Mixed News on PA Video Production

pawel czerwinski 713956 unsplash - Mixed News on PA Video Production

Breaking news every day recently has focused on journalist Jamal Khashoggi. A video camera showed him walking into the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul. No video shows him leaving the consulate. This is strong circumstantial evidence that he never left alive. Back home, video can be even more significant by showing directly what happened in an incident. Recent Pennsylvania law has had mixed news on requiring production of videos.

The basic idea of PA law is that records, including videos, are discoverable under the Right to Know Law (RTKL) unless they fall under any of thirty exceptions or exemptions. Litigation involves the exceptions.

The best news is in Easton Area School District v. Miller, 191 A.3d 75 (Pa. Cmwlth., July 20, 2018). A teacher allegedly grabbed a child on a school bus and slammed him down in a seat. A request was made for video from the security camera on the bus. The Commonwealth Court held that the video was not exempt from disclosure under the RTKL. The two exemptions raised unsuccessfully to try to prevent disclosure were that disclosure would cause the loss of federal funding, and disclosure was prohibited as information regarding employee discipline in the teacher’s personnel file. However, the Court noted that the noncriminal investigative record exemption was not raised in this case.

Bad news is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal in Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Towne, 174 A.3d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 2017). In Towne, the Commonwealth Court held that the noncriminal investigative record exemption prohibited release of multiple videos of a bus involved in an accident. Towne was discussed in a prior blog.

Also bad news is California Borough v. Rothey, 185 A.3d 456 (Pa. Cmwlth., April 25, 2018). A police officer grabbed a person in a holding cell by the throat and slammed him onto a bench. The video showing this incident was viewed by the police chief, who fired the police officer and filed criminal charges against him. The Commonwealth Court held that the video was exempt from disclosure under both the criminal and noncriminal investigation exceptions of the RTKL. The Court also held that the video was exempt from disclosure under the Criminal History Record Information Act as investigative information. However, the Court held that the video was not exempt from disclosure under the public safety, physical security or personal security exceptions.

The moral is always to consider whether a video might have recorded some part of the incident in your case. If it did, try to obtain it. Locks Law Firm has experience in obtaining many types of surveillance videos in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (though not yet in Turkey). We stand ready to help you.

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.

Recent Entries


Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.