IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2020-5 ) No.: C-48-CV-2020-1884
PUBLIC ACCESS TO NIGHT-DUTY )
CASE RECORDS OF THE MAGISTERIAL )
DISTRICT COURTS )
OPINION OF THE COURT
Pursuant to the authority of the President Judge as executive and administrative head of the Court under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 325(e), in accordance with the President Judge's obligation to ensure compliance with the Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 116, and in fulfillment of the mandate to provide public access to judicial proceedings and case records as set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, we issue the within administrative order to ensure prompt public access to night-duty case records of the Magisterial District Courts.
BACKGROUND
I. The President Judge's Directive to Facilitate
Prompt Public Access to Night-Duty Case
Records of the Magisterial District Courts
On October 28, 2019, at the direction of Northampton County President Judge Michael J. Koury, Jr., Northampton County Deputy Court Administrator Debra C. French notified the Magisterial District Judges in the Third Judicial District that President Judge Koury implemented a procedure to facilitate prompt public access to night-duty case records of the Magisterial District Courts during night-duty hours. See Memorandum of Debra C. French, Northampton County Deputy Court Administrator, to Magisterial District Judges and Staff dated Oct. 28, 2019 ("French Memorandum"), attached hereto as Exhibit A. Deputy Court Administrator French requested that the Magisterial District Judges provide the Court with their cellular telephone numbers to facilitate implementation of the new procedure. See id
Please be advised Judge Koury would like the press to have access to night duty records during night duty hours. To this end, I have contracted with Keystone Answering Service. They will take the name of the press person requesting access, the records needed, the fax number and email address, and then text this information to you, so you may fax or email the specified records to the press member the next time you have a night duty matter to handle. In order for the answering service to contact you during night duty, I will need your cell phone number and your cell phone provider.
Id.
II. The Magisterial District Judges' Defiance
of the President Judge's Directive
The Northampton County Magisterial District Judge Association informed President Judge Koury that the Magisterial District Judges would not comply with his directive. See Memorandum of Magisterial District Judge Alan R. Mege, President, Northampton County Magisterial District Judge Association, to Debra C. French, Northampton County Deputy Court Administrator, dated Nov. 8, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
After a review of The Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of PA and relevant Rules, a discussion with the solicitor for our state association, as well as a discussion among the members of our association regarding same, we are respectfully declining to provide the information requested in your Internal Correspondence of October 28, 2019.
Id. at 1.
Some of the Magisterial District Judges responded individually to express their defiance of President Judge Koury and to emphasize their refusal to comply with his directive. See, e.g., Response of Magisterial District Judge Jackie Taschner to French Memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit C ("With all due respect, I will not provide you with this information. I cannot imagine that the President Judge can require me to provide personal contact information to an unknown entity over which I have no control."); Response of Magisterial District Judge Douglas Schlegel, Sr. to French Memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit D ("1. My cell phone is a private number. 2. I don't want to be bothered when on Night Duty (which is tough enough) by the press. 3. The press can access during office hours.").
Magisterial District Judge Richard H. Yetter, III sarcastically responded as though President Judge Koury were a litigant requesting relief from a court. See Response of Magisterial District Judge Richard H. Yetter, III to French Memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit E. Magisterial District Judge Yetter then purported to issue an order "denying" the President Judge's requested relief. See id.
Denied. I will not be woken up by the press during hours I can be sleeping. I was the MDJ Assoc. President when our association and myself (sic) worked diligently with law enforcement, central booking, and then (sic) President Judge Baratta to firm up this night time (sic) schedule. You do not have my permission to share my cell phone number.
Richard H. Yetter III
Id.
Based on the foregoing responses, it was evident that the Magisterial District Judge Association and at least some of the individual Magisterial District Judges had declared open rebellion against the authority of the President Judge. Accordingly, we have now promulgated a formal administrative order setting forth the new policy, with certain modifications, and we hereby advise the Magisterial District Judges that we expect full compliance with our order. Any defiance of the order will result in an immediate referral to the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board and/or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
DISCUSSION
I. The President Judge's Obligation to Ensure
Compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of
Criminal Procedure
The President Judge of each Judicial District is required to ensure that the Judicial District is in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 116. "The President Judge shall be responsible for ensuring that the judicial district is in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, other rules, and statutes, applicable to the minor judiciary, courts, clerks of courts, and court administrators." Id. The Comment to Rule 116 states: "By this rule, the Supreme Court is imposing on the president judges the responsibility of supervising their respective judicial districts to ensure compliance with the statewide Rules of Criminal Procedure, other rules, and statutes." Id., comment.
