Share This Page

State police secrecy rankles lawmaker

| Thursday, June 13, 2013, 11:47 p.m.

The Pennsylvania State Police will tell you how many troopers it has statewide, but not how many are stationed at your local barracks.

That's what state Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union, found when he asked how many troopers are assigned to the Uniontown barracks, the state police hub in his district. A state police liaison rejected his verbal request on the grounds that releasing that figure would threaten public safety.

Mahoney said the state House Appropriations Committee made a similar request and was rejected.

State police did not respond to phone calls or emails seeking comment Thursday.

“We do have a public safety issue here with the state police complement,” which had 465 vacancies statewide as of April 30, Mahoney said.

The state police is authorized to have 4,689 troopers.

“We need to know where we are. We have to concentrate on the crime areas — in Fayette County, we're having a shooting every other day. ... I just want to see more troopers on the street.”

Mahoney filed a written open records request on Wednesday for the trooper complement at the Uniontown barracks, the number of trooper vacancies at that barracks and the number of troopers there eligible to retire as of June 30.

“These are clearly public positions, paid for by the taxpayer — and members of the public have a right to know how many troopers are assigned to protect them,” Mahoney said in his request.

Mahoney sponsored the House version of the Open Records Law in the 2007-08 session.

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said there's a “significant problem” with access to state police records and police records in general.

“What's important to recognize here is that just because the state police say ... (releasing the information) is going to compromise public safety doesn't mean they've met the burden of proof. ... They have to make factual allegations supported by evidence that shows how the release of this record would compromise public safety.”

Mahoney said it's crucial that the General Assembly have the state police data when it makes decisions about funding the state police and cadet classes in the final state budget. The House on Wednesday passed its version of a budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Under the state's Right to Know Law, the state police must respond in writing within five business days. The agency could approve or deny the request or request a 30-day extension to issue its response.

Nathan Byerly, deputy director of the open records office, said he is not aware of any previous cases dealing with the breakdown of troopers assigned to each barracks. He said he could not comment on whether specific records would be released under an active request.

The office ruled in April that the state police had to turn over a list of names of municipal police officers certified by the state police to carry a firearm. State police had denied a newspaper's request for the roster, claiming it would threaten public safety and hinder undercover investigations, but the office found no evidence that harm was likely.

The state police have appealed that ruling in Commonwealth Court.

Kari Andren is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-850-2856 or kandren@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.