Open records

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that requests for records must be designated to a government agency's designated open-records officer, the Associated Press reports: "The decision overturned ruling by a divided Commonwealth Court that said state and local agencies should presume that any written request for records is a Right-to-Know request."

Here's the decision: http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2014/67-map-2013....

Government officials in Ferguson, Mo, want to charge "nearly 10 times the costs of some of their own employees' salaries" before they will release records about the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, the Associated Press reports. The records could be released without charge under Missouri's Sunshine Act if officials determined that the materials were in the public interest, the AP reports. The AP notes that "price-gouging for government files is one way that local, state and federal agencies have responded to requests for potentially embarrassing information they may not want released."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has sued to stop the practice of Governor Tom Corbett's administration and other executive-branch agencies of destroying emails after five days, the newspaper's Bill Shackner reports. The lawyers for the newspaper argued that "the state’s practice violates the due process rights of the public seeking release of public records under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law," Shackner further reports.

In another open-records development in Pennsylvania, a grand jury judge lifted a stay blocking the release of what has been described as "as sexually-charged emails circulated among certain Attorney General staff and prosecutors during the course of the Jerry Sandusky probe," according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News' Charles Thompson.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being criticized for not doing enough to open public access to court proceedings by a coalition formed to increase transparency in the judiciary, Legal Times' Tony Mauro reports: "'There remains much to be done to bring the institution in line with our expectations of openness from our nation’s top legal officials,' according to an end-of-term report issued by the Coalition for Court Transparency."

The issues being raised include having cameras present for Supreme Court oral arguments, more explanation on why the justices recuse themselves from cases, and the justices maintaining a no-protest zone in front of the Supreme Court.

Ergobaby, a manufacturer of baby carriers, has revealed itself as the company that fought to keep its court fight over a consumer product safety report secret, Legal Times reports. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court should not have let the company shield its name from the public as it fought to keep the Consumer Product Safety Commission from publishing an incident report about an infant's death--allegedly from one of its products--in an online database.

The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of  people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.

The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of  people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.

The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week on conflicting interpretations of that state's Freedom of Information Law. Law enforcement representatives are arguing that, once they have released the names and addresses of  people who've been arrested, as well as the dates, times and places of their arrests and the offenses with which they were charged, that they can decide what's exempt from disclosure until after criminal cases are done.But 'it appeared that the justices were skeptical of a legal theory that would give prosecutors and police departments complete discretion on how much information they have to release about a criminal case, once they have released the basic 'police blotter' facts of the arrest," The Connecticut Law Tribune reports.

The Philadelphia City Paper reports on multiple legislative proposals pending in Pennsylvania to deny prisoners access to open records. On one hand, access to public records allows prisoners, including "jailhouse lawyers," to investigate the conditions of their confinement. On the other hand, public officials report being inundated with public-records requests from inmates, including flr personal information about the public employees who played a role in their incarceration.