Amended final determination in the matter of jennifer sangrey, Requester
Download 15.88 Kb.Pdf просмотр
- Навигация по данной странице:
- AMENDED FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: June 8, 2018
AMENDED FINAL DETERMINATION
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF YORK,
Docket No: AP 2018-0850
On May 2, 2018, Jennifer Sangrey (“Requester”) filed a request (“Request”) with the City
of York (“City”) pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., seeking:
Video footage of S. Hartly Street (and West King Street) on 3/30/2018, between
5:38pm - 5:50 pm. Looking to see occupant abandon car that was involved in a
high speed chase that is being blamed on a white male suspect who was not in the
area at this time. Driver is believed to actually be either a white female or black
male. Car is a 2004 Audi.
On May 4, 2018, the City denied the Request, claiming that the video footage does not exist.
On May 14, 2018, the Requester filed an appeal with the Office of Open Records (“OOR”),
challenging the denial and stating grounds for disclosure. The OOR invited both parties to
supplement the record and directed the City to notify any third parties of their ability to participate
in this appeal pursuant to 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c).
On May 23, 2018, the City submitted a position statement made under penalty of perjury
by Pat Seibert, the City’s Open Records Officer, who attests that, upon receipt of the Request, she
contacted Sergeant Craig Losty, the Records Supervisor of the City’s Police Department. Included
with the submission was the sworn and notarized statement of Sergeant Losty, who attests that on
May 2, 2018, Ms. Seibert requested that he search for responsive records. Upon conducting a
search, he determined that no responsive video exists.
Under the RTKL, an affidavit may serve as sufficient evidentiary support. See Sherry v.
has acted in bad faith or that the video does, in fact, exist, “the averments in [the affidavit] should
be accepted as true.” McGowan v. Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot, 103 A.3d 374, 382-83 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 2014) (citing Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013)).
Based on the evidence provided, the City has met its burden of proving that the video does not
exist in its possession, custody or control.
Accordingly, the appeal is denied, and the City is not required to take any further action.
This Final Determination is binding on all parties. Within thirty days of the mailing date of this
Final Determination, any party may appeal or petition for review to the York County Court of
Common Pleas. 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a). All parties must be served with notice of the appeal. The
OOR also shall be served notice and have an opportunity to respond according to court rules as per
Section 1303 of the RTKL.
However, as the quasi-judicial tribunal adjudicating this matter, the
OOR is not a proper party to any appeal and should not be named as a party.
Determination shall be placed on the website at:
Blake Eilers, Esq.
Sent to: Jennifer Sangrey (via regular mail);
Siebert (via email only)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling