<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Private Investigator Blog - Public Records, Internet Search - PI Buzz &#187; Pennsylvania</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pibuzz.com/category/states/pennsylvania/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pibuzz.com</link>
	<description>Private Investigator Blog - Public Records, Internet Search - PI Buzz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 19:18:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>This week in public records: Pennsylvania</title>
		<link>http://pibuzz.com/2009/01/29/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania/</link>
		<comments>http://pibuzz.com/2009/01/29/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tamara Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pibuzz.com/2009/01/29/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reversing a lower court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that some autopsy records should be disclosed to the public. Maybe the coroners will further open those records in the advent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Right To Know Law, which explicitly places the burden of proof on the government for justifying why a document is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reversing a lower court, the <a href="http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-54a&#038;b-2008mo.pdf"target="_blank">Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled</a> that some autopsy records should be disclosed to the public. Maybe the coroners will further open those records in the advent of the <a href="http://www.openrecordspa.org/rtk.html"target="_blank">Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Right To Know Law</a>, which explicitly places the burden of proof on the government for justifying why a document is <U>not</U> a public record.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pibuzz.com/2009/01/29/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This week in public records: Secret Juries</title>
		<link>http://pibuzz.com/2008/08/02/this-week-in-public-records-secret-juries/</link>
		<comments>http://pibuzz.com/2008/08/02/this-week-in-public-records-secret-juries/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tamara Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pibuzz.com/2008/08/02/this-week-in-public-records-secret-juries/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The names of jurors are public records, according to a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which countered the actions of a Pennsylvania federal judge who kept the juror names from the media in a high-profile trial. Apparently, the 3rd Circuit believes that&#8217;s not the norm in federal court, but the reality [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
The names of jurors are public records, according to a <strong><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423490382"target="_blank">ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals</a></strong>, which countered the actions of a Pennsylvania federal judge who kept the juror names from the media in a high-profile trial. Apparently, the 3rd Circuit believes that&#8217;s not the norm in federal court, but <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/secretjuries/pg1.html"target="_blank">the reality on the ground is a bit mixed</a>. It&#8217;s <a href="http://www.abanet.org/forums/communication/comlawyer/winter00/zansberg.html"target="_blank">a different world in state courts</a>, many of which have an explicit ban on releasing the names of jurors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pibuzz.com/2008/08/02/this-week-in-public-records-secret-juries/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This week in public records: Massachusetts &#8211; Pennsylvania &#8211; New Mexico</title>
		<link>http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/22/this-week-in-public-records-massachusetts-pennsylvania-new-mexico/</link>
		<comments>http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/22/this-week-in-public-records-massachusetts-pennsylvania-new-mexico/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tamara Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Records]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/22/this-week-in-public-records-massachusetts-pennsylvania-new-mexico/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Massachusetts Supreme Court is proposing new procedures that, if adopted, would curtail the available personal information in all court files. The court is accepting public comments on its Interim Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Identifying Data in Publicly Accessible Court Documents. The document proposes redaction of particular personally identifying information in court filings. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <strong>Massachusetts</strong> Supreme Court is proposing new procedures that, if adopted, would curtail the available personal information in all court files. The court is <a href="http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/comment-guidelines-personal-data.html"target="_blank">accepting public comments</a> on its <a href="http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs/Rules/Interim_Guidelines_Protect_Personal_Data.pdf"target="_blank"><em>Interim Guidelines for the Protection of Personal Identifying Data in Publicly Accessible Court Documents</em></a>.</p>
<p>The document proposes redaction of particular personally identifying information in court filings.</p>
