disclosure under the investigative exception. The PSP noted that Weaver may obtain the records in post-conviction proceedings in a court of common pleas. Lastly, Weaver's remaining arguments regarding violation of Sections 1 and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution are waived because he failed to provide any legal support in his brief. Amro. The PSP applied the law correctly, and the Court therefore must affirm the PSP's order denying Weaver's request under the RTKL. 4 Article 1, Section 9 provides, in part: In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.] 6 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ronald D. Weaver, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania State Police, Respondent PER CURIAM : : : : : : : No. 1561 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2008, the order of the Pennsylvania State Police is hereby affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