II. The President Judge's Obligation to Ensure
Sufficient Availability of Magisterial District Judges
to Provide the Services Required By the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure
The President Judge of each Judicial District is required to "ensure sufficient availability of issuing authorities [Magisterial District Judges] in the District to provide the services required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure." Pa.R.Crim.P. 117(A). The President Judge has authority to promulgate local rules to provide for coverage both during and outside the normal business hours of the Magisterial District Courts. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 117(B). Pursuant to this authority, and to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 540(A), the Third Judicial District has promulgated administrative orders permitting Magisterial District Judges to conduct certain types of business from their residences, both during and outside normal business hours, through a Central Booking Center employing two-way simultaneous audiovisual communication. See Administrative Order 2007-3 (C.P. Northampton Co. July 5, 2007); Administrative Order 2015-9 (Dec. 17, 2015).
III. The President Judge's Obligation to Ensure
Prompt Public Access to Arrest-Warrant Information
A. The Pennsylvania Constitution
Arrest-warrant records are public judicial records, and there is a presumption in favor of public access to them. See Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d 414, 420-21 (Pa. 1987) (reversing Magisterial District Judge's denial of newspaper's request to inspect and copy affidavits of probable cause supporting arrest warrants and holding that the public's interest in observing the functioning of the criminal justice system was a sufficient basis for the newspaper's request). "When arrests have been made pursuant to warrants, the supporting affidavits must be deemed open to public inspection until such times as District Attorneys or defense counsel have obtained court orders that the affidavits be sealed from public access."
Id.
The importance of the public having an opportunity to observe the functioning of the criminal justice system has long been recognized in our courts. Criminal trials in the United States have, by historical tradition, and under the First Amendment, been deemed presumptively open to public scrutiny and this ". . . presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of the criminal trial under our system of justice." Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, [448 U.S. 555 (1980)]. . . . Indeed, in this Commonwealth, the principle of openness is based not only upon common law tradition, and upon the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but also on Article I, sections 9 and 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article I, section 9 provides, "In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to . . . a speedy public trial . . .," and Article I, section 11 states, "All courts shall be open." See Commonwealth v. Contakos, [453 A.2d 578, 580 (Pa. 1982)]. . . . In Contakos, considerations governing public observation of criminal justice proceedings were set forth as follows:
The historical basis for public trials and the interests which are protected by provisions such as Pennsylvania's open trial mandate have been well researched and discussed in two recent opinions of the United States Supreme Court, Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, [443 U.S. 368 (1979)] and Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, supra, and can be briefly summarized as follows: generally, to assure the public that justice is done even-handedly and fairly; to discourage perjury and the misconduct of participants; to prevent decisions based on secret bias or partiality; to prevent individuals from feeling that the law should be taken into the hands of private citizens; to satisfy the natural desire to see justice done; to provide for community catharsis; to promote public confidence in government and assurance that the system of judicial remedy does in fact work; to promote the stability of government by allowing access to its workings, thus assuring citizens that government and the courts are worthy of their continued loyalty and support; to promote an understanding of our system of government and courts.
These considerations, which were applied by the United States Supreme Court in its analysis of the First and Sixth Amendments in Gannett and Richmond Newspapers apply equally to our analysis of Pennsylvania's constitutional mandate that courts shall be open and that an accused shall have a right to a public trial.
. . . [M]any of the same considerations command recognition of a common law right of access to [arrest-warrant affidavits]. Specifically, from a policy standpoint, public inspection of arrest warrant affidavits would serve to discourage perjury in such affidavits, would enhance the performance of police and prosecutors by encouraging them to establish sufficient cause before an affidavit is filed, would act as a public check on discretion of issuing authorities thus discouraging erroneous decisions and decisions based on partiality, and would promote a public perception of fairness in the arrest warrant process. Indeed, the salutary effects of openness in this aspect of the criminal justice system are clear, and, as noted in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, [448 U.S. at 572], "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing."
