Jones v. Office of Open Records
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 751, C.D. 2009
March 31, 2010
The Commonwealth Court held that the Right to Know Law does not supersede state regulations in place when the General Assembly passed the RTKL.
Background
Eric Jones, a state prison inmate, submitted a Right to Know Law request to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole seeking a judge’s recommendations that were used in the board’s denials of Jones’ requests for parole.
The board denied the request, stating the recommendations are “private and confidential” under board regulations.
Jones appealed to the Office of Open Records, which affirmed the board’s decision. Jones appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court Decision
The RTKL states that the presumption of public access does not apply to records that are exempt from disclosure “under any . . . regulation.”
The RTKL also provides that it does not “supersede or modify the public or nonpublic nature of a record or document established” by existing “regulation.”
The court noted that a board regulation states that any records related to “a probationer or parolee,” including evaluations and opinions, are “private, confidential and privileged.”
Here, the court determined that the records Jones requested were covered by the law, even though he was never granted parole.
The court stated, “for the purposes of weighing the confidentiality of documents, we discern no basis to differentiate the records of one who receives parole from one who does not.”
As a result, the court concluded that the department had correctly denied Jones’ request.