Requester brief in Pennsylvania

2026In Capinski v. Upper Pottstown Township, 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), this Court established that, with respect to RTKL requests made to local agencies, “mandamus is the action to file where the requester ha[s] not appealed the final determination to a court for a merits review and seeks compliance with a final determination of [OOR].”8 164 A.3d at 609 .

2026In Capinski v. Upper Pottstown Township, 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), this Court established that, with respect to RTKL requests made to local agencies, “mandamus is the action to file where the requester ha[s] not appealed the final determination to a court for a merits review and seeks compliance with a final determination of [OOR].”8 164 A.3d at 609 .

2025Servs. v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, Inc., 154 A.3d 431 , 435 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). 3 U.S. CONST. amend.

2025Commonwealth 10 v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009); Berner v. Montour Township, 120 A.3d 433 , 437 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).

2024“Generally, a requester’s due process rights are not violated when [the] OOR does not allow a requester to challenge or respond to submissions of direct interest participants.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Nguyen Vu v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 200 A.3d 627 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

2023DISCUSSION Initially, the Court observes Requester’s brief mainly asserts public policy reasons he believes favor the broad disclosure of the requested records without any redaction, primarily asserting the SOG should not be allowed to operate in secret.22 (See, e.g., Requester’s Br. at 42-44.) Requester seeks to have this Court review this matter “anew” and “create a new rule of law requiring full disclosure under [the] RTLK [sic] of all records and policies that are in any way related to police force capabilities, tactics and the policies that allow for force to be used based on executive, r

2023DISCUSSION Initially, the Court observes Requester’s brief mainly asserts public policy reasons he believes favor the broad disclosure of the requested records without any redaction, primarily asserting the SOG should not be allowed to operate in secret.22 (See, e.g., Requester’s Br. at 42-44.) Requester seeks to have this Court review this matter “anew” and “create a new rule of law requiring full disclosure under [the] RTLK [sic] of all records and policies that are in any way related to police force capabilities, tactics and the policies that allow for force to be used based on executive, r

2019The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that "a party seeking recusal or disqualification [is required] to raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the consequence of being time[-]barred." In re Lokuta , 608 Pa. 223 , 11 A.3d 427 , 437 (2011) (quoting Goodheart v. Casey , 523 Pa. 188 , 565 A.2d 757 , 763 (1989) ). 15 Accordingly, Requester's claim is waived.

2019The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that "a party seeking recusal or disqualification [is required] to raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the consequence of being time[-]barred." In re Lokuta , 608 Pa. 223 , 11 A.3d 427 , 437 (2011) (quoting Goodheart v. Casey , 523 Pa. 188 , 565 A.2d 757 , 763 (1989) ). 15 Accordingly, Requester's claim is waived.

2019The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that "a party seeking recusal or disqualification [is required] to raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the consequence of being time[-]barred." In re Lokuta , 608 Pa. 223 , 11 A.3d 427 , 437 (2011) (quoting Goodheart v. Casey , 523 Pa. 188 , 565 A.2d 757 , 763 (1989) ). 15 Accordingly, Requester's claim is waived.

2019The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that "a party seeking recusal or disqualification [is required] to raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or that party will suffer the consequence of being time[-]barred." In re Lokuta , 608 Pa. 223 , 11 A.3d 427 , 437 (2011) (quoting Goodheart v. Casey , 523 Pa. 188 , 565 A.2d 757 , 763 (1989) ). 15 Accordingly, Requester's claim is waived.

2018With respect to Requester's claim that Section 61.2 of the Board's regulations violates the Due Process Clause, we note "due process does not require a[n evidentiary] hearing because the right to information provided by the RTKL does not involve a property right because access to public records is a 'privilege' granted by the General Assembly." Prison Legal News v. Office of Open Records , 992 A.2d 942 , 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (footnote omitted).

2017His brief to this Court contains the following “Disclaimer,” which explains: INVOKING ALL OF THE ABOVE IT IS NOT AND WAS NOT THIS [REQUESTER]’S INTENTION OR AIM TO APPEAL THE FINDINGS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CCORRECTIONS [sic] RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW OFFICE OR THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS STATING THAT THE WRITTEN JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE ORDER IS NOT IN THEIR POSSESSION[.] IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIS 3 Citing to Commonwealth v. Upshur, 924 A.2d 642 (Pa. 2007), the OOR also noted that the requested records, if they exist, could be requested from the issuing court under the common law righ

2017The order at issue in Brenan demonstrates the rationale for why the rules *1137 utilized for conducting discovery in litigation and resulting judicial orders regarding discovery do not inherently preclude a party to litigation from utilizing the RTKL; the order denying the plaintiffs motion to compel supplemental discovery was premised solely upon the untimeliness of the plaintiffs request and the plaintiffs lack of supporting authority to treat the request as timely. 52 A.3d at 456 ; see also Fed R.