Department of Transportation v. Office of Open Records
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 2259, C.D. 2009
November 1, 2010
The Commonwealth Court ruled that safety studies and information used in preparing those studies is exempt from public access under Pennsylvania law, but the Right to Know Law requires the Department of Transportation to provide access to sight distance measurements and traffic studies that are not used in safety studies.
Background
John Aris submitted a Right to Know Law request to the Department of Transportation seeking accident reports, traffic studies, and complaints for a specific intersection.
The department denied Aris access to the accident reports and traffic studies because the state Vehicle Code bars public access to those records. Aris appealed to the Office of Open Records, which held that the department should have turned over the records.
The department appealed that decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court Decision
The Commonwealth Court first ruled that it could review an affidavit that the department submitted to the OOR as part of the appeal. As the court explained, in making a decision on an appeal, it must be able to review the same evidence that was presented to the OOR.
The court then held that the state Vehicle Code provides a “narrow but absolute privilege” for safety studies and information used to prepare safety studies.
The court said that “in enacting this privilege the Legislature exhibited a strong intention that in-depth accident reports, safety studies, and their constituent materials remain confidential.”
In this case, however, the department’s affidavit established only that traffic studies and sight distance measurements are generally used in preparing safety studies; it did not say that the specific traffic studies and sight distance measurements requested by Aris were used in any safety study.
As a result, the court held that the department failed to carry its burden of showing that the requested records are privileged under the Vehicle Code, and Aris should have been given access to the records.
November 1, 2010 — Commonwealth Court Opinion — No. 2259, C.D. 2009