Category Archives: OPRA Legislation

Bill Would Exempt Addresses of Legislators, Probation Officers

As our readers may recall, Governor Murphy recently signed “Daniel’s Law” into law, which exempts the home addresses of current and former judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers from access under OPRA. A bill pending in the New Jersey Legislature would expand those exemptions to include two additional categories of persons.

Among other things, Senate Bill 3209  exempts from OPRA “that portion of any document which discloses the home address, whether a primary or secondary residence, of any active, formerly active, or retired probation officer or member of the Legislature.”

The addresses of current and former judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, probation officers and members of the Legislature are likely to appear in land deeds, property tax records, financial disclosure statements, and a variety of other quintessential public records that are available online in a variety of databases.

It is difficult to understand how public agencies would comply with this proposed law. There is no comprehensive list of every current and former probation officer or legislator that has ever worked or held office in this state so that a clerk would know which records to redact. NJ Advance Media has already written about how some agencies are struggling to comply with Daniel’s Law because there is similarly no master list of every current or former judge, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer that has ever worked in this state. Collectively, Daniel’s Law and S.3209 likely exempt tens of thousands of addresses.

S.3209 will be heard on January 14, 2021 at 10:15 a.m. in the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee.

For questions about this blog or OPRA, please contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.

2020 Transparency Year in Review

Happy New Year! The year 2020 was a year unlike any other. As we look back at transparency issues that arose over the past year, we hope that this blog finds our readers healthy and well.

Pandemic Creates Transparency Hurdles

Transparency was front and center in New Jersey in 2020, although sometimes it was the lack of transparency that was the focus.

On March 9, 2020, Governor Murphy issued Executive Order No. 103 to declare a Public Health Emergency in New Jersey. Days later, the Legislature rushed to amend the Open Public Meetings Act (OPRA) so that public agencies would not have to comply with the statute’s seven-day deadline during the pandemic. As a result, many requestors have found their OPRA requests stalled for weeks or months with no response. Given that Governor Murphy will likely continue to extend the Public Health Emergency declarations for quite some time, requestors can expect access to be slow for many more months.

Another major transparency hurdle in 2020 was the Emergency Health Powers Act. The 2005 law is designed to give the Governor vast powers during a public health crisis, but it also contains an expansive exemption that sates: “Any correspondence, records, reports and medical information made, maintained, received or filed pursuant to this act shall not be considered a public or government record under [OPRA].” N.J.S.A. 26:13-26. Several media outlets reported that the State was using the exemption to keep important information from the public, such as records about which medical facilities lacked protective gear or information about hospital capacity and supplies at nursing homes.

Police Use of Force Records

Access to police use of force records continues to be a challenge, despite the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 decision in North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017), which held that such records should be accessible to the public.

In January, the Appellate Division granted our client’s appeal in Rivera v. Township of Bloomfield and held that police body-worn camera videos are subject to OPRA. The video at issue recorded police shooting and killing a man in Bloomfield in August 2017.

In February, the Appellate Division granted our client’s appeal in Digital First Media v. Ewing Township, 462 N.J. Super. 389 (App. Div. 2020). In that case, The Trentonian newspaper sought a copy of a Use of Force Report (UFR) that related to force that Ewing police officers used against a teenager. Although the trial court held that the UFR could not be released due to a statute that exempts records relating to juveniles charged as delinquent, the Appellate Division granted our appeal and ruled that the UFR must be released with the juvenile’s name redacted. Ewing Township was also required to pay the newspaper’s legal fees.

In October, we published a blog detailing how the State rarely complies with Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2019-4, which requires disclosure of videos of police deadly force incidents within 20 days. Per our count, only one video had been released within the 20-day deadline all year.

Transparency in Police Discipline

In 2020, there were some positive advances in transparency regarding police discipline on a policy level, but also a mixed bag when it came to judicial opinions on this issue.

