Category Archives: OPRA Cases

NJ Supreme Court grants certification in OPRA case regarding identity of State Trooper who engaged in “racially offensive” behavior

The New Jersey Supreme Court has granted an OPRA requestor’s Petition for Certification and agreed to hear an appeal in Libertarians for Transparent Government v. New Jersey State Police.

The question the Court certified is:

“Does section ten of the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10, require disclosure of the name of a state trooper listed in the Office of Professional Standard’s annual report to the Legislature as having been terminated for misconduct?”

For background, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 states that personnel records are generally exempt under OPRA, but provides three exceptions to the exemption. At issue in this case is the first exception, which states that:

an individual’s name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor, and the amount and type of any pension received shall be a government record”

Each year, the Office of Professional Standards of the New Jersey State Police issues a public report detailing major discipline that is imposed upon State Troopers.  The 2015 report disclosed the following:

Member pled guilty to acting in an unofficial capacity to the discredit of the Division while off-duty by having questionable associations, engaging in racially offensive behavior and publicly discussing police patrol procedures. The member was required to forfeit all accrued time and separate from employment with the Division.

Upon reviewing that report, the requestor filed an OPRA request asking for the Trooper’s name, title, date of separation and the reason therefor, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. The State Police denied the request, arguing that it was exempt pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 and the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policies & Procedures.

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden partner CJ Griffin sued on behalf of the requestor and argued that “date of separation and the reason therefor” meant that the public is entitled to know the real reason a particular employee separated from employment. In this case, the State Police gave the reason, but would not provide the name or date of separation, frustrating the statute’s purpose. Clearly, the public has a significant interest in knowing the identity of a Trooper who engaged in “racially offensive behavior.” Moreover, the the phrase “required to . . . separate from employment” makes it unclear whether the Trooper was fired or whether he or she was permitted to retire in good standing and move on to another law enforcement position.

Griffin argued that disclosure of the Trooper’s name was required pursuant to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in South Jersey Publishing Co. v. New Jersey Expressway Authority, 124 N.J. 478 (1991), a unanimous opinion written by retired Supreme Court Justice Gary S. Stein. In that case, it was widely rumored that the agency’s executive director was under scrutiny for misusing government credit cards.  The agency met in executive session and discussed its investigation into the matter, then worked out an agreement by which the executive director would “resign in good standing” and receive payment of his salary and fringe benefits for nearly a year after his “resignation.” OPRA did not exist at the time, but Executive Order No. 11 (EO 11) contained language essentially identical to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 and required disclosure of an employee’s “date of separation from government service and the reason therefor.”  Applying that provision of EO 11, the Court found it was insufficient for the agency to simply tell the public that there was a “resignation” or “voluntary separation,” but rather that it must disclose “the results of the [agency’s] investigation.”  The Court recognized that disclosure of such information was necessary so that the public could intelligently make an evaluation of whether the agency acted reasonably in permitting the executive director to resign in good standing with several months of salary and benefits.

Unfortunately, in this case, the trial court and Appellate Division both affirmed the State Police’s denial of access. Neither court addressed the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in South Jersey Publishing. The Supreme Court will now hear the requestor’s appeal.

The successful Petition for Certification can be found here. Amicus curiae briefs are due on December 26, 2019.

Third Circuit Issues Important OPRA Decision on Legal Fees

According to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, a records requestor who prevails in any proceeding shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees. We have written about OPRA’s fee-shifting provision before, noting that without the fee-shift most requestors would not have the funds to challenge denials of access. As a result, the state would be far less transparent.

On August 14, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an important published opinion relating to OPRA’s mandatory fee-shifting provision.

The case, titled Golden v. New Jersey Institute for Technology, involved OPRA requests filed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Daniel Golden, who was seeking records from NJIT to use as research for his book, “Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America’s Universities.” Many of the responsive records in NJIT’s files originated from the FBI and were purportedly subject to prohibitions on public dissemination.

The records custodian reached out to the FBI to determine how to respond to the request and the FBI directed NJIT to withhold most of the records “[i]n no uncertain terms.” NJIT thus denied the OPRA requests by claiming the records were exempt.  Golden sued.

After the lawsuit was filed and removed to federal court, the FBI reviewed the previously withheld records and NJIT produced thousands of pages of documents that it had formerly deemed to be exempt. Golden moved for attorney’s fees, arguing that he was a prevailing party because his lawsuit was the “catalyst” for NJIT’s release of records that were not exempt. The District Court denied the fee motion and was “persuaded by NJIT’s position that it had acted reasonably in following the FBI’s direction.”

The Third Circuit disagreed and all but stated, “If a public agency permits a third party–even if it’s the FBI–to dictate its OPRA response, then that public agency will be on the hook for attorneys’ fees if it turns out that the denial of access was unlawful.” The court made it clear that it is the custodian who has the obligation “to parse the requested records, decide whether exemptions appl[y], and withhold documents pursuant to those exemptions” and that obligation cannot be outsourced to a third party outside the agency.

