The Supreme Court's ruling upholds decisions by Commonwealth Court and the state Office of Open Records that granted a Centre County woman's request for state police dashboard video camera recordings of a vehicle crash in which her friend was involved.
He said right now a person can file a right-to-know request, but can be denied.
In the Supreme Court majority's opinion, Justice Kevin Dougherty rejected arguments by the state police that dashboard video recordings are criminal investigative records, which are exempt from release under the Right-to-Know Law and barred from release under the state's Criminal History Information and Records Act.
Attorney Joel Ready with Cornerstone Law Firm in Kutztown said the court's decision doesn't change the law, but establishes dashcam videos can't be withheld by the police.
The move has been hailed as significant by public record watchdogs as significant.
The victory, however, may be short-lived.
South Korea confirms drone discovered in June was from North Korea
But South Koreans' enthusiasm for nuclear energy quickly waned following the 2011 Fukushima meltdowns in its neighbor Japan. I believe it is quite clear that they have a heavy responsibility in the process that led to Mr.
Before the ruling, police agencies in Pennsylvania routinely deemed the recordings to be exempt from the public records law. The bill has passed the Senate and House with minor differences and Sen.
Greenleaf said he expects SB 560 to be put to a vote next week, according to the AP. Governor Wolf supports that bill. The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed it, saying it goes against the goal of having such cameras. One driver was cited for not wearing a seatbelt and the other for failing to yield.
That's because the high court's ruling hinges on the fact that the videos were created in the normal course of the troopers carrying out their duties, not because they were investigating a crime.
"PSP simply does not explain how the video portion of the [motor vehicle recordings] captured any criminal investigation", Dougherty wrote.
In her dissent, Justice Sallie Mundy said the video without the sound could still provide investigative information, such as "a witness's demeanor, physical condition, and gestures, which give context to the statements provided". While the case only pertained to dashcam footage, the ruling also granted access to other forms of police footage, such as body cameras. Police must prove that the video meets criteria for exemption.
Comments