In Libertarians for Transparent Government v. New Jersey State Police, the requestor sought the name of a state trooper who was “required to separate from employment” for “engaging in racially offensive behavior.” Although both lower courts denied access to the name, the Supreme Court granted certification and was set to review the case. In mid-June, the Attorney General’s office reversed course, granted access to the name, paid the requestor’s legal fees, and issued Law Enforcement Directives 2020-5 and 2020-6. The Directives require disclosure of the names of officers who receive “major discipline,” information that had never been disclosed before.

Shortly after the Directives were issued, several police unions filed challenges and argued that the Attorney General lacked the authority to compel such disclosures. In October 2020, the Appellate Division upheld the Directives. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court granted certification and oral argument is set for March 2021. In the interim, the Directives are stayed and no disclosures have been made.

In mid-June, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court decision that had compelled access to internal affairs reports relating to the former Police Director of the City of Elizabeth Police Department who had resigned after it came to light that he used “racist and misogynistic slurs.” The Appellate Division concluded that internal affairs reports are confidential pursuant to the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and cannot be released even pursuant to the common law right of access. A petition for certification is pending.

In late June, a bill was introduced in the Senate to make all police disciplinary records subject to OPRA, including police internal affairs files. Although Senate Bill No. 2656 has not yet been heard in a committee, more than 100 organizations have endorsed it. New Jersey is one of only 21 states that treat all internal affairs records confidential.

During a July 15th public hearing before the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal seemed to embrace greater transparency in internal affairs investigations, stating: “[W]hen it comes to the transparency of police disciplinary records, New Jersey needs to end its outlier status and move towards greater openness. We can and should be a national leader on this issue.”

In early December, the Attorney General released the internal affairs files of Philip Seidle, a former Neptune police officer who shot and killed his wife in 2015. The Asbury Park Press had been fighting in court to gain access to the files for several years. Its case remains pending as to whether the newspaper is entitled to legal fees and whether such files are subject to access under OPRA.

Other Significant Transparency Decisions

There were a few OPRA decisions by the Appellate Division this year, at least two of which will be reviewed by the Supreme Court next year.

In February, the Appellate Division ruled in Bozzi v. Borough of Roselle Park, 462 N.J. Super. 415 (App. Div. 2020), that there was no privacy interest that precluded a commercial requestor from obtaining a list of dog license holders so that he could send them solicitations for his electric fence installation service. The Supreme Court granted certification in a separate case that reached the same conclusion, Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, and the case is pending.

In June, the Appellate Division held in Simmons v. Mercado, 464 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 2020), that complaints and summonses are not “government records” that are subject to OPRA because the judiciary (which is not subject to OPRA) is the custodian of records and not the police departments who enter them into the judiciary’s computer system. The Supreme Court granted certification and the case is pending.

In September, the Appellate Division issued a disappointing opinion in Libertarians for Transparent Government v. Cumberland County, 465 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 2020). In that case, our client learned that a county corrections officer had faced disciplinary charges for “engaging in sex” with two inmates and bringing them contraband, but that because the officer agreed to cooperate with an investigation he was allowed to retire in good standing with a pension pursuant to a separation agreement. In response to an OPRA request our client filed, Cumberland County stated that the officer was “terminated” and it denied access to the agreement. The trial court ruled that the County violated OPRA by falsely stating the officer was terminated when he was really permitted to retire in good standing and it compelled access to the agreement. Unfortunately, the Appellate Division reversed. Although it agreed that the County had not been truthful about the officer’s reason for separation, it found that the agreement was exempt under OPRA’s personnel record exemption. It remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether access should be granted under the common law, but the case is currently stayed while a petition for certification is pending in the Supreme Court.

In December 2020, John Paff reported that Cumberland County settled a lawsuit relating to the same officer for $150,000, in which a woman inmate had alleged that he and other corrections officers had sexually abused her.

The danger of the Libertarians decision is that it will permit public agencies to enter into agreements with employees and keep the details of those agreements a secret. This deprives the public of the ability to determine whether the agreement was reasonable and advanced the public’s interests. It will also likely allow the exchange of money without any public oversight whatsoever, something that is highly problematic.

