En Banc Court OKs Access to PennDOT Records

Defendant Gerald Hall subpoenaed PennDOT for records relating to an accident-reconstruction study, as well as information regarding contracts with subcontractors, traffic plans and photos of the accident site, after he was charged with vehicular homicide.



PennDOT sent Hall all the requested information after its motion to quash was denied by the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, except for the reconstruction records and photos. It cited the privilege to explain the missing records.



The privilege, provided by Section 3754(b) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, protects “in-depth accident investigations and safety studies” and any related records, as well as testimony of agency employees who helped compile that information, from being used in “any legal action.”



In a case of first impression, a majority of the three-judge panel said in the opinion issued last year that a criminal defendant’s right to due process outweighs the public policy that keeps those records under wraps in civil actions.



A dissenting judge voiced concern that the majority was allowing defendants to view opinions in PennDOT records along with facts. Subjecting opinions to public scrutiny could inhibit the way the department studies accidents, the judge warned.



But the other two judges on the panel said their decision would not affect the public policy behind the privilege protecting accident investigation records from discovery.



Opinion author Judge Michael Joyce said the public policy behind the privilege is to allow PennDOT to conduct thorough accident studies free from the fear of being hit with monetary liability.



In the en banc opinion, lead Judge Justin Johnson said the three-judge panel’s decision was negated by the newer ruling.



“Because we find that the materials in question are not entitled to protection under section 3754(b), we do not consider, nor do we decide, whether a defendant in a criminal proceeding may compel production of ‘in-depth accident investigations and safety studies’ conducted by PennDOT under section 3754(a),” Johnson said.



When the case heard last year, it was consolidated with another action, Commonwealth v. Taylor. This time around, Hall was on his own.

Interpreting Subsections

At the en banc hearing, PennDOT again argued the privilege protected it from tendering the requested information.



Johnson, who penned the opinion in Hall, said in order to consider the question, the court had to look to subsection (a) of Section 3754.



Subsection (a) states a general rule that gives PennDOT the power to conduct in-depth accident investigations and safety studies only with the Pennsylvania State Police and only for specific purposes, namely determining the cause of the accident and increasing road safety.



Subsection (b) limits the use of those reports in legal proceedings.



When the two subsections are read together as they should be, Johnson said, it becomes apparent that in-depth accident investigation studies and reports are undiscoverable only to the extent that were compiled according to the dictates of subsection (a).



The records Hall sought were not assembled under those standards, Johnson said.



“In this case, the record establishes that the investigation in question was not conducted by PennDOT or the Pennsylvania State Police, but rather, was conducted by City of Pittsburgh police. The City of Pittsburgh, in turn, provided the records of its investigation to PennDOT consistent with the requirements of a reporting procedure mandated by statute,” Johnson said.



“In accordance with our standard of review …, we must conclude that because the reports and investigative materials were compiled by a municipal police department, rather than by ‘the [D]epartment, in association with the Pennsylvania State Police,’ they are not subject to protection under section 3754(b).”

Unfair Advantage