Importantly, the Third Circuit flatly rejected the argument that OPRA’s fee-shifting provision contains any “reasonableness” requirement. State courts have reached the same conclusion based on the plain language of OPRA, but public agencies still make this argument to trial courts.

This decision is important because there are often times where issues of first impression are litigated and the agency was operating under good faith when it denied a request, but nonetheless was wrong as a matter of law. In such situations, the OPRA requestor is still entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Indeed, OPRA contains a mandatory fee-shifting provision so that requestors can find competent counsel to litigate those types of cases.

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden Notes Impact of Dash Cam Case on 2nd Anniversary of Landmark New Jersey Supreme Court Decision in North Jersey Media Group v. Township of Lyndhurst

When Pashman Stein Walder Hayden partners CJ Griffin and Samuel J. Samaro received the unanimous decision in North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017), from the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 11, 2017, it was clear that this hard-fought matter was a landmark case that would have significant impact on transparency about the use of force by police in the state of New Jersey. The Court had granted access via the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and common law to police records and dash cam footage of a high-speed police chase and the fatal use of force on a black, male suspect, documents that the State had for more than two years refused to release.

It has been two years since the case set a precedent about the usage of OPRA in obtaining law enforcement records, dash cam footage, and Use of Force Reports. The case received national attention, as reporters applauded the affirmation of government transparency as a fundamental principal that trumps a police agency’s interest in keeping videos and reports secret. “In New Jersey, police officers are required to complete Use of Force Reports any time they use any amount of force against a suspect, whether it is twisting someone’s arm, using leg or wrist strikes, or using deadly force, which is any time a weapon is fired,” said Griffin. “The State sought to shield Use of Force Reports from the public permanently and keep the public from learning the identities of officers who use deadly force against citizens. Thankfully the Supreme Court made that information public.”

Griffin adds, “We continue to litigate for information on police shootings and conduct across the state. For example, an appeal is pending on whether a Use of Force Report relating to force used against a juvenile suspect is accessible via OPRA because it directly pertains to the conduct of the police officer, or, as the law enforcement agency counters, is exempt as juvenile records for delinquency crimes. We also continue to file numerous cases for access to body camera footage and other information about police-involved shootings.”

“At this two-year milestone,” Samaro states, “the Lyndhurst decision continues to be impactful. The unprecedented access to police reports has revealed misconduct details and use of force statistics that had never been viewed or analyzed before. We used solid legal arguments to obtain access to this information, and in doing so, opened a movement for greater transparency in our law enforcement agencies.”

As a direct result of the Lyndhurst decision, a public database was created of more than 70,000 Use of Force Reports, searchable by town and by specific officer. It has been reported that the State Attorney General Gurbir Grewal is taking steps to improve police oversight, and that he is acting in part on the information provided in the Use of Force report that derived from the Lyndhurst decision.

Michael S. Stein, chair and managing partner of Pashman Stein, said, “The Lyndhurst case took a stand not only for the journalists who sought the truth about the fatal shooting of Kashad Ashford, but also for the nearly 30 amici curiae that participated in the litigation on behalf of diverse communities who want to ensure that the press and public have meaningful access to law enforcement records. At Pashman Stein, we are committed to taking on these high impact public interest cases, and to use advocacy to advance civil rights and government transparency.”

Judge rules North Arlington improperly imposed service charge for Facebook records

Last week, Bergen County Assignment Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol issued an opinion finding that the Borough of North Arlington unlawfully imposed a special service charge upon a records requestor who sought records from the Borough’s Facebook pages.

The OPRA request at issue in Wronko v. North Arlington sought the list of individuals who had been banned from the Borough’s Facebook page, as well as a list of any words that had been censored and the list of page administrators. In response, the Borough insisted it needed to use an outside IT consultant to capture the screenshots necessary to fulfill the request, which would cost $200 for 2 hours of time.

OPRA permits a special service charge only in limited circumstances. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(d) provides that:

If a request is for a record: . . . requiring a substantial amount of manipulation or programming of information technology, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special charge that shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost for any extensive use of information technology, or for the labor cost of personnel providing the service, that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the programming, clerical, and supervisory assistance required, or both.

Otherwise, “electronic records and non-printed materials shall be provided free of charge.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b)(1).

After hearing expert testimony from both parties, Judge Mizdol concluded “that production of the requested documents does not require a substantial amount of manipulation of information technology.”  The court found that capturing screenshots of the Facebook pages that contained the list of banned users and censored words “did not require any expertise in the field of information technology” and that any person with a “basic level of computer skills” would be able to fulfill the request by utilizing Facebook’s “Help” pages or a “simple Google search for ‘how to take a screenshot.'”

