23 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Woods v. OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDSgreen2 sentences2013In Woods v. Office of Open Records, 998 A.2d 665 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010), this Court affirmed the OOR determination holding the “Supervision Strategies” part of a sex offender supervision manual exempt under the Public Safety exception. 2013In Woods v. Office of Open Records, 998 A.2d 665 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010), this Court affirmed the OOR determination holding the “Supervision Strategies” part of a sex offender supervision manual exempt under the Public Safety exception. | 2 | 4 |
New York v. Quarlesgreen2 sentences2019The Commonwealth argues that, because Trooper Schonbachler was investigating an accident, the public safety exception to Miranda applies in these circumstances, citing New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). 2004Ultimately, I believe that we need not determine how the case would fit within the classic Miranda paradigm because, for the reasons well-expressed by the lead opinion, the question of the admissibility of appellant's statement is controlled by the public safety exception to Miranda which was established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). | 2 | 4 |
Borough of Pottstown v. S. Suber-Apontegreen2 sentences2025The Department declined to do so. 5 The issues Petitioners6 raise on appeal can be paraphrased as follows: (1) whether the Department met its burden with respect to the RTKL’s public safety exception; and (2) even if the public safety exception applies, whether portions of the Policy that implicate public safety should be redacted, rather than the entire Policy being withheld.7 We begin by noting that records in the possession of an agency are presumed public under the RTKL “unless they are: (1) exempt under Section 708 . . . ; (2) protected by privilege; or (3) exempt under any other [f]edera 2025With respect to the public safety exception, “an agency must show: (1) the record at issue relates to a law enforcement or public safety activity; and (2) disclosure of the record would be reasonably likely to threaten public safety or a public protection activity.” Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d at 184 (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Stricklergreen2 sentences2024The Livingstone Court explained that “for a seizure to be justified under the public servant exception,” [(1)] the officer must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which would reasonably suggest to an ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. 2000). -6- J-S06022-24 experienced officer that assistance was needed; [(2)] the police action must be independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence; and, [(3)] based on a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the action taken by 2024The Livingstone Court explained that “for a seizure to be justified under the public servant exception,” [(1)] the officer must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which would reasonably suggest to an ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. 2000). -6- J-S06022-24 experienced officer that assistance was needed; [(2)] the police action must be independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence; and, [(3)] based on a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the action taken by | 2 | 2 |
State v. Acreygreen2 sentences2018See State v. Acrey, 148 Wash.2d 738 , 64 P.3d 594, 600 (2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety). 2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr | 2 | 2 |
Carey v. Pennsylvania Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2023A substantial and demonstrable risk is one that is “‘actual or real and apparent.’” Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173, 180 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Carey, 61 A.3d at 373 ) (emphasis omitted). 30 Petitioners rely on the affidavits and verified statement to argue they established the applicability of both the public safety exception and the public utility infrastructure security exception, but the OOR found this evidence to be insufficient. 2018To establish the public safety exception, the agency must show that (1) the record at issue relates to a law enforcement or public safety activity and that (2) disclosure of the record would be reasonably likely to threaten public safety or a public protection activity. 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2); Department of Labor and Industry v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823, 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (en banc); Carey, 61 A.3d at 374 - 75. | 1 | 6 |
Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2021Bd. of Rev., 827 A.2d 422 , 427- 28 (Pa. 2003) (rejecting a public safety exception to the willful misconduct standard based on a teacher’s inadvertent act of bringing unloaded guns onto school property in violation of the school’s weapons policy). 2016Id. at 1015 ; see also Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 427 (Pa. 2003) (declining to graft a public safety exception upon the good cause analysis required under Section 402(e) of the Law); Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law). | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2018See Quarles, 467 U.S. at 655-57 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ; Stewart, 740 A.2d at 719 - 20. 2004See Quarles, 467 U.S. at 655-57 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 ; Stewart, 740 A.2d at 719-20 . | 1 | 3 |
Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Boardgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 1015 ; see also Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 427 (Pa. 2003) (declining to graft a public safety exception upon the good cause analysis required under Section 402(e) of the Law); Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law). 2007Bd. of Review, 567 Pa. 298 , 787 A.2d 284 (2001) (holding that the Unemployment Compensation Act sets forth a single governing standard of willful misconduct and rejecting idea that a higher standard may apply based upon the type or nature of *35 the employment involved) and Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 573 Pa. 594 , 827 A.2d 422 (2003) (reiterating that the Unemployment Compensation Act sets forth a single standard regarding willful misconduct and declining to adopt a heightened standard as a public safety exception to the willful misconduct standard). | 1 | 2 |
