J-A16040-16
2016 PA Super 188
IN RE: 2014 ALLEGHENY COUNTY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: WPXI, INC. : No. 950 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order May 22, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-MD-0003179-2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2016
WPXI, Inc. (WPXI) appeals from the May 22, 2015 order that denied
its motion to intervene and obtain access to public judicial records. Because
WPXI has obtained the requested documents, we dismiss this appeal as
moot.
The following underlying facts are not in dispute. In early 2015,
allegations of improper sexual relations between faculty and students at
Allegheny County’s Plum High School became public. In covering the
ongoing news story surrounding the contentions and resulting grand jury
investigation into them, WPXI, a Pittsburgh-based television station,
presented to the trial judge serving as the supervising judge of the grand
jury a motion to intervene and to access public judicial records. Therein,
WPXI averred, upon information and belief, that the trial court had on May
18, 2015, issued (1) a warrant authorizing a search at the Plum High School
Administration Building, and (2) an order sealing the affidavit of probable
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A16040-16
cause that supported the search warrant.1 Motion to Intervene, 5/21/2015,
at 1-2. After hearing argument on the motion on May 22, 2015, the trial
court denied WPXI’s motion.
On June 17, 2015, WPXI timely filed a notice of appeal. WPXI asks
this Court to determine that the trial court should have granted its motion
and given it access to the search warrant and the sealing order. WPXI’s
Brief at 4. Before we address the questions raised by WPXI, we must
consider whether any controversy remains for us to decide, or whether the
appeal is moot.
“The mootness doctrine requires that an actual case or controversy
must be extant at all stages of review….” Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 812
A.2d 591, 600 (Pa. 2002) (quoting In Re Cain, 590 A.2d 291, 292 (Pa.
1991)). “Where the issues in a case are moot, any opinion issued would be
merely advisory and, therefore, inappropriate.” Stuckley v. Zoning
Hearing Bd. of Newtown Twp., 79 A.3d 510, 516 (Pa. 2013). “An issue
before a court is moot when a determination is sought on a matter which,
when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing
controversy.” Printed Image of York, Inc. v. Mifflin Press, Ltd., 133
A.3d 55, 59 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
1
WPXI was “not seeking access to the supporting affidavit or any
attachment identifying suspected juvenile victims.” N.T., 5/22/2016, at 3.
-2-
J-A16040-16
The relief WPXI seeks in the instant appeal is to be granted access to
the search warrant and the trial court order sealing the affidavit of probable
cause. Appellant’s Brief at 20. Yet, WPXI acknowledges that it has access
to both documents. See id. at 19 (noting that the executed warrant was
posted on the Internet, and citing a web page that provides both the order
and the warrant). Thus, a determination in WPXI’s favor would have no
practical effect, and the question is moot.
However, “if the issues raised by an appeal are ‘substantial questions’
or ‘questions of public importance,’ and are capable of repetition, yet likely
to evade appellate review, then we will reach the merits of the appeal
despite its technical mootness.” In re Estate of Border, 68 A.3d 946, 954
(Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and some internal quotation marks omitted).
Although the issues raised by WPXI appear to be of public importance,
we are not persuaded that they are apt to avoid review. It does not seem
likely to this Court that repeated attempts to intervene and obtain
documents will be denied by a trial court, but each time another source will
provide the sought-after documents before an appellate court is able to
review the propriety of the trial court’s actions. Cf. In re Doe, 33 A.3d 615,
622 (Pa. 2011) (noting that exception to mootness doctrine applies in
abortion cases “because the questions … are of public importance, are
capable of repetition, and may evade review due to the condensed time
frame evident in every pregnancy”).
-3-
J-A16040-16
Having determined that WPXI’s issues are moot, but not likely to
evade appellate review if repeated, we dismiss WPXI’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/25/2016
-4-