In November, Governor Murphy signed A-1649 into law. Commonly known as “Daniel’s Law,” it exempts the addresses of current and former judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers from OPRA. It is unclear how public agencies will be able to comply with this law since there is no central list of such addresses to cross reference.

For more information about this blog or questions about OPRA, contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.

“Daniel’s Law” Amends OPRA to Protect Judges

On Nov. 20, 2020, Governor Murphy signed A-1649 into law. Among other things, the bill amends OPRA to render certain home addresses exempt from public access.

Specifically, the new law immediately exempts from access “that portion of any document which discloses the home address, whether a primary or secondary residence, of any active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer or prosecutor.”  A “judicial officer” is defined as an “active, formerly active, or retired federal, state, county, or municipal judge, including a judge of the Tax Court and any other court of limited jurisdiction established, altered, or abolished by law, a judge of the Office of Administrative Law, a judge of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, or a and any other judge of any other court or who handles proceedings established by law who serves in the executive branch.”

It also creates a future exemption that goes into effect in May 2022 (i.e. 18 months after the bill was signed into law). That provision exempts “that portion of any document which discloses the home address, whether a primary or secondary residence” of “any active, formerly active, or retired law enforcement officer.”

This legislation, called “Daniel’s Law,” was passed in response to the horrific attack upon U.S. District Judge Esther Salas that tragically resulted in the death of her son, Daniel. In addition to exempting home address information from OPRA, the new law also makes it a crime to knowingly post, re-post, or publish the home addresses or unlisted phone numbers of judges, prosecutors or law enforcement officers and their families with the purpose to expose them to “harassment or risk of harm to life or property, or in reckless disregard of the probability of such exposure.”

Transparency a Focus at Legislature’s First Police Reform Hearing

On July 15, 2020, the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee held its first public hearing on police reform in New Jersey. The hearing was intended to be a discussion on policing issues in general and no particular legislative bill was before the committee, but police transparency was a frequent topic.

The hearing opened with live testimony from Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, who acknowledged that even after his recent decision to disclose the names of officers who receive major discipline, New Jersey still lags behind the rest of the nation when it comes to providing transparency over the police disciplinary process. Grewal testified:

We are one of a shrinking number of states where police disciplinary records remain shrouded in secrecy, virtually never seeing the light of day. In recent months, I have come to recognize that our policy isn’t just bad for public trust, it’s bad for public safety. And it’s time for our policy to change.

Although he did not embrace any particular bill, such as S-2656, a bill introduced by Senator Loretta Weinberg to make police internal affairs and disciplinary records subject to OPRA, it can be inferred from the Attorney General’s testimony that he may be inclined to support such a bill and believes it that full transparency is the right thing to do. The Attorney General testified:

“[W]hen it comes to the transparency of police disciplinary records, New Jersey needs to end its outlier status and move towards greater openness. We can and should be a national leader on this issue.”

The only way to be a national leader is to embrace full access to actual internal affairs files–all of them, even those that are not sustained. That is indeed what more than a dozen states do, as the Attorney General testified.

The police unions have have already obtained a stay of the Attorney General’s recent directive requiring disclosure of major discipline. Multiple police unions testified against transparency at the hearing. Therefore, the Attorney General’s testimony addressed the fact that legislative action was needed to make internal affairs records public.

The public was invited to submit written testimony in advance of the meeting. Attorney CJ Griffin submitted personal written testimony explaining why the Attorney General’s recent directive fails to provide real transparency and providing a helpful chart that compares New Jersey to other states on the issue of internal affairs access.  Griffin concluded by saying:

“Unfortunately, in New Jersey we are unable to proactively review IA investigation files to root out the complaints that were erroneously dismissed or expose the shoddy IA investigations. Instead, we have to wait until tragic situations occur for IA information to become public. At that point, the damage is already done.

I was not born and raised in New Jersey, so I feel a sense of pride and ownership in having chosen to make this state my home. In that regard, I have bragged to friends and fellow advocates about the areas of law where we lead the nation. But, in this area—police transparency—we are, as the Attorney General recognized, at the “back of the pack.” We must not only catch up to most other states; we must lead.

 

You can read Griffin’s full submission here.

