Pittsburg, PA

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
One PPG Place, Suite 1500
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 566-1212
(412) 594-5619
Directions to Pittsburgh

Harrisburg, PA

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
2 Lemoyne Drive, Suite 200
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 234-4121
(717) 232-6802
Directions to Harrisburg

New York, NY

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.
250 Park Avenue, Suite 1508, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10171
(212) 739-7910
(212) 739-9607
Directions to New York

Widget Title

  • People
  • Practice Areas
  • News + Insights
    • News
    • Articles
    • Speaking
  • Office Locations
    • Pittsburgh
    • Harrisburg
    • New York
  • About the Firm
    • Overview
    • Careers
    • Diversity
    • Affiliations
    • Pro Bono & Community

Title

  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Attorneys in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, New York City

  • People
  • Practice Areas
  • News + Insights
  • About Our Firm
  • COVID 19: Answers to Business Challenges
ShareBookmarkPDF

OOR Confirms that Local Agencies are not Required to Respond to Anonymous RTKL Requests

Articles, News, Right to Know Law Blog December 29, 2020

Chris Voltz

In Anonymous v. Norristown Municipality, AP 2020-2496, the Municipality received a request for records about a police officer from a Requester identified only as “E3E3” that was sent from admin@e3e3.com.  The Municipality denied the Request and the Requester appealed.

On appeal, the OOR held that the Requester was not a proper “requester” under the RTKL.  A “requester” is defined by the RTKL as “[a] person that is a legal resident of the United States….” See 65 P.S. § 102. Thus, under the RTKL, a requester must both be a “person” and “a legal resident of the United States.”  While not defined by the RTKL, the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 defines the term “person” to include “a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, other association, government entity (other than the Commonwealth), estate, trust, foundation or natural person.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1991.

While the Statutory Construction Act defines the term “person” broadly to include natural persons, governmental, corporate and other similar entities, the Request simply identified the Requester as “E3E3” and the OOR concluded that there was no evidence that Requester was an identified “person that is a legal resident of the United States….” 65 P.S. § 67.102.  Accordingly, the OOR found that the Requester was anonymous and did not meet the definition of a “requester” under the RTKL and dismissed the appeal. See 65 P.S. § 67.1101(a)(1) (authorizing “the requester” to file an appeal); see also Anonymous v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., AP 2018-1877, 2018 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 1416 (finding that the anonymous requester was not a “person” entitled to seek records under the RTKL).

Accordingly, while local agencies are required to respond to requests from individuals, governmental and corporate entities, they are not required to respond to anonymous requests.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Voltz or any of the other Municipal and School Attorneys at Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Primary Sidebar

OOR Confirms that Local Agencies are not Required to Respond to Anonymous RTKL Requests

Related

People

  • Christopher L. Voltz

Practice Areas

  • Municipal & School
© 2021 All Rights Reserved|Tucker Arensberg, P.C.|Log in|Powered by Content Pilot
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Accept