Id. at 417-18; accord Commonwealth v. Upshur, 924 A.2d 642, 647 (Pa. 2007) (plurality) (holding that the presumption of openness extends to pretrial proceedings, including preliminary hearings; "[T]his Court has recognized a presumption of openness stemming from Article I, Sections 9 and 11 of our State Constitution, which provide that an accused has the right to a 'speedy, public trial' and that 'all courts shall be open.'") (quoting Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d at 417)); Commonwealth v. Long, 922 A.2d 892, 898 (Pa. 2007) (holding that the public has a qualified right of access to jurors' names; "Documents that are filed with the court and, in particular, those that are used by the judge in rendering a decision are clearly considered public judicial documents."); Commonwealth v. Curley, 189 A.3d 467, 473 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that claims of attorney-client privilege were insufficient to overcome newspaper's motion to unseal case records where information had already been disclosed; "'[T]here is a presumption—however gauged—in favor of public access to judicial records.'") (quoting Long, 922 A.2d at 898).
B. The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 117 requires the President Judge to ensure "continuous coverage for the issuance of search warrants pursuant to Rule 203 and arrest warrants pursuant to Rule 513." Pa.R.Crim.P. 117(A)(1). Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 513, in turn, requires a court to provide prompt public access to "arrest warrant information," defined as "the criminal complaint in cases in which an arrest warrant is issued, the arrest warrant, any affidavit(s) of probable cause, and documents or information related to the case." Pa.Crim.P. 513(A).
Rule 513 provides that, upon a finding of good cause shown, a Magisterial District Judge may order that the availability of arrest warrant information for inspection and dissemination be delayed for a period of 72 hours or until receipt of notice that the warrant has been executed, whichever comes first. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 513(C)(1). The Comment to the Rule states:
The request for delay in inspection and dissemination is intended to provide a very limited delay in public access to arrest warrant information in those cases in which there is concern that pre-execution disclosure of the existence of the arrest warrant will endanger those serving the warrant or will impel the subject of the warrant to flee. . . . Once the issuing authority receives notice that the arrest warrant is executed, or when 72 hours have elapsed from the issuance of the warrant and the warrant has not been executed, whichever occurs first, the information must be available for inspection or dissemination unless the information is sealed pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 513.1.
Comment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 513.
Rule 513.1 provides that arrest warrant information may be sealed only by a court of common pleas or a judge or justice of an appellate court and only after a hearing upon good cause shown. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 513.1 (codifying common law); see also Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d 414, 420-21 (Pa. 1987).
When arrests have been made pursuant to warrants, the supporting affidavits must be deemed open to public inspection until such times as District Attorneys or defense counsel have obtained court orders that the affidavits be sealed from public access. This places upon those wishing to seal affidavits a burden of moving swiftly to obtain the necessary court orders, but it is a burden that is necessary in order to accord due recognition to the common law right of the public to secure access to such documents. The decision of the trial court shall be appealable and shall be rendered following a hearing, and the record shall contain an articulation of the factors taken into consideration in reaching a determination as to sealing of the
affidavits.
Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d at 420-21.
C. The Case Records Public Access Policy of
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania
The Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 513 notes that inspection and dissemination of arrest warrant information is subject to restrictions on disclosure of confidential information provided by applicable law and rules, including the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania ("Case Records Public Access Policy"). See Comment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 513. As its name implies, the Case Records Public Access Policy "shall govern access by the public to case records." 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 2(A).
The Case Records Public Access Policy provides: "All case records shall be open to the public in accordance with this policy." 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 3.
"Case records" are defined as follows:
"Case Records" are (1) documents for any case filed with, accepted and maintained by a court or custodian; (2) dockets, indices, and documents (such as orders, opinions, judgments, decrees) for any case created and maintained by a court or custodian. This term does not include notes, memoranda, correspondence, drafts, worksheets, and work product of judges and court personnel. Unless otherwise provided in this policy, this definition applies equally to case records maintained in paper and electronic formats.
204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 1(B).