Griffin also recently submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of two non-profit law enforcement organizations, opposing the police unions’ lawsuits to stop the Attorney General’s directives to disclose the names of officers who receive major discipline. You can read about that brief here. The Appellate Division will hear oral arguments in mid-September.

An archived recording of the hearing can be viewed on the Legislature’s website. Additional police reform hearings will be held.

OPRA’s Deadlines are Relaxed During States of Emergency

On March 20, 2020, Governor Murphy signed a series of coronavirus-related bills into law. Among them was A3849, which modifies the deadline by which public agencies must respond to an OPRA request during an emergency.

Under normal circumstances, a public agency must respond to an OPRA request as soon as possible and no later than seven business days from the date of the request. The amendment provides that:

During a period declared pursuant to the laws of this State as a state of emergency, public health emergency, or state of local disaster emergency, the deadlines by which to respond to a request for, or grant or deny access to, a government record under paragraph (1) of this subsection or subsection e. of this section shall not apply, provided, however, that the custodian of a government record shall make a reasonable effort, as the circumstances permit, to respond to a request for access to a government record within seven business days or as soon as possible thereafter.

In other words, where there is declared emergency, a public agency need not respond during seven business days. Instead, it must only make a “reasonable effort” to respond within seven business days or as soon as it is able to do so.

Those who frequently file OPRA requests know that agencies already frequently fail to comply with OPRA’s deadlines. We have written about about agencies taking multiple extensions before and and we have even sued and obtained rulings finding that certain agencies have engaged in a “pattern and practice” of violating OPRA’s statutory time frames. Frankly, many wonder why this bill was necessary in light of the fact that agencies already routinely take extensions.

In our minds, though, this new bill evidences a very clear legislative intent that agencies should always comply with OPRA’s statutory seven-day deadline and that any “reasonableness” arguments for a delay should be rejected unless there is a declared emergency. We hope the courts and GRC will agree and put an end to agencies automatically granting themselves endless extensions.

To contact us about this blog post or discuss an OPRA denial, email cgriffin@pashmanstein.com or visit the “contact us” tab above.

OPRA Modernization Bill – copying fee problems

Every year, transparency warrior Senator Loretta Weinberg introduces a bill which would modernize and improve OPRA. This year’s bill is S107. Given that Democrats now control the Senate, Assembly, and Governor’s Office, we are hopeful that the bill has a chance of passing.

While the bill overwhelmingly improves OPRA, through a series of blogs we will highlight how some small provisions of the bill that seem non-controversial can actually cause some major problems for requestors.

First topic? Copying costs.

Currently, agencies cannot charge a copying charge to send requestors PDFs of documents. One creative way that agencies try to stall access to records is to think of a way to charge for them. Sadly, S107 will make such conduct perfectly legal.

S107 amends N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b) so that “a public agency may charge the fee for each copy made in the process of responding to a government record request made during the redaction process.”  What this means is that if an agency has to print a copy of a record to redact it, it can charge for that copy even if it ends up scanning the record to the requestor in a PDF.

Hypothetical:

John Doe files an OPRA request for a copy of an employee’s one-page pay stub. The Custodian is obligated to redact the employee’s social security number from that document, so she prints a copy of it and redacts it. S107 allows her to charge 5 cents for that record. She emails John Doe and tells him that he has to pay 5 cents before she will email the pay stub to him and that he can either mail in a check or come pay by check at the clerk’s office.

John Doe now has to find his checkbook, write a check for a measly 5 cents, pay 49 cents for a sttamp, and wait 1-3 business days for it to arrive and the Custodian to email the pay stub to him. Or, he can take time off work to go drop off a check during the Custodian’s business hours. That’s an awfully big hurdle to receive a pay stub! It’s not the cost is too much, but the hassle of having to arrange to pay the fee discourages and delays access. But, S107 permits it.

This is not a crazy hypothetical, by the way. Things like this actually happen all the time. The GRC has addressed this issue several times, such as in Galloway Township News and Paff.

Hopefully this provision will be removed as the S107 works its way through committees.