PSP v. OOR

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

PSP v. OOR

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

Docket595 MAL 2015 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of PSP v. OOR (PSP v. OOR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

PSP v. OOR, (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA M.D. Appeal Dkt. 25 MAP 2016 MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, : No. 595 MAL 2015 : Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court v. : : : MICHELLE GROVE, : : Respondent :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Is a video, created as a result of a Pennsylvania State Trooper initiating a criminal investigation, exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(16) of the Right-to-Know Law? (2) Is a video, created as a result of a Pennsylvania State Trooper initiating a criminal investigation, exempt from disclosure under the Criminal History Records Information Act? (3) Is a video depicting troopers at a crash scene in which citations were issued “speaking with the operators of the vehicles,” “observing the crash scene and the damage to the vehicles,” and “directing the operator of the truck involved in the accident to move his vehicle to a safer area,” considered investigative materials pursuant to Section 708(b)(16) of the Right-to-Know Law? (4) Is a video depicting troopers at a crash scene in which citations were issued “speaking with the operators of the vehicles,” “observing the crash scene and the damage to the vehicles,” and “directing the operator of the truck involved in the accident to move his vehicle to a safer area,” considered investigative information pursuant to the Criminal History Records Information Act? (5) Do provisions of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act apply to the audio component of mobile vehicle recordings? (6) Should this case be remanded for further factual findings to determine whether modifying a mobile vehicle recording, as required by the Commonwealth Court, essentially creates a record in violation of Section 705 of the Right-to-Know Law?

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

[595 MAL 2015] - 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA M.D. Appeal Dkt. 25 MAP 2016 MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, : No. 595 MAL 2015 : Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court v. : : : MICHELLE GROVE, : : Respondent :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Is a video, created as a result of a Pennsylvania State Trooper initiating a criminal investigation, exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(16) of the Right-to-Know Law? (2) Is a video, created as a result of a Pennsylvania State Trooper initiating a criminal investigation, exempt from disclosure under the Criminal History Records Information Act? (3) Is a video depicting troopers at a crash scene in which citations were issued “speaking with the operators of the vehicles,” “observing the crash scene and the damage to the vehicles,” and “directing the operator of the truck involved in the accident to move his vehicle to a safer area,” considered investigative materials pursuant to Section 708(b)(16) of the Right-to-Know Law? (4) Is a video depicting troopers at a crash scene in which citations were issued “speaking with the operators of the vehicles,” “observing the crash scene and the damage to the vehicles,” and “directing the operator of the truck involved in the accident to move his vehicle to a safer area,” considered investigative information pursuant to the Criminal History Records Information Act? (5) Do provisions of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act apply to the audio component of mobile vehicle recordings? (6) Should this case be remanded for further factual findings to determine whether modifying a mobile vehicle recording, as required by the Commonwealth Court, essentially creates a record in violation of Section 705 of the Right-to-Know Law?

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

[595 MAL 2015] - 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

PSP v. OOR, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/psp-v-oor-pa-2016.