Importantly, the Court noted that it is imperative that agencies be able to fulfill modern day OPRA requests:

OPRA requests increasingly involve information technology in this digital age. Those hired to serve as an OPRA Records Custodian, thus, must have the requisite skills to reply to requests for government records located on such digital platforms. If a custodian does not have such skills, the municipality has the ability to rely on information technology experts or hire third party help. However, shifting costs related to same [to the requestor] requires the presence of a substantial amount of manipulation on information technology.

Unfortunately, the imposition of special service charges seems to be on the uptick. Many requestors may simply walk away from a request if the agency seeks to impose a significant fee, but it is possible to challenge the fees in court. In this case, Judge Mizdol ordered the agency to release the records without any fee and to pay the requestor’s legal fees.

 

Lawsuit Challenges Essex County Prosecutor’s Refusal to Disclose Police Videos and Name of Newark Officer Who Fatally Shot Fleeing Motorist


Last week, CJ Griffin filed an OPRA lawsuit on behalf of Richard Rivera against the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office (ECPO) relating to its refusal to disclose the name of a Newark police officer who shot at a fleeing vehicle during a pursuit in January 2019, killing the driver and injuring the passenger. The lawsuit also seeks access to footage from police body-worn cameras and dash cameras.

ECPO denied the request because it is “concerned” that the officer may refuse to testify before the grand jury if his or her name is publicly disclosed. Mr. Rivera’s lawsuit argues that this is not a lawful basis for denying access to the information and videos and that transparency is important when police-involved shootings occur.

In 2017, we won an appeal in the New Jersey Supreme Court on a similar issue in North Jersey Media Group v. Township of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017). In Lyndhurst, the Supreme Court ruled that the public was entitled to learn the identities of the police officers involved in fatal shootings and see videos of those incidents “shortly after the incident,” after investigators “have interviewed the principal witnesses who observed the shooting and are willing to speak to law enforcement.” The Court stated that disclosure should ordinarily occur “within days of an incident, well before a grand jury presentation or possible trial.” In coming to such conclusions, the Court stated that the public has a significant interest in knowing the details about police-involved shootings and that non-disclosure of such information can undermine confidence in law enforcement.

As we previously wrote, in February 2018, the Attorney General issued Law Enforcement Directive 2018-1 to codify the Supreme Court’s decision.  The Directive states that videos of police-involved shootings should be released when the “initial investigation” is “substantially complete,” which means that the principal witnesses have been interviewed and the evidence has been gathered. This should “typically will occur within 20 days of the incident itself.” Only in extraordinary circumstances could a video be withheld longer than 20 days.

In this case, the police-involved shooting occurred on January 28, 2019 and ECPO still refuses to release the officer’s identity or the police videos more than three months later.

NJ Advance Media has written an article about the lawsuit, which provides more details about the underlying shooting incident. A hearing date has not yet been set by the court.

*Photo by Matt Popovich on Unsplash

Court: Carteret Mayor’s Facebook Page is Subject to OPRA

In September 2018, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of long-time client Steven Wronko seeking the list of users that Carteret Mayor Daniel J. Reiman has banned from his Facebook page.

Carteret opposed the lawsuit, arguing that Mayor Reiman’s Facebook page was simply a personal page and that he has constitutional right to ban members of the public and a privacy interest in keeping the ban list secret.

We responded and provided over 200 pages of screenshots from the Mayor’s Facebook page which showed that Mayor Reiman used his Facebook page to declare weather emergencies and keep the public informed during severe weather events; to talk about redevelopment projects happening in the Borough; and to discuss personnel issues, such as the suspension of a police officer. We also showed that residents frequently posted on the Page about issues they were having with government services and Mayor Reiman or “staff” would respond to those inquiries and try to resolve the issues. Our brief is available here.

On January 11, 2019, the Honorable Alberto Rivas, A.J.S.C., heard oral arguments and found that Mayor Reiman’s Facebook page is subject to OPRA because it is used to conduct the Mayor’s official business. He adopted the fact-sensitive analysis used by Judge Mizdol in Larkin v. Glen Rock, a similar case we won last year.

Judge Rivas ordered Carteret to produce the ban list and to pay Mr. Wronko’s legal fees. A copy of the Order is here.

 

2018 Year in Review

Happy New Year! 2018 was a very busy year for the OPRA team at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden.

Here’s a look back on some of the highlights…

 

CJ Griffin Interviewed for Marketplace Reports on NPR

CJ Griffin, a member of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden’s Media Law Group, was interviewed by Marketplace regarding a prior OPRA lawsuit she brought against the City of Newark seeking its Amazon HQ2 bid.

The public radio program, “What’s in Those Amazon HQ2 Bids? It’s Not Entirely Clear” by Renata Sago and Leila Goldstein, aired on Tuesday, November 6th.

