By

way of procedural history, a Right to Know request concerning police activity at the
home of Scott Martin was filed by a citizen with West Lampeter Township and their
police department. West Lampeter Township denied the request. The citizen appealed
the decision. Appeals of Right To Know requests concerning police are directed to
Assistant District Attorney Susan Moyer, who is the Right To Know Officer for the
Lancaster County District Attorneys Office.
What took place after that is described in detail below:
On April 18, 2016 Neal Rice appeared on NPR radio as part of a debate/candidate forum.
He stated that in the dark world of politics as usual he will bring some light. He then
claimed that someone sent his campaign a Right to Know Request to West Lampeter
Township asking for any police activity at the home of Scott Martin. He stated that the
township consulted with the District Attorney Craig Stedman, who is a campaign
chairman for Mr. Martin, and that he would not release any information. He then
proceeded to challenge Mr. Martin to ask his campaign chairman to publicly release
the information. Later, he stated that he was asking Mr. Martin to ask District Attorney
Stedman to be transparent and accountable, and to publicly comment on this.
Mr. Rices comments clearly imply: there has been a crime/s at the home of Mr. Martin;
District Attorney Stedman, and/or his staff, actively influenced West Lampeter Township
to cover up a crime/s, at least with the respect to Right to Know, if not more; that West
Lampeter Township and Police Department joined the conspiracy; that the District
Attorneys office has and had the jurisdiction and legal authority to respond to the
request and release this information; and that District Attorney Stedman has not been
open and transparent, thus acted unethically, if not criminally.
Because these statements, allegations, and implications were and are demonstrably
false and/or misleading, District Attorney Stedman contacted Mr. Rice, provided him the
information below, and requested that Mr. Rice retract and correct his statements. Mr.
Rice indicated that he would correct the matter. However, because he has failed to
completely do so to date, and media has requested a public reply, this office must
reluctantly respond with the indisputable facts. Facts which, in part, have been provided
by West Lampeter Township.
Preliminarily, Mr. Rice did not disclose that the someone who filed the Right to Know
Request and appeal has been closely associated with his campaign.
More significantly, no one from the home of Mr. Martin has been charged with a crime.
The police did not respond to the home, nor were they requested to do so. There is no

criminal investigation of anyone from that home, and no one has requested a criminal
investigation into anyone from that home.
The response to the original Right To Know request and the denial was entirely the
province of West Lampeter Township. No one from the District Attorneys office has
ever done anything whatsoever to influence or even remotely suggest to West
Lampeter Township, or anyone, as to how to respond to the request. Moreover, no one
from the office has done anything but perform their lawful duties without regard to
politics.
The only contact the District Attorneys office had with the township concerning the
original request was when Assistant District Attorney Susan Moyer, in her normal
capacity duties as the Right to Know Officer, gave technical advice to the township on a
legal definition when the township asked prior to their deciding how to respond.
Assistant District Attorney Moyer was not provided the records, or lack thereof, and
never suggested or implied how to answer the request. It should be noted that Assistant
District Attorney Moyer is a career prosecutor of stellar character and integrity; to see
her maligned as she has been (even if inadvertently) is particularly reprehensible.
The substantive role of the Lancaster County District Attorney in this matter was limited
to our legal mandate to act as the Appeals Officer regarding the appeal against West
Lampeter Township. However, this office never acted on that appeal. In fact, because of
District Attorney Stedmans connection to Mr. Martin, the District Attorney refused to
allow his office to handle the appeal and requested the state Attorney General take over
the matter. This was done after open and honest discussion with counsel for the
Requester and their expressed consent, despite the fact they knew the transfer/conflict
process would result in some delay. In our communications to counsel, we clearly stated
this office would never be involved in the appeal and we would find another outside
lawyer to handle the matter, should the Attorney General decline to accept the case.
Counsel for the Requester agreed with this course of action. It should be noted that our
request to the Attorney General included a request to provide a substantive answer on
the appeal by March 31, 2016.
The Attorney General, on April 8, refused to accept the case, which is fully within their
power, and they provided valid justification. As a result, and instead of handling the
appeal, we promptly contacted a local attorney, a registered Democrat who is
completely neutral in the political race at hand. The attorney accepted the appointment
to act as the Appeals Officer for the case at hand. He had full authority to do whatever
he believed was legally correct in this case. District Attorney Stedman and his office

has/had no influence or input in the matter, and have in no way suggested or requested
the attorney do anything but follow the law.
Under the explained circumstances, the District Attorneys office did not and does not
have jurisdiction to rule on, respond, release, or refuse to release what is a West
Lampeter Township record and subject of the appeal. The records belong to West
Lampeter Township and the District Attorney conflicted out the case.
It is our understanding that the appeal has been denied by the independent attorney,
upholding the decision of West Lampeter Township. It should be noted that the
definition of a criminal investigative record, pursuant to Right to Know, does not
necessarily mean a crime took place and is much broader in scope than most would
assume. Under certain circumstances, even a fairly simple inquiry with no required
police follow-up could be considered a criminal investigative record, pursuant to Right
to Know law, and thus exempt from disclosure. Further, also under some circumstances,
the Criminal History Right Information Act also prohibits disclosure of certain facts
which do not amount to a crime and for any Right to Know or appeal officer to do so in
those circumstances would violate the law. This is not a political determination; it is a
legal one.

Each case is factually and legally specific, but the simple truth in this case is that West
Lampeter Township handled the original response, an independent lawyer handled the
appeal, and the District Attorneys office stayed completely out of the rulings and
responses.

In sum, District Attorney Stedman pulled himself and his entire office out of this process
in order to avoid the very suggestion of impropriety made on the radio show by Mr.
Rice. This is not an opinion. Regardless of whatever anyone implies or attempts to use
for political purposes, the facts listed reveal that Mr. Rices comment and suggestions
were grossly misleading and demonstrably false.
This is our only statement on the matter; there will be no further comment from the
District Attorneys office.