Category Archives: Police records

Motion for reconsideration filed in case involving sustained allegations of “racist and misogynistic slurs”

We recently blogged about Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, where the trial court granted access to the internal affairs reports of the former Police Director of the City of Elizabeth Police Department, who was the subject of an internal affairs investigation that concluded that he used “racist and misogynistic slurs” in the workplace. As an update, the Appellate Division reversed that decision and concluded that the records were not subject to OPRA on June 19, 2020.

Unfortunately, the Appellate Division did not simply deny access under OPRA. It also concluded that the internal affairs reports were not accessible under the common law. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that it was palpably incorrect for the Appellate Division to reach the issue of common law access because: 1) the trial court never reached the issue below; 2) the parties never briefed the issue before the Appellate Division; 3) the parties never addressed common law access at oral argument; and 4) no court ever reviewed the actual records in camera.

A copy of the motion for reconsideration brief is here.

For questions about this blog or OPRA in general, please contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com or 201-488-8200.

 

State releases name of trooper who engaged in “racially offensive behavior;” Modifies Internal Affairs Policy

In 2017, CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden filed an OPRA lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police on behalf of Libertarians for Transparent Government, seeking the identity of a state trooper who had been “required to separate from employment” for “engaging in racially offensive behavior.” The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and the Appellate Division affirmed that dismissal, but the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The appeal is pending.

Today, the State released the name of the trooper.

Additionally, the Attorney General revised the Attorney General Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures so that every police department in the state must start disclosing the names of police officers who commit serious disciplinary violations. Beginning August 31, 2020, police departments must disclose the names of officers who are sanctioned by termination, reduction in rank or grade, and/or a suspension of greater than five days. The State will release the names of officers who received major discipline over the past 20 years.

“This is a victory not only for my client, but also the public,” said CJ Griffin, a partner at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden. “However, we hope this is just the first step and that full transparency will follow soon. The reality is that most internal affairs investigations do not result in major discipline, so New Jersey’s internal affairs functions will still largely remain a complete and total secret. Plus, there are too many loopholes with this policy–agencies can avoid disclosure by simply imposing 4-day suspensions or permitting an officer to resign instead of terminating them.”

“It’s great that we’ll now know the names of police officers who receive major sanctions, but what about all the hundreds of complaints every year that are not sustained? We need full access to actual internal affairs investigation files so that we can ensure that the investigations were conducted correctly and fairly and that bad behavior wasn’t swept under the rug. We shouldn’t have to just put blind faith in our police that internal affairs investigations are thorough and accurate — transparency lets us hold internal affairs units accountable. Transparency builds trust and community trust benefits police departments.”

Today’s policy change by the Attorney General came not long after the Star Ledger published an editorial demanding that internal affairs records be open for public inspection. More than a dozen other states have open internal affairs records, including places such as Florida and Colorado.

 

 

Judge Rules IA Report of Former Police Director Who Used “Racist and Misogynistic Slurs” is Subject to OPRA; City & Prosecutor’s Office Appeal

Readers may recall from numerous news articles that in April 2019, the Union County Prosecutor’s Office (UCPO) concluded that former City of Elizabeth Police Director James Cosgrove used “racist and misogynistic” language in the workplace. The Attorney General issued a press release confirming the internal affairs investigation’s findings, calling on Cosgrove to resign, and making leadership changes at UCPO.

After UCPO denied an OPRA request for Cosgrove’s internal affairs reports, CJ Griffin filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff Richard Rivera seeking access to the reports pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access. See Richard Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, Docket No. UNN-L-2954-19. Mr. Rivera is Co-Chair of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey’s Civil Rights Protection Project, a former municipal police officer, and a well-known civil rights advocate.

The City of Elizabeth intervened in the suit and vigorously defended UCPO’s denial of access alongside UCPO.

In February 2020, the Hon. James Hely, J.S.C. of the Superior Court, Union County, held that Cosgrove’s internal affairs reports were subject to access under OPRA. Judge Hely issued an order compelling the UCPO to produce the reports for in camera review so that the identities of witnesses and complainants could be protected by redaction.

Elizabeth and UCPO moved for reconsideration and a stay of the order. In an opinion denying those motions, Judge Hely wrote in part:

At the dawn of the 20th century, WEB Dubois declared “the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line.” The Souls of Black Folks (1903).

We are now 20 years into the 21st century and racial hostility, animus, and discrimination remain a reality in these United States. Indeed, it is often an undercurrent [in] political rhetoric at the national and local level to this very day.
. . .

It seems to be the defense position that since action was taken as a result of their investigation, the public should not see the truth. Many political leaders and members of the public contend that racism and sexism are relics of the past. It is obvious from what [is] already known about the internal investigation that such denials are fantasy.

. . .

. . . I do not find that greater harm will result if I do not grant the stay. Quite the opposite. The public deserves to know the level of overt racism and/or sexism that was uncovered about the highest official or officials of the Elizabeth Police Department. To allow this matter to be further swept under the rug of public scrutiny would be to foster the illusion that racism and sexism are behind us.