Com. v. Gindraw, S.green2 sentences2023Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 626-627; see also Gindraw, 297 A.3d at 851. 2023Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 626-627; see also Gindraw, 297 A.3d at 851 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnston v. Township of Plumcreekgreen1 sentence2018“The fact that [landowners] do not agree with the public safety analysis of their elected officials who enacted the [o]rdinances does not mean that the [o]rdinances are irrational.” Johnston v. Twp. of Plumcreek, 859 A.2d 7, 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Acreygreen1 sentence2018See State v. Acrey, 148 Wash.2d 738 , 64 P.3d 594, 600 (2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzelgreen1 sentence2018To establish the public safety exception, the agency must show that (1) the record at issue relates to a law enforcement or public safety activity and that (2) disclosure of the record would be reasonably likely to threaten public safety or a public protection activity. 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2); Department of Labor and Industry v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823, 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (en banc); Carey, 61 A.3d at 374 - 75. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Jeffrey Dana Kurthgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ryongreen1 sentence2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cady v. Dombrowski
green
2 sentences2018Our Supreme Court recently expounded upon the community caretaker doctrine 3 in Commonwealth v. Livingstone , 174 A.3d 609 , 634 (Pa. 2017), addressing for the first time "the public service or the emergency aid exceptions under the community caretaking doctrine." 4 , 5 Noting *633 that the United States Supreme Court first recognized a community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement in Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that the doctrine encompassed three specific exceptions: 1) the emergency aid except 2018Our Supreme Court recently expounded upon the community caretaker doctrine 3 in Commonwealth v. Livingstone , 174 A.3d 609 , 634 (Pa. 2017), addressing for the first time "the public service or the emergency aid exceptions under the community caretaking doctrine." 4 , 5 Noting *633 that the United States Supreme Court first recognized a community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement in Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that the doctrine encompassed three specific exceptions: 1) the emergency aid except | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Delaware County v. Schaefer Ex Rel. Philadelphia Inquirer
green
1 sentence2020Inquirer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).1 This means, in the context of the current invocation of the public safety exception, the PSP is charged with proving that it is more likely than not the policy’s disclosure would be reasonably likely to jeopardize public safety or preparedness. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sharp v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2018Thus, even if it is determined that “the supervisors might have made a better choice … the choice was theirs to make and the remedy for any such error is not with the courts, but rather the ballot box.” Sharp v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Twp. of Radnor, 628 A.2d 1223 , 1229 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Bowers
green
1 sentence2018Both the Commonwealth and the trial court cite New York v. Quarles, 104 S.Ct. 2626 (1984) and Commonwealth v. Bowers, 583 A.2d 1165 (Pa. Super. 1990) in support of their analysis. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Department of Corrections v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 1015 ; see also Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 427 (Pa. 2003) (declining to graft a public safety exception upon the good cause analysis required under Section 402(e) of the Law); Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Adams v. Pennsylvania State Police
green
1 sentence2016To establish the public safety exception, DOC must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disclosure of the records “would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety or preparedness or public protection activity ....” 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(2); Carey, 61 A.3d at 374 ; Adams v. Pa. State Police, 51 A.3d 322 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Scolforo
green
2 sentences2013Requester filed a petition for review with this Court. 3 Requester asserts he did not seek records that qualify for exemption from disclosure given this Court’s precedent in Pennsylvania State Troopers Association v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011), which provides that any perceived threat is removed by redacting the records. 2013Requester filed a petition for review with this Court. 3 Requester asserts he did not seek records that qualify for exemption from disclosure given this Court’s precedent in Pennsylvania State Troopers Association v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011), which provides that any perceived threat is removed by redacting the records. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United Refining Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2003The Commonwealth Court has carved out this public safety exception “based on a case by case analysis, to the general rule that inadvertence is a defense to an employee’s violation of an employer’s work rule.” United Refining Company, 661 A.2d at 523 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.