to explain how the video portion of the MVRs captured any criminal investigation. In contrast, the Authority in the present case submitted affidavits as to how it investigated Requester’s claim and the circumstances under which it downloaded and reviewed its recordings when undertaking a noncriminal investigation of a claim. As noted, Mr. Stoker stated that the Authority’s claims adjuster reviewed the recordings as part of its investigation. Even though Mr. Stoker indicated that the adjuster’s review of the recordings was reviewed in the course of investigating Requester’s property damage claim, were related to and, indeed, part of the noncriminal investigation such that they constituted investigative materials. See Fennell v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 149 A.3d 101, 105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the adjuster found the
holding investigation was not deficient in part because counsel hired an experienced death penalty investigator who conducted a thorough investigation into defendants history holding the itc may reasonably interpret the subject to investigation provision to mean that imports covered by a suspension agreement in which an investigation is temporarily terminated are not subject to investigation while under that agreement emphasis added holding that the requested materials a copy of a report or anything put on record regarding the commissions investigation into a tree stand that was allegedly too close to a house fell within noncriminal investigation exemption holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that after a reasonable investigation an insurer must promptly settle a claim for the value or within the range assigned to the claim as a result of its investigation