The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the law does not give the public or members of the media the right to inspect warrants related to ongoing grand jury investigations.

The court ruled 6-1 to uphold a Superior Court decision denying a Pittsburgh television station access to investigating grand jury materials.

WPXI sought the release of a warrant the court had issued related to allegations of sexual relations between faculty and students at Allegheny County's Plum High School, which became public in 2015. The station also sought the order that sealed the affidavit of probable cause supporting the search warrant.

Prosecutors argued public access to ongoing investigations jeopardizes the secrecy of those proceedings and that even the existence of an investigating grand jury is itself confidential.

The station argued that the search warrant and affidavit were public record. However, the trial judge held they were not because they related to an ongoing grand jury investigation.

According to Justice Kevin Dougherty's Oct. 31 majority opinion, the Supreme Court agreed that neither common law nor the First Amendment give the public and press the right to access the materials in question.

"Indeed, the 'importance of the public having an opportunity to observe the functioning of the criminal justice system has long been recognized in our courts,'" Dougherty said. "However, we may not ignore the reality that complete openness would undermine important values that are served by keeping some proceedings closed to the public. For that reason, and consistent with our historical experience in this commonwealth, we hold there is no common law right of access to search warrants and related materials issued in connection with an ongoing grand jury investigation."

As for the First Amendment, Dougherty said there was no precedent for allowing the release of ongoing investigative materials.

"In sum, we find that neither experience nor logic points to a First Amendment right to access search warrants and related materials issued in connection with an ongoing grand jury investigation," Dougherty said. "We stress, however, that our holding is limited to the narrow circumstances presented—namely, a request for access to search warrant materials made while a grand jury's investigation is ongoing. On this discrete question, we note our determination that no First Amendment right of access attaches in this context has significant support from numerous federal appellate decisions."

Justice Christine Donohue disagreed with the majority's ruling and filed a dissenting opinion. She argued that the public nature of the warrant's execution made it public by default.

"Service of the search warrant was conducted in the plain view of the general public through a show of force. At least one local news outlet immediately reported on the execution, and the school superintendent conducted a press interview in which he explained the types of items that were seized," Donohue said.

The Allegheny County District Attorney's Office through a spokesman declined to comment.

Walter DeForest of DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Berardinelli represents the station and also declined to comment.