It is an open question whether OPRA requires disclosure of police vehicle videos of routine traffic stops and other matters that do not involve a criminal investigation. Pennsylvania’s appellate court issued an opinion today holding that the state’s  public records statute, the Right to Know Law, requires disclosure of videos, or portions thereof, that do not show criminal investigatory activities. New Jersey courts occasionally look to other state court opinions for guidance; it will be interesting to see, when the OPRA police video issue reaches the Appellate Division, whether the court takes note of this Pennsylvania ruling.

The opinion actually allows only limited disclosure of police vehicle videos. The videos in question showed two State Police troopers responding to a traffic accident. Pennsylvania’s law, like OPRA, exempts criminal investigatory records. The State Police argued that the videos fell within the exemption because the drivers in the accident were issued citations, which are “criminal summary offenses.” Although the court rejected the position that the video recordings were entirely confidential under the criminal investigatory exemption, it agreed that anything in the videos which showed investigatory activities should be redacted.

The court said that investigatory activities include the troopers’ discussions with the drivers and witnesses. As a result, it permitted redaction of the audio component of these portions of the videos. I suspect that in most police dash cam videos, such discussions will constitute most of the audio.

One video had no audio. The court ordered the entire video to be disclosed, on the ground that the video, without sound, revealed nothing about the investigation into the accident.