UCPO and the City of Elizabeth have appealed the order, arguing that the public should not have access to the reports. The Appellate Division agreed to hear the appeal on an interlocutory basis and the case is currently pending. Oral argument was in May.

For more information about this post or OPRA in general, contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com or 551-208-1283.

 

Using OPRA for Police Transparency in New Jersey

Transparency plays a critical role in  building trust between the police and the community. When members of the public trust the police, they are more likely to follow their commands, cooperate with criminal investigations, and even advocate for more funding for police. When police resist transparency, community trust is seriously undermined. Secrecy also makes it harder to hold police departments accountable and assure that they are complying with the law and meeting the high standards that we set for them. This is why we have been involved in dozens of cases involving police records, including landmark decisions such as North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541 (2017).

Although so many law enforcement records are sadly exempt from access under OPRA, something we hope the Legislature will fix, there are several records that are publicly accessible and that shed a light on policing and have the potential to expose misconduct or wrongdoing when it occurs.

We invite you to read our prior three-part blog series titled, “How to Monitor Police Agencies.” The series covers the following topics:

We also recommend reading the wonderful article written by Andrew Ford of the Asbury Park Press, published by ProPublica, titled “I Cover Cops as an Investigative Reporter. Here are Five Ways You Can Start Holding Your Department Accountable.”

If you have a question about this blog or OPRA in general, please contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com or 201-270-4930.

 

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.

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.”

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

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.”

An Appellate Division Win

Today, PSWH secured an appellate victory for two long-term firm clients, Richard Rivera and Collene Wronko.

The case involved OPRA requests for records from the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) which related to an incident where police officers shot and killed a man outside his home in Old Bridge. Both Mr. Rivera and Ms. Wronko sought access to the 9-1-1 call of the incident, as well as other police records, such as CAD reports and Standard Operating Procedures. Their requests were denied.

After lawsuits were filed, MCPO eventually released a redacted version of the 9-1-1 call. The judge upheld those redactions, ruling that those portions of the call raised serious privacy concerns. The judge also ordered MCPO to release CAD reports and Standard Operating Procedures, but permitted redactions to any exempt material. Despite the fact that both Ms. Wronko and Mr. Rivera got exactly the relief they were seeking in their lawsuits (lawfully redacted records), MCPO insisted that they were not entitled to full reimbursement of their fees.  Judge Francis disagreed and found that both requestors were fully prevailing parties and awarded approximately $22,000 in fees and costs.

MCPO appealed, again arguing that the requestors were only “partially” prevailing parties since they received only redacted records. The Appellate Division affirmed Judge Francis’ decision, describing MCPO’s arguments as “factually inaccurate and lack[ing] merit.”

The MCPO lost two other appeals involving media companies who had requested the same 9-1-1 call, bringing the total cost for denying access to the 9-1-1 call to over $130,000.  Because MCPO lost its appeals, the requestors will be entitled to additional fees for the appellate work.

A copy of the decision may be found here.

Media Coverage:

Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office to Pay $20k in OPRA Case,” MyCentralNewJersey.com (Mar. 20, 2018).

Middlesex Prosecutor Again Loses on OPRA Fees Issue,” N.J. Law Journal (Mar. 20, 2018).

AG Issues New Police Shooting Video Directive

Last week, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal issued Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2018-1, which provides instructions to law enforcement agencies in this State regarding public access to dash camera and body camera footage of police-involved shootings.  We find that there are both pros and cons to this new directive.

Pros:
On one hand, we are very happy to see that the new Attorney General clearly understands that transparency advances public trust in law enforcement. The overall spirit of this directive is positive and it recognizes that law enforcement do not need permanent confidentiality over their records–the directive requires disclosure of police shooting videos within 20 days, in most cases. The presumption of access is important and we hope that agencies will follow the directive and will not seek constant extensions of time to release these videos.

Cons:
On the other hand, the new directive does not give the public any more access than already existed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in North Jersey Media Group v. Township of Lyndhurst. If anything, the new directive may make access to police shooting videos slower, as the Lyndhurst decision held that access must be granted “within a few days” and the new directive sets a timeline of 20 days.  We fear that  requestors will now need to wait for 20 days after an incident to file an OPRA request, then wait an additional 7 business days to gain access to the video. This is much slower than what we have experienced the past several months since the Lyndhurst decision was issued.

We are also disappointed that the directive only applies to videos which depict the use of deadly force or where other force results in “serious bodily injury.”  We think that the spirit of the Lyndhurst decision makes it clear that most police videos should be released relatively soon after an incident occurs, but the new directive applies Lyndhurst very narrowly and the public will still struggle to gain access to police video which shows other types of misconduct or more minimal uses of force.  For example, we think that if a police officer uses a racial slur toward a suspect while arresting them, the public should be able to see the video.  The new directive, however, would not require disclosure unless the suspect was seriously injured.  This is problematic.

News Coverage:
PSWH Partner CJ Griffin was quoted in NJ Advance Media’s article on the new directive.

 

For assistance with OPRA matters, please contact CJ Griffin at 201-488-8200 or cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.