Documents filed with, accepted and maintained by a "court" includes documents filed with, accepted and maintained by a Magisterial District Court. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 1(D) ("Court" includes the Supreme Court, Superior Court, Commonwealth Court, Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Municipal Court, and Magisterial District Courts."). "Custodian" is defined as "any person responsible for maintaining case records or for processing public requests for access to case records." 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 1(G). The "public," with certain specified exceptions, is "any person, member of the media, business, non-profit entity, organization or association." Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 1(N). The news media have the same rights of access to case records as the general public. See Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d at 416 n.1 ("Access rights of the news media, and of the general public, are identical in scope.").
The procedure for obtaining access to case records is as follows: "When desiring to inspect or copy case records, a member of the public shall make an oral request to the applicable custodian, unless otherwise provided by a local rule or an order issued by a court of record." 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 4(A). A local rule or order issued by a "court of record" includes a local rule or order issued by a Courts of Common Pleas but does not include a local rule or order issued by a Magisterial District Court. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 1(E) ("Court of Record" includes the Supreme Court, Superior Court, Commonwealth Court, Courts of Common Pleas, and Philadelphia Municipal Court.").
The requirements for responding to a request are:
Section 5.0. Responding to Requests for Access to Case Records.
A. A custodian shall fulfill a request for access to case records as promptly as possible under the circumstances existing at the time of the request.
B. If a custodian cannot fulfill the request promptly or at all, the custodian shall inform the requestor of the specific reason(s) why access to the information is being delayed or denied.
C. If a custodian denies a written request for access, the denial shall be in writing.
D. Except as provided in Subsection E, relief from a custodian's written denial may be sought by filing a motion or application with the court for which the custodian maintains the records.
E. Relief from a magisterial district court may be sought by filing an appeal with the president judge of the judicial district or the president judge's designee. Relief from a written denial by the Philadelphia Municipal Court may be sought by filing a motion with the president judge of Philadelphia Municipal Court or the president judge's designee.
204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 5.
The custodian is required to respond to a request for access to case records "as quickly as possible under the circumstances existing at the time of the request." 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 5(A). The Commentary to section four states: "Public access requests to the courts and custodians are routinely straightforward and often involve a limited number of records. Therefore, artificial administrative barriers should not be erected so as to inhibit making these requests in an efficient manner." Commentary, 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 4. The Commentary to section five states:
Given that most public access requests for case records are straightforward and usually involve a particular case or matter, custodians should process the same in an expeditious fashion.
There are a number of factors that can affect how quickly a custodian may respond to a request. For example, the custodian’s response may be slowed if the request is vague, involves retrieval of a large number of case records, or involves information that is stored off-site. Ultimately, the goal is to respond timely to requests for case records.
In those unusual instances in which access to the case records cannot be granted in an expeditious fashion, the custodian shall inform the requestor of the specific reason(s) why access to the information is being delayed or denied, which may include:
• the request involves such voluminous amounts of information that the custodian is unable to fulfill the same without substantially impeding the orderly conduct of the court or custodian's office;
• records in closed cases are located at an off-site facility;
• a particular file is in use by a judge or court staff. If a judge or court staff needs the file for an extended period of time, special procedures should be considered, such as making a duplicate file that is always available for public inspection;
• the requestor failed to pay the appropriate fees, as established pursuant to Page 7 of 21, Section 6.0 of this policy, associated with the request;
• the requested information is restricted from access pursuant to applicable authority, or any combination of factors listed above.
Commentary, 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 5.[FN1]
[FN1 The Case Records Public Access Policy sets forth a detailed schedule of particular types of records and information that are subject to limitations on public access and the legal authorities governing such limitations. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, Schedule.]
III. The President Judge's Authority to
Promulgate Administrative Orders Facilitating
Prompt Public Access to Case Records
Section four of the Case Records Public Access Policy provides that "courts of record" shall be permitted to promulgate administrative orders governing requests by the public for access to case records. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 4(A) ("When desiring to inspect or copy case records, a member of the public shall make an oral request to the applicable custodian, unless otherwise provided by a local rule or an order issued by a court of record.") (emphasis added). As noted above, "court of record" may refer to a Court of Common Pleas but not to a Magisterial District Court. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 1(E) ("Court of Record" includes the Supreme Court, Superior Court, Commonwealth Court, Courts of Common Pleas, and Philadelphia Municipal Court."). The President Judge is the executive and administrative head of the Court of Common Pleas and has authority to promulgate local rules for both the Court of Common Pleas and the Magisterial District Courts. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 325(e); Pa.R.J.A. 605(A).
