York County's refusal to release addresses or locations along with dispatch and arrival times of emergency responders is not an attempt to stop the York Daily Record/Sunday News from reviewing that data, county solicitor Michael Flannelly said Friday.

An analysis of response times of police, fire and ambulance personnel could be viewed as a public service, he said.

"I fully understand and appreciate that," he said. "It's the next guy who wants that information that we're worried about."

Flannelly said the county and other victim services groups are concerned that releasing addresses to the newspaper would set a precedent that could endanger crime victims, especially in cases of domestic violence.

"We are standing on a much broader principle that I think outweighs the interest of the newspaper," he said.

The county has taken a position that addresses in 911 "time response logs" are exempt from the recently enacted Right-To-Know law.

Flannelly is wrong, said Erik Arneson, community and policy director for Sen. Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester, the legislator who wrote the Right-To-Know law.

"Our intent on the time response logs was to include at least some form of useful identification -- an address, the closest cross streets, the nearest mile marker," Arneson said Friday. "Without this information, time response logs would have

Advertisement
limited use to the public."

Following the county's refusal to release any form of locations with time response logs, the Daily Record appealed to the Office of Open Records. In May, that office issued a "final determination" that the county must provide locations with the time response logs.

The county has since filed for a petition to review the final determination. York County President Judge Richard K. Renn will hear argument on the matter later this month.

The Daily Record, the county, the Office of Open Records and Pileggi's office all agree there is no firm definition of "time response log."

The county is relying on the statement of York County 911 Director Cindy Dietz, who says the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association, an organization that includes emergency dispatchers, does not include addresses in its definition of time response logs.

The county also refers to an exchange between former Rep. Chris King, D-Bucks County, and Rep. Russell Fairchild, R-Snyder and Union counties, published in the House Legislative Journal for Feb. 11, 2008, three days before the Right-To-Know statute was signed into law.

In that transcribed discussion, Fairchild asked of King: "I notice the amendment did not take out the time response logs information, and for legislative intent, I visualize the time response logs as a log of when a call comes into a 911 center, when action is taken and when it is complete. Is that your interpretation . . . ?"

"Mr. Speaker, I would say that is a fair interpretation of the legislative intent," King answered.

"Then . . . it is not the incident log itself, which has all the detailed information of a caller -- the address, the telephone number, the date of birth, all that stuff?" Fairchild asked.

"Mr. Speaker, that is correct," King said.

On Friday, Arneson said, "With all due respect to the representatives, Sen. Pileggi authored the bill and if anyone had asked him, he would have been very clear. Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of time response logs so the subject is open to interpretation.

"But our absolute clear intent . . . is that some sort of useful identifier should be part of the time response log. The Office of Open Records made the right decision" in the Daily Record/Sunday News' appeal.

The county also has filed two amicus curiae -- or "friend of the court" -- briefs to support its position. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Pennsylvania chapter of Associated Public Safety Communications Officers both contend releasing address information to the media could jeopardize victims' safety.

"The release of address specific information is a reckless act which has the potential to further victimize those citizens who have reached out to (911) for help," Robert L. Ritter, of APCO, said in his brief. "There is no countervailing public interest that justifies this negative impact to some of our most vulnerable citizens, and such a result is not the legislative intent . . ."

Ritter said once address information is "released into the public domain, there is no control over the use and distribution of this information."

"Victims of crimes . . . can be further victimized . . . facing potential perils which may include unwanted harassment from overly intrusive media, community embarrassment, further victimization at the hands of opportunistic criminals and unwanted calls from commercial interests (general contractors and damage-restoration companies)," he said.

Ellen Kramer Adler, of PCADV, voiced the same concerns in her brief and focused on the crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

"A perpetrator who is determined to hunt down a former partner has many tactics available to assist him and these individuals may be the most dangerous . . .," Adler said. "A particularly wily perpetrator could utilize Right-To-Know law to track and locate the victim."

Victims' names and addresses are often available in police complaint forms and arrest affidavits, both of which are public records. However, those records do not include time-response information.

Daily Record/Sunday News managing editor Randy Parker said he understands and respects the concerns of the victim advocate groups.

"Nothing in our analysis would expose a victim of a sexual crime," Parker said. "The York Daily Record will not identify a victim of sexual crime unless that victim comes forward and asks to be interviewed. We don't agree these concerns would bear out.

"The value of an assessment like this may be able to help identify response times to domestic violence. I think a lot of people would like to know if police respond to domestic violence calls as quickly as they respond to accidents or other crimes."

Parker said that, after the Office of Open Records issued its final determination, the newspaper asked Flannelly if the county would consider releasing cross streets or block addresses in the time response logs. He said the county also refused that request.

The county includes cross streets and/or intersections in its "Live Incident Status" log on its Web site, but that log does not include time-response information. The online log includes fire and traffic calls but not medical calls.

"At this standpoint, we are asking for a judicial ruling, and we will see where that takes us," Flannelly said.

Parker said an important side note to the entire process became evident in the request for public information.

"If it's this difficult for a large entity like a newspaper to get access to public records, how much trouble is it for a private citizen to obtain records from the local police department or school district?" he said.