<blockquote><p>Except as provided in these guidelines, a document filed with a court should not include a complete version of any of the following personal identifying data elements. Instead, the filer should redact information from any pre-existing document, or omit information from any document prepared for filing, so that the document includes:<br />
(1) in the case of a social security number, taxpayer identification number, credit card or other financial account number, driver’s license number, or passport number, only the last four digits;<br />
(2) in the case of a birth date, only the year of birth, rather than the exact day or month; and<br />
(3) in the case of a name identified as the mother’s maiden name of a person, only the first initial of that name.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <strong>Pennsylvania</strong> Treasury Department has launched a <strong><a href="http://contracts.patreasury.org/search.aspx"target="_blank">database of state government agency goods and services contracts</a></strong>. Search by any combination of contractor, contracting agency, contract amount or date range. This primarily includes contracts entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2008. See the <a href="http://www.patreasury.org/right-to-know/RTKFAQ.htm"target="_blank">FAQ&#8217;s</a> for database parameters. </p>
<p>The University of <strong>New Mexico</strong> is revising its policies on <a href="http://www.unm.edu/~ubppm/d2300v3.htm"target="_blank">access to public records</a> and <a href="http://www.unm.edu/~ubppm/d3710v3.htm"target="_blank">disclosure of personal information</a>. One of the additions to the list of public record information on University employees is job application, resume or curriculum vitae. The policy changes will be voted on at the August 2008 UNM Board of Regents meeting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/22/this-week-in-public-records-massachusetts-pennsylvania-new-mexico/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This week in public records: California &#8211; Pennsylvania &#8211; North Dakota &#8211; Arizona</title>
		<link>http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/03/this-week-in-public-records-california-pennsylvania-north-dakota-arizona/</link>
		<comments>http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/03/this-week-in-public-records-california-pennsylvania-north-dakota-arizona/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tamara Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Dakota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/03/this-week-in-public-records-california-pennsylvania-north-dakota-arizona/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Government agencies in California can&#8217;t assign control of records that would otherwise be public records to a private entity. SB 1696 enrolled. New Law Allows Greater Access to Government Contracts, PolitickerCA.com, Adam Keigwin. A Pennsylvania open records blog reports that the recent overhaul of the Pennsylvania Right To Know Law includes a requirement that records [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Government agencies in <strong>California</strong> can&#8217;t assign control of records that would otherwise be public records to a private entity. <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1651-1700/sb_1696_bill_20080624_enrolled.html"target="_blank">SB 1696 enrolled</a>. <a href="http://www.politickerca.com/adam-keigwin/1391/new-law-allows-greater-access-government-contracts"target="_blank">New Law Allows Greater Access to Government Contracts</a>, PolitickerCA.com, Adam Keigwin. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://passopenrecords.org/"target="_blank">Pennsylvania open records blog</a> reports that the recent overhaul of the <strong>Pennsylvania</strong> Right To Know Law includes a requirement that records held by private companies doing business with the government may be a public record.</p>
<p>Emails on the private home computers of government appointees serving on a  foundation benefiting public schools are public records, according to <a href="http://www.ag.nd.gov/documents/2008-O-15.pdf"target="_blank">an opinion by the <strong>North Dakota </strong>Attorney General</a>.</p>
<p>I recently discovered that police records in <strong>Arizona</strong>, even in open investigations, are public records. Public Records Free Directory blog <a href="http://publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/public-records-blog/2008/06/21/arizona-state-employee-discipline-records-to-become-public-records/"target="_blank">reports</a> that new legislation requires government employee disciplinary records be disclosed, with a provision that police officer&#8217;s home addresses are protected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pibuzz.com/2008/07/03/this-week-in-public-records-california-pennsylvania-north-dakota-arizona/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This week in public records: Pennsylvania &#8211; New Jersey &#8211; North Dakota</title>
		<link>http://pibuzz.com/2008/03/30/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania-new-jersey-north-dakota/</link>