As noted in section five of the Case Records Public Access Policy, a Magisterial District Judge's denial of a request for case records may be appealed to the President Judge of the judicial district. See 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, sec. 5(E) ("Relief from a magisterial district court may be sought by filing an appeal with the president judge of the judicial district or the president judge's designee.").
The foregoing authorities make clear that (1) we have the power to promulgate an administrative order facilitating prompt public access to night-duty case records of the Magisterial District Courts during night-duty hours; and (2) the Magisterial District Judges in the Third Judicial District are required to comply with our order.
IV. The President Judge's Authority
Over Magisterial District Judges
The President Judge of a Court of Common Pleas is the executive and administrative head of the Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 325(e).
Powers of president judge.--Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by this title, by general rule or by order of the governing authority, the president judge of a court shall:
(1) Be the executive and administrative head of the court, supervise the judicial business of the court, promulgate all administrative rules and regulations, make all judicial assignments, and assign and reassign among the personnel of the court available chambers and other physical facilities.
(2) Exercise the powers of the court under section 2301(a)(2) (relating to appointment of personnel).
Id.
The President Judge's role as executive and administrative head of the Court includes supervision of the Magisterial District Judges in that judicial district. See Pa.R.J.A. 605(A) ("The president judge of the court of common pleas of a judicial district shall exercise general supervision and administrative authority over magisterial district courts within the judicial district."). If a President Judge receives a complaint about the conduct of a Magisterial District Judge, the President Judge has authority to inform the appropriate disciplinary authority. See Pa.R.J.A. 605(B)(7) ("When a complaint is received with respect to the conduct of a magisterial district judge, the president judge may . . . take any action the president judge deems appropriate to assure the efficient administration of justice including, where warranted, informing the appropriate disciplinary authority.").
Willful refusal by a Judge or Magisterial District Judge to comply with an administrative order issued by the President Judge of the Court constitutes defiance of authority and may result in imposition of sanctions by either the Judicial Conduct Board or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See, e.g., In re Avellino, 690 A.2d 1138, 1144 (Pa. 1997) ("Avellino I"). In Avellino I, a Judge of a Court of Common Pleas willfully refused to accept his assignment to preside over criminal trials in that Court's "felony-waiver program" by the Administrative Judge of the Trial Division of that court. See id. at 1139. In response, the President Judge of that Court filed a petition against the disobedient Judge in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Judge's refusal to accept his assignment from the Administrative Judge was an "unjustified defiance of legitimate authority" and ordered the disobedient Judge to appear for a hearing "at which time the Court will consider whether sanctions, e.g., no further action by the Court, private or public reprimand, suspension with or without pay, or removal from office, should be imposed upon the [Judge]." Id. at 1144. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated, "The suggestion that each judge may in the first instance determine unilaterally the appropriateness of complying with an administrative order invites chaos and is simply untenable." Id. at 1144 n.7. At the subsequent hearing, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order suspending the Judge without pay for three months and requiring him to submit weekly performance reports for six months thereafter. See In re Avellino, 690 A.2d 1144, 1146 (Pa. 1997) ("Avellino II"); see also In re McFalls, 795 A.2d 367, (Pa. 2002) (suspension without pay for thirty days was appropriate sanction for Common Pleas Court Judge who refused to obey directive from the President Judge to attend a meeting to discuss the Judge's resumption of duties following administrative suspension).
