Late last year the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ruled that a local man who had sought copies of surveillance videos shot at the Lancaster County courthouse was entitled to the tapes.

Now the county has appealed that ruling to Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and the Pennsylvania court system itself has gotten involved, asserting that the tapes need to be kept secret to protect the safety of judges and other courthouse employees.

In late February, attorneys with the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts in Philadelphia filed a "petition to intervene" in the case of County of Lancaster vs. Bennett Vonderheide.

Vonderheide, a Conestoga resident and fathers' rights activist, had sought tapes of two altercations involving him and sheriff's deputies at the county courthouse last fall.

In a curious administrative twist, although the local court did not ask the AOPC to get involved, the AOPC filed its request on behalf of Lancaster County Court.

That ultimately means the local court is asking itself for permission to get involved in the case.

Vonderheide, who has not yet responded to the county's appeal, said he doesn't see how the case could possibly be heard in Lancaster County. With the involvement of the state courts, he wonders if he could get a fair hearing anywhere in Pennsylvania.

"The judges themselves are saying they don't want anyone to see" the surveillance video, Vonderheide said.

"We have cameras all over the county, watching citizens — but no one's allowed to watch the judges?"

Two incidents
Vonderheide has requested video footage and incident reports stemming from two incidents last fall. The first happened when sheriff's deputies forcibly removed him from Lancaster County Courtroom 7 on Sept. 9. Vonderheide said he was on hand to keep a "close eye" on an assistant district attorney who handles protection-from-abuse cases.

Sheriff's deputies and other courthouse employees know Vonderheide well: He is often at, or outside the courthouse, with video camera in hand to document what he sees as the legal system's mistreatment of fathers. Long embroiled in a custody battle with a former girlfriend, he runs a Web site called DaddyJustice.com and has been an outspoken critic of now retired family court Judge Wayne Hummer. Vonderheide has driven around town with a huge sign on a trailer emblazoned with the words "Hummer hates dads."

Vonderheide also wanted footage shot by cameras on the first and second floor of the courthouse Oct. 23, when he said his own video camera was ripped from his hands by a sheriff's deputy who accused him of "smuggling" it into the courthouse.

The county denied his requests.

Vonderheide then turned to the state Office of Open Records, which ruled Dec. 24 that he couldn't have the incident reports, but was entitled to the video footage.

County assistant solicitor Nicole Decker had argued that Vonderheide should be denied the footage because the cameras are designed to ensure the safety of courthouse personnel, and that releasing the videos would show areas not covered by the surveillance cameras. This, Decker argued, was reasonably likely to result in "a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm" to the "personal security of an individual."

In the county's appeal of the agency's ruling, Decker reiterates the claim, and notes that the state has denied other requests where there was a "substantial and demonstrable risk of harm" if surveillance video was released.

"We're basically asking [the state] to interpret our case in a way that's consistent with their own opinion," Decker said in an interview last week.

And the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts insists the security risk is real.

The group is the administrative arm of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In its "petition for intervention," its attorneys, A. Taylor Williams and Michael Daley, assert that if permitted to intervene, the court will file a "petition for review" detailing "the stated impact of the instant Right to Know Law request on the judicial branch of government and the security of the judiciary, judiciary staff and court employees."

In that document, Williams and Daley argue that the surveillance cameras "exist largely for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the judicial personnel of the Court of Common Pleas." They also note that the state's new Right to Know Law does not apply to the judicial branch, except as to financial information.

"The Court of Common Pleas and its security are detrimentally affected by the OOR [Office of Open Records] determination that security videos showing courtroom areas and courthouse areas, which are the province of the judiciary, must be turned over to public requesters" like Vonderheide.

Vonderheide ridiculed the sentiment. "If they can film citizens walking down the street, why can't we film them?" he asked. Though Pennsylvania does not permit cameras or recording devices in courtrooms, Vonderheide asked: "Who protects the citizens from errant judges or officers of the law? Don't they use the cameras to prosecute citizens when the film shows [law enforcement] what they want?"

Williams and Daley go on to note that a total of 236 "security incidents" were reported in the state's Courts of Common Pleas from 2007 to 2009. "The requested security videos depicting courtroom areas and activity within the judicial sphere is intended to be viewed exclusively by public safety personnel to insure the safety of judicial personnel and persons who have business with the court system."

Mark Dalton, Lancaster County Court administrator, said "we did not ask for" the AOPC to get involved in the case.

"We always advise them of anything that's going on," he said.

Art Heinz, communications and legislative affairs coordinator for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the AOPC, said the courts decided to get involved "because there's an issue here of courthouse security as it affects the judiciary ... we view this as an administrative matter."

But another concern is that the local case might set a precedent.

Decker, the assistant county solicitor, said that Pennsylvania's right-to-know law is so new, "just barely a year old, and [the state Office of Open Records] hasn't issued very many decisions.

"At this point, every Right-to-Know request is setting precedent," Decker said.