		<comments>http://pibuzz.com/2008/03/30/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania-new-jersey-north-dakota/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:01:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tamara Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arkansas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Idaho]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Dakota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pibuzz.com/2008/03/30/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania-new-jersey-north-dakota/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania is formulating new policies regarding public access to court case files. The Notice from the court highlights the proposed removal of Social Security numbers and bank account numbers from future court files. The public can submit comments by email, which are due by May 28, 2008. The New Jersey [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania is formulating new policies regarding public access to court case files. The <a href="http://origin-www.aopc.org/index/PublicAccessPolicy/Notice32708.pdf"target="_blank">Notice</a> from the court highlights the proposed removal of Social Security numbers and bank account numbers from future court files. The <a href="http://origin-www.aopc.org/index/PublicAccessPolicy/"target="_blank">public can submit comments by email</a>, which are due by May 28, 2008.</p>
<p>The New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Public Access to Court Records recently solicited comments on its proposed policy changes. Read the <strong><a href="http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/publicaccess/"target="_blank">submitted comments</a></strong> and the <strong><a href="http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/publicaccess/publicaccess.pdf"target="_blank">report</a></strong> on policy changes.</p>
<p>An <strong><a href="http://www.ag.state.nd.us/documents/2008-O-07.pdf"target="_blank">Opinion issued by the North Dakota Attorney General</a></strong> confirms that email messages from government employees &#8220;acting within the scope of their public positions&#8221; are public records &#8220;regardless of whether it is located at their private homes or businesses.&#8221;
</p>
<p>Last year, I wrote about a similar determination by the <a href="http://pibuzz.com/2007/05/14/this-week-in-public-records-california-maryland-nevada-idaho-montana/"target="_blank">Idaho</a> Supreme Court and the <a href="http://pibuzz.com/2007/07/24/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania-massachusetts-arkansas/"target="_blank">Arkansas</a> Supreme Court. The courts, not the government entity, must determine whether public employees&#8217; emails are private, according to the <a href="http://pibuzz.com/2007/06/08/this-week-in-public-records-california-idaho-utah-texas-arizona/"target="_blank">Arizona</a> Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Read a recent round-up of other state court decisions: <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS10/803180388/-1/SPORTS09"target="_blank">Are public employee e-mails secret?</a>, The Des Moines Register, March 18, 2008.
</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/sidebar/index.php"target="_blank">Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press tracks public records</a> news. Subscribe by email or RSS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pibuzz.com/2008/03/30/this-week-in-public-records-pennsylvania-new-jersey-north-dakota/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Database of the Day: Who&#8217;s been naughty &#8211; Delinquent Taxpayers</title>
		<link>http://pibuzz.com/2007/10/14/database-of-the-day-whos-been-naughty-delinquent-taxpayers/</link>
		<comments>http://pibuzz.com/2007/10/14/database-of-the-day-whos-been-naughty-delinquent-taxpayers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tamara Thompson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pibuzz.com/2007/10/14/database-of-the-day-whos-been-naughty-delinquent-taxpayers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Franchise Tax Board list of delinquent taxpayers (or should-be taxpayers) extends back to 1987. &#8220;California Revenue &#038; Taxation Code Section 19195 directs the Franchise Tax Board to publish an annual list of the top 250 taxpayers with liened state income tax delinquencies greater than $100,000.&#8221; Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico and New Jersey are [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The California Franchise Tax Board <strong><a href="http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/txdlnqnt.html"target="_blank">list of delinquent taxpayers</a></strong> (or should-be taxpayers) extends back to 1987.</p>
<p>&#8220;California Revenue &#038; Taxation Code Section 19195 directs the Franchise Tax Board to publish an annual list of the top 250 taxpayers with liened state income tax delinquencies greater than $100,000.&#8221;</p>
</p>
<p><a href="http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/cwp/view.asp?a=180&#038;q=249175"target="_blank">Pennsylvania</a>, <a href="http://www.dor.state.wi.us/html/delqlist.html"target="_blank">Wisconsin</a>,  <a href="http://www.tax.state.nm.us/nmDELtp.pdf"target="_blank">New Mexico</a> and <a href="http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/"target="_blank">New Jersey</a> are among the states that are currently listing delinquent taxpayers, although some of these are just the top 100 taxpayers who owe the most.</p>
<p><a href="http://64.226.227.69/library/tax/state/others.htm"target="_blank">Select a state Department of Revenue</a> to locate other delinquent taxpayers lists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pibuzz.com/2007/10/14/database-of-the-day-whos-been-naughty-delinquent-taxpayers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

