Kane fights release of some porn emails

HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's office went to court Wednesday to block the public release of a trove of pornographic emails shared by former and current employees.

Though Kane has previously released some of the emails, her office took the opposite position before a panel of Commonwealth Court judges, fighting a request by The Inquirer under the state's Right-to-Know law for all of the messages to be made public.

John G. Knorr 3d, who heads the office's appellate division, argued that the emails did not meet the law's definition of a public record. He said a public record was something that documents an agency's business - and that the pornographic emails, while salacious, had nothing to do with the business of the Attorney General's Office.

"What we are talking about are smutty emails that people sent to each other for their own amusement," he said.

Attorneys for The Inquirer have argued the emails are public because they document how the agency's employees, including some of its former top prosecutors and agents, routinely and over several years used taxpayer resources and time.

Terry Mutchler, a Pepper Hamilton attorney who argued the case for the newspaper Wednesday, also said Kane had acted in bad faith, saying publicly that she's been legally restricted from releasing all the emails in her possession, but then going to court arguing for them to remain secret.

"You need a legal GPS to follow her position," Mutchler told reporters after the hearing.

Judge P. Kevin Brobson raised a similar question in court.

"If the position is she wants to produce the records, I'm not sure what the issue is here," he said.

After the hearing, Kane spokesman Chuck Ardo said regardless of the court's decision, Kane will make as many of the X-rated emails public as she can.

But a statement she issued later left that in doubt. In it, Kane said she was afraid that under one post-ruling scenario, she could still be in legal jeopardy for violating a protective order if she released the emails.

That order, issued by a Montgomery County judge, bans retaliation against witnesses in an investigation that led to the pending criminal charges against Kane for allegedly leaking grand jury material.

Kane said in a statement last month that she wanted guidance from the court - although recently unsealed court documents show the state's highest court told her last year that she was not prevented from "appropriate disclosure" of the emails.

Still, Ardo said the office was concerned that releasing all the pornographic emails would open the door to allowing the public to ask for, and view, any personal emails sent or received by employees.

Several of the judges appeared to share that concern Wednesday.

"Where do you draw the line?" asked President Judge Dan Pellegrini.

717-787-5934@AngelasInk