“There’s hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, of tax dollars, at stake,” said CJ Griffin, a partner at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, who argued the case. “That’s taxpayer money. When you give tax breaks, that impacts other people, so the public has a right to know.”

To listen to the story, click here

For more background on the lawsuit, click here.

Lawsuit Seeks Settlement/Separation Agreement For Corrections Officer

NJ Advance Media has written about the recent lawsuit we filed on behalf of Libertarians for Transparent Government seeking a settlement/separation agreement between Cumberland County and a corrections officer who allegedly had inappropriate relationships with inmates. The lawsuit also asks the Court to find that Cumberland County violated OPRA when it told Plaintiff that the corrections officer was “terminated for disciplinary reasons,” when the Pension Board’s meeting minutes state that he was allowed to “retire in good standing.”

PSWH partner CJ Griffin is quoted in the article:

Attorney CJ Griffin, representing the plaintiff, argued that the county has provided a distorted view of Ellis’ case.

“By indicating that Ellis had been terminated for a disciplinary infraction, it leads the public to believe that Ellis paid a price for his admitted misconduct,” the suit states, “In reality, according to the pension board’s minutes, Cumberland County instead allowed him to ‘retire in good standing.'”

The South Jersey Times also published an editorial on the case, arguing that settlement agreements with employees should never be confidential.

For more information on the lawsuit and to review the pleadings, visit John Paff’s “NJ Open Government Notes” blog.

For questions about OPRA, contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.

 

 

Supreme Court Rules Dash Cams Pertaining to Criminal Investigations Are Not Subject to OPRA

This week, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a split decision (4-3) in Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office and once again ruled that dash camera videos that pertain to criminal investigations are not subject to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).

While the decision is a serious disappointment to transparency advocates, it does not actually change the status quo. Last year, in North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the dash cam video of a police-involved deadly shooting was not subject to OPRA because there was no Attorney General (AG) guideline or other law (statute, regulation, etc.) that required it to be made or maintained.[1]

The Court made it clear in Lyndhurst, however, that dash camera videos of police shootings should generally be released under the common law right of access within a few days of an incident. The AG subsequently issued a directive requiring their release within 20 days.

In Lyndhurst, the Court specifically said that it was not answering the question presented by Paff (which was pending on the Court’s docket): whether a directive by a local chief of police could satisfy the “required by law” standard, just as an AG directive does. Thus, the Paff case became a new opportunity for transparency advocates to convince the Court that dash camera videos are accessible under OPRA.

Unfortunately, the Court rejected that argument and thus the law remains the same: dash camera videos are only available under the common law right of access. But, it was a very close decision (4-3). Justice Albin wrote a biting dissent, which Justice LaVecchia and Justice Timpone joined, concluding that “[i]n the wake of today’s majority opinion, the operations of our government will be less transparent and our citizenry less informed, which may lead to greater misunderstanding and more distrust between the public and the police.”

We think Justice Albin’s assessment is right and we hope that the Legislature or the Attorney General will accept his invitation for action:

In accordance with Lyndhurst, the Attorney General or the Legislature can undo the damage caused by today’s decision. The Attorney General can adopt a statewide policy that addresses whether and how police video recordings are made and maintained, as he did with Use of Force Reports.

The public — particularly marginalized communities — will have greater trust in the police when law enforcement activities are transparent.

The public pays for the dash cameras. Why can’t we see the videos?

What Videos are Still Available?

  • Dash Cam Videos Relating to Crimes: These are probably not available under OPRA in most circumstances, but generally should be available under the common law per Lyndhurst.
  • Dash Cam Videos of Police Using Deadly Force: Same. Also, AG Directive 2018-1 requires disclosure under the common law within 20 days if the video depicts a deadly shooting or an incident where police use force that results in “serious bodily injury.”
  • Dash Cam Videos of a DWI: A DWI is not a crime, so these should generally be available under OPRA.
  • Dash Cam Videos of Traffic Stops: These should generally be available, unless the traffic stop turns criminal.
  • Body Camera Videos: We think these should be subject to OPRA because an AG Guideline requires them to be maintained. At the same time, the AG Guideline attempts to exempt body cam videos relating to criminal investigations. We have this issue pending on appeal.
  • Security Camera Videos: The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that security camera videos are not subject to OPRA, but access should be granted under the common law where a person states a sufficient interest in the video.

PSWH partner CJ Griffin submitted a brief on behalf of several amicus curiae and participated in the nearly three-hour oral argument. Griffin has litigated dozens of police records cases, including Lyndhurst.  Contact CJ at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com


[1] A criminal investigatory record is a record that is 1) held by a law enforcement agency; 2) pertain to any criminal investigation and 3) are “not required by law to be made, maintained, or kept on file.”