In Avellino I, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that it could impose sanctions on the Common Pleas Court Judge pursuant to the Supreme Court's general supervisory powers. See 690 A.2d at 1143. "We have . . . established that the assignment of [the disobedient Common Pleas Court Judge] to the felony-waiver program was made under the administrative authority of this Court delegated to the [Administrative Judge of the Trial Division of the Court of Common Pleas] and therefore review of that assignment for any reason is properly within the supervisory power of this Court." Id. However, the Supreme Court made clear that the President Judge's complaint against the Common Pleas Court Judge also could have been addressed by the Judicial Conduct Board and the Court of Judicial Discipline established by Article V, Section 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See id. "Conversely, of course, action by this Court pursuant to our supervisory power in no way affects the independent authority of the Judicial Conduct Board to investigate the same conduct for purposes of disciplinary action pursuant to Article V, Section 18." Id. n.6. Based on the foregoing authorities, willful refusal by a Magisterial District Judge to comply with our administrative order governing public access to night-duty records may result in imposition of sanctions against the Magisterial District Judge by either the Judicial Conduct Board or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
The President Judge is required to ensure that the Magisterial District Judges comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 116. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 517 requires the President Judge to ensure continuous coverage for issuance of arrest warrants pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 513. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 117.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 513, in turn, requires the President Judge to ensure prompt public access to arrest warrant information. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 513(A). Accordingly, the President Judge is required to promulgate rules and procedures requiring the Magisterial District Judges in the judicial district to provide continuous coverage for issuance of arrest warrants and prompt public access to arrest warrant information. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 116, 117, 513(A). To implement these rules, we have issued a directive to the Magisterial District Judges in the Third Judicial District to provide prompt access to night-duty judicial records during night-duty hours. The Magisterial District Judges are required to follow our duly promulgated administrative orders. See Pa.R.J.A. 605(A). A Magisterial District Judge who willfully refuses to follow our orders can be disciplined by referral to the Judicial Conduct Board or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See In re Avellino, 690 A.2d 1138, 1144 (Pa. 1997) ("Avellino I"). Accordingly, we hereby promulgate the within administrative order requiring the Magisterial District Judges in the Third Judicial District to provide prompt access to night-duty judicial records during night-duty hours.
WHEREFORE, we issue the following:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTYCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION - LAW
IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2020-5 ) No.: C-48-CV-2020-1884
PUBLIC ACCESS TO NIGHT-DUTY CASE )
RECORDS OF THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURTS )
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2020, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 605(A), the Court hereby incorporates the Court's Administrative Order 2007-3 of July 5, 2007, as amended by the Court's Administrative Order 2015-9 of December 17, 2015, and further amends it as follows:
10(C) Magisterial District Judges will be provided with a cellular telephone, the number of which is 484-656-1638. While on night-duty, the Magisterial District Judge shall exclusively use this cellular telephone for all calls related to night-duty, including for the purpose of responding to public requests for night-duty case records. The first Magisterial District Judge who has night-duty following the date of this order shall obtain the cellular telephone from Northampton County Deputy Court Administrator Debra C. French at the Office of Court Administration, 669 Washington Street in Easton, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, each Magisterial District Judge who has night-duty shall be responsible for obtaining the cellular telephone from the Magisterial District Judge who previously had night-duty. In the event that the Magisterial District Judge in possession of the cellular telephone is unavailable due to illness, emergency, or a similar reason, the Magisterial District Judge seeking to obtain the cellular telephone shall contact Deputy Court Administrator French to make arrangements to obtain the cellular telephone. During night-duty hours, any member of the public shall be permitted to request night-duty case records by calling the cellular telephone of the Magisterial District Judge on duty at 484-656-1638 and providing his or her name, email address, fax number, and the records requested. Subject to any restrictions on disclosure of confidential information provided by applicable law and rules, including the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, 204 Pa. Code § 213.81, the Magisterial District Judge on night-duty shall immediately fax or email the requested night-duty case records to the fax number or email address provided without any undue delay under the circumstances existing at the time of the request and, in all instances, must be provided within three hours of the request.
It is further ORDERED that the Sheriff shall personally serve each Northampton County Magisterial District Judge with a copy of this Order. The costs of service shall be paid by Court Administration. This Order[FN2] shall be effective on March 3, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Michael J. Koury, Jr.____
MICHAEL J. KOURY, JR.
PRESIDENT JUDGE
[FN2 This Order is neither used to “govern judicial administration” nor used to “govern practice and procedure.” See Pa.R.J.A. 103(c)(1) and 103(d)(1). Rather, this Order is issued pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 605(A). (“The president judge of the court of common pleas of a judicial district shall exercise general supervision and administrative authority over magisterial district courts within the judicial district.”). See Pa.R.J.A. 605(A).]