Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE MATTER OF :
:
JIM DEEGAN :
And The Express Times, :
Complainant :
: Docket No.: AP 2010-0148
v. :
:
WIND GAP BOROUGH, :
Respondent :
INTRODUCTION
request to Wind Gap Borough (the “Borough”) pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law, 65
P.S. §§67.101 et seq., (“RTKL”) seeking text messages sent or received on a Borough
phone. The Borough denied access to the text messages as they were not in the Borough’s
possession. The Requester timely appealed to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”). For
the reasons set forth in this Final Determination, the Requester’s appeal is granted and
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
“text messages sent to and from borough cell phones issued to police chief Craig
Armitage, for 2008 and 2009”. On February 8, 2010 the Borough open records officer,
Louise Firestone, granted a copy of the phone bill but withheld the phone numbers
1
themselves citing various exemptions under the RTKL. The Borough asserted that it did
not have a copy of the text messages, but stated that if it did they would also be exempt..
On February 18, 2010, Jim Deegan, on behalf of the Requester, appealed to the OOR
challenging the denial and asserting that the Borough could get the text messages from
March 2, 2010 the Borough solicitor, Ronold Karasek, Esquire provided the affidavit of
Louise Firestone stating as follows: “The bill that is received by the Borough for the
Police Chief’s cell phone does list numbers called, however, the cell phone bill does not
contain any text message content.” Affidavit, ¶ 2. She further stated that “the Borough
does not have in its possession the text messages (either issued from or sent to) the Police
2010, but it was not considered as it was submitted after the record closed.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The OOR is authorized to hear appeals for all Commonwealth and local agencies.
65 P.S. §67.503(a). The Borough qualifies as a local agency subject to the RTKL and its
obligations of mandatory disclosure. See 65 P.S. §67.102, §67.302. The RTKL defines a
required to provide public records that are in their custody, possession or control. The
Borough asserts that the text messages do not appear on the bill that the Borough receives
2
and therefore it does not have the record in its possession. However, the Borough has
constructive control of its phone bill and is required to retrieve a copy that includes text
messages, if one exists, from its cellular telephone provider. The Borough may redact
nonpublic information as permissible under the RTKL. If no phone record including text
messages is in the possession of the phone company the Borough is required to provide
an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury that the record does not exist in its custody,
possession, or control.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Requester’s Appeal is granted. The Borough is
required to retrieve a copy of the phone bill with text messages from the phone company,
if one exists. Otherwise, it is required to provide the Requester with an affidavit that the
record does not exist in its custody, possession or control. This Final Determination is
binding on the parties. Within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Final
Determination, either party may appeal to the Northampton County Court of Common
Pleas. 65 P.S. §67.1302(a). All parties must be served with notice of the appeal. The
OOR shall be served notice and have an opportunity to respond according to court rules
http://openrecords.state.pa.us.
_________________________
APPEALS OFFICER
AUDREY BUGLIONE, ESQ.