In re 2014 Allegheny Cnty. Investigating Grand Jury
| Decision Date | 31 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 30 WAP 2018,30 WAP 2018 |
| Citation | 223 A.3d 214 |
| Parties | IN RE: 2014 ALLEGHENY COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY Appeal of: WPXI, Inc. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
In this case of first impression, we consider whether either the common law or the First Amendment confers a qualified right of access to the press and the public to inspect certain search warrant materials issued in connection with a grand jury investigation. We conclude no such right exists where, as here, the request is made while the grand jury's investigation is ongoing. Accordingly, we affirm.
We previously recounted the relevant background of this matter in a prior decision. In re 2014 Allegheny Cty. Investigating Grand Jury , 643 Pa. 277, 173 A.3d 653, 654-55 (2017) (" Allegheny County II ") . Briefly, appellant, WPXI, Inc., is the owner and operator of a news television station in Pittsburgh. In 2015, WPXI began investigating allegations of improper sexual relationships between faculty and students at Plum High School in Allegheny County. As part of its inquiry, WPXI filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings of the 2014 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury for the purpose of obtaining access to certain documents. Specifically, WPXI sought access to: (1) an application for search warrant and authorization ("search warrant") to conduct a search of the Plum High School Administrative Building, which was issued on May 18, 2015, by the Honorable Jill E. Rangos, supervising judge of the investigating grand jury; and (2) an order sealing the affidavit of probable cause supporting the search warrant ("sealing order").1 In its motion, WPXI explained that despite the Commonwealth's refusal to supply it with copies of the requested documents, another media outlet had obtained them by other means.2 Nevertheless, relying upon decisions concerning the common law right of access to public judicial records, see, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Upshur , 592 Pa. 273, 924 A.2d 642, 647-48 (2007) (plurality), WPXI asserted it had a right to independently inspect and copy the original documents.
On May 22, 2015, the parties appeared for a hearing before the supervising judge, at which time WPXI reiterated it was "not seeking access to the supporting affidavit or any attachment identifying suspected juvenile victims." N.T. 5/22/2015, at 3. WPXI further stated it was not seeking evidence presented to the investigating grand jury or any grand jury testimony. In WPXI's view, the only two documents to which it sought access — the search warrant and the sealing order — constitute public judicial records. As such, WPXI argued a presumption of openness attached to the documents. Alternatively, WPXI claimed it had a right to the documents under the First Amendment.
The Commonwealth did not deny that the materials sought were judicial records, but it disputed WPXI's characterization of those records as public. According to the Commonwealth, a search warrant issued in relation to a grand jury investigation "is very different" from a search warrant issued in an ordinary case, as grand jury matters "have always been secret[.]" Id. at 9-10. The need to protect the integrity of a grand jury's investigation, the Commonwealth argued, supports a conclusion there is no presumption of openness to search warrant materials issued in connection with an ongoing grand jury investigation.
Following the hearing, the trial court denied WPXI's motion. The court reasoned the documents were not public judicial records because they related to an ongoing grand jury investigation; and since the materials were not public, there was no common law right of access to them. By the same token, the trial court concluded WPXI had no First Amendment right to the documents because grand jury proceedings have not historically been open to the press and public, and public access would not play a significant positive role in the functioning of the grand jury process. The court further stated that, even if a common law or constitutional right of access did exist, there were particularized concerns for secrecy attending the grand jury's investigation that outweighed WPXI's interest in gaining access to the documents. The trial court, however, declined to state its specific findings on the record for fear that doing so would violate the secrecy of the underlying grand jury proceedings and compromise the ongoing investigation. Instead, the court indicated it would supplement its opinion with specific factual findings regarding the compelling governmental interests relevant to the grand jury's investigation "[t]o the extent deemed necessary, and in the manner deemed appropriate by the Superior Court[.]" Trial Ct. Op., 7/23/2015, at 5.
WPXI filed an appeal, which the Superior Court sua sponte dismissed on mootness grounds. As the Superior Court saw it, the fact that WPXI conceded it had obtained the requested materials from another source rendered the matter moot, as "a determination in WPXI's favor would have no practical effect[.]" In re 2014 Allegheny Cty. Investigating Grand Jury , 147 A.3d 922, 924 (Pa. Super. 2016) (" Allegheny County I "). We granted discretionary review and reversed. Allegheny County II , 173 A.3d at 656. Crediting the need for responsible media organizations to verify information to protect against liability and to further their professional calling to provide the public with accurate reporting, we agreed with WPXI that the right of access "is not obviated by any and all forms of dissemination by third-party sources" — particularly dissemination in the form of internet postings, which have varying degrees of reliability. Id. at 655. In that respect, we noted the Superior Court offered no assessment concerning the reliability, verifiability, or completeness of the documents posted on the internet and obtained by WPXI, and we thus concluded there was insufficient information to support a sua sponte mootness determination. Consequently, we reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of WPXI's claims.
On remand, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order denying access in a published opinion. In re 2014 Allegheny Cty. Investigating Grand Jury , 181 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2018) (" Allegheny County III "). Preliminarily, the Superior Court addressed the propriety of WPXI's motion to intervene and the trial court's denial thereof. The Superior Court highlighted this Court's longstanding recognition that the filing of a motion to intervene by the news media is the proper means of asserting the public's right of access to information pertaining to criminal cases. Quoting our decision in Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker , 515 Pa. 501, 530 A.2d 414 (1987), the Superior Court explained: "Intervention of this type may properly be termed de bene esse , to wit, action that is provisional in nature and for the limited purpose of permitting the intervenor to file a motion, to be considered separately, requesting that access to proceedings or other matters be granted." Id. at 351, quoting Fenstermaker , 530 A.2d at 416 n.1. From this the Superior Court determined WPXI should have first filed a motion to intervene, which the trial court should have granted; WPXI should have thereafter filed a separate motion to access the documents in question; and the trial court then should have conducted a hearing before ruling on WPXI's request. Because WPXI and the trial court did not abide by this procedure — instead, WPXI filed a single combined motion to intervene and seek access, and the trial court denied the motion in its entirety — the Superior Court concluded the trial court erred. However, the Superior Court deemed the error technical in nature, and therefore not a basis for relief, because WPXI was de facto permitted to intervene when it was granted the opportunity to argue the substance of its access request at the hearing.
Turning to the trial court's denial of WPXI's claims of access under the common law and First Amendment, the Superior Court began by observing no Pennsylvania case has addressed the public's right to access or copy grand jury materials or search warrant documents issued in connection with a grand jury investigation. As a result, the court took guidance from this Court's precedents establishing the legal principles applicable to other types of documents, and then considered how the special nature of grand jury investigations impacts the analysis of those principles.
The Superior Court first analyzed this Court's decision in Fenstermaker , where we considered a newspaper's right to access affidavits of probable cause supporting arrest warrants that had already been executed. In forging a standard for establishing the common law right of access to judicial documents, we explained the threshold inquiry is "whether the documents sought to be disclosed constitute public judicial documents, for not all writings connected with judicial proceedings constitute public judicial documents." Fenstermaker , 530 A.2d at 418. We resolved that if a document is considered a public judicial record, there is a presumption of openness; however, "the right to inspect judicial documents is not absolute, and courts do have supervisory power over their records and files." Id. at 420. Thus, "[w]here the presumption of openness attached to a public judicial document is outweighed by circumstances warranting closure of the document to public inspection, access to the document may be denied." Id.
Applying these standards to the arrest warrant affidavits at issue in Fenstermaker , we held the documents were public judicial records to which a presumption of openness attached. Initially, we identified the salutary benefits, from a policy standpoint, that public access to the affidavits would serve. See id. at 418 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial