Tag Archives: opra

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Important Ruling on OPRA’s Privacy Provision

CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden Submitted Amicus Curiae
Brief on Behalf of Non-profit Organization
in Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office

Hackensack, NJ (May 23, 2018) – The Supreme Court of New Jersey has issued its opinion in Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, in which Pashman Stein Walder Hayden partner CJ Griffin submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Libertarians for Transparent Government, a non-profit organization. The Court’s decision today provides important guidance to lower courts on how to apply the Open Public Records Act’s privacy provision.

The case involved an OPRA request by an activist seeking the names and addresses of individuals who had purchased sports memorabilia from the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (“BCPO”) during a public auction. The auction received considerable news attention.

The trial court ruled that the names and addresses of the successful bidders were disclosable under OPRA, but the Appellate Division reversed. It found that the bidders had a reasonable expectation that their names and addresses would remain confidential. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that “the sale of government property at a public auction is a quintessential public event that calls for transparency.”

Griffin, who also participated in oral argument before the Supreme Court, argued that there is no reasonable expectation that your identity will remain private when you engage in financial transactions with the government and that home addresses are generally not entitled to any level of protection. According to Griffin, this case was just one example of how lower courts have over-applied OPRA’s privacy provision.

“Today’s decision is important not only because the requestor will be able to learn about who purchased government property, but also because the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that OPRA’s privacy provision should be applied only in the unique cases where there is truly a legitimate privacy interest at stake,” said Griffin.

In 2009, the Supreme Court issued Burnett v. County of Bergen, its first opinion analyzing OPRA’s privacy provision. In Burnett, the Court was faced with a request that sought access to millions of records which contained names, addresses, and social security numbers. The Court held that where a citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy, lower courts must apply a 7-factor balancing test that allows a requestor to gain access to records only if his or her interest outweighs the privacy interest. According to Griffin, Burnett has been over-applied to instances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Today’s decision should correct that practice; the Court held that courts should apply the Burnett factors “only where a party first presents a colorable claim that public access to records would invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.”

“The lower courts have been applying the Burnett balancing test any time an agency claims privacy as a defense, no matter how frivolous the privacy claim is. This practice has engrafted an interest requirement into OPRA where one should not exist,” said Griffin. “Today’s decision is exactly what we wanted from the Court and will hopefully cause lower courts to restrain from applying a balancing test where one is unnecessary.”

Today’s decision also makes it clear that there is generally no privacy interest in a home address. The lower courts have been split on this issue, with some appellate panels ruling that home addresses are exempt and others ruling that home addresses are accessible. The Government Records Council, an administrative agency tasked with adjudicating denials of access, has generally found that home addresses are exempt.

“Public access to home addresses is important,” said Griffin. “For example, New Jersey has residency requirements for government employees and public officials. If home addresses are redacted from records, the public cannot verify that these residency requirements are actually satisfied.”

Please contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com or 201.270.4930 for further information.

About Pashman Stein Walder Hayden

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden is a full-service mid-size business law firm offering a wide range of corporate and personal legal services. Headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey with an office in Red Bank, New Jersey, the firm serves a diverse client base including regional Fortune 500 companies, emerging growth entities, and individuals, as well as out-of-state corporate counsel, law firms and individuals with interests in the New York metropolitan region. For more information, please visit www.pashmanstein.com. The firm also publishes an OPRA blog at www.njopra.com.

Newark Releases Its Amazon HQ2 Proposal

We previously blogged about an OPRA lawsuit we filed on behalf of an activist seeking access to Newark’s Amazon HQ2 proposal. We are happy to announce that Newark has now released its proposal to our client.

Newark’s proposal is titled, “Yes, Newark.” As evidenced by the privilege log it attached to the proposal, Newark redacted approximately 6 pages from its 200+ page proposal. These pages contained the financial incentives that Newark is offering to Amazon. All other information has been disclosed. We consider this a significant transparency victory.

“I strongly believe in open government. The people of New Jersey, especially Newark residents, deserve to know what their government is doing,” said Plaintiff Steven Wronko, a transparency advocate.

“Other finalist cities put their proposals online as part of their PR campaigns to win Amazon over. The citizens of those other finalist cities got to be part of the process and see how their cities were being promoted. That builds pride and buy-in from residents. The people of Newark were completely excluded, but we are happy that they can now be part of the process,” said CJ Griffin, who represented Mr. Wronko.

Among other things, the proposal highlights Newark’s diversity, technology infrastructure, and transportation systems. It includes more than 50 pages of letters of recommendations and details the proposed locations within the city for the headquarters:Locations

 

The full proposal may be downloaded here:

Proposal Part 1
Proposal Part 2
Proposal Part 3

Please contact CJ Griffin at cgriffin@pashmanstein.com or 201.270.4930 for further information.

Appellate Division Rules Agencies Cannot Hide Behind Technology

Last week, the Appellate Division issued a published decision that is very important to transparency.  While the court’s analysis of its standard of review over GRC decisions will excite appellate attorneys, it is the more substantive portion of the court’s decision that grabbed our attention.

The case is Conley v. N.J. Dep’t of Corrections, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. Jan. 12, 2018), and it involves an OPRA request that was filed by Kevin Conley, an inmate at the New Jersey State Prison.

Mr. Conley’s OPRA request sought “monthly remedy statistical reports” that were required to be produced by N.J.A.C. 10A:1-4.8(a)(4) and other federal laws. He had requested these reports in the past and they were always produced, but this time the DOC responded by saying that it had adopted a new computerized database in January 2014 and the requested monthly reports “are no longer generated or available.”

Mr. Conley objected, noting that he had always gotten the reports before and that the DOC was mandated by law to produce these monthly reports. The DOC continued to deny the request, insisting that it no longer generates the reports and that it was not obligated to “create a record.”

Mr. Conley filed a complaint on his own in the Government Records Council (tip: we advise going to court instead!) and lost. The GRC accepted the DOC Custodian’s certification that it did not possess the monthly reports and ruled that it did not violate OPRA.

The Appellate Division reversed the GRC. It noted that the DOC was mandated by federal and State regulations to make the monthly reports. It held that were it to accept the DOC’s argument that the report was no longer available based on the manner by which DOC chose to store this public data, it would render “the public policy of transparency and openness the Legislature codified in [OPRA] unacceptably vulnerable to bureaucratic manipulation.”

Importantly, the Court held that “[t]echnological advancements in data storage should enhance, not diminish, the public’s right to access ‘government records’ under OPRA . . . . A government agency cannot erect technological barriers to deny access to government records.”

What does this mean for OPRA requestors?  This case builds upon the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Paff v. Galloway, which held that electronically stored information is a government record that must be produced. Where an agency is obligated by law to produce a certain type of report or a specific document each month (or year) and it fails to do so because it has moved to an electronic database, it cannot avoid its obligations under OPRA. It would need to pull data from its database to produce the report/document to the requestor.

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

How to Monitor Police Agencies: Part 3

In this third part of our series about using OPRA to monitor police agencies, we will discuss how to ensure that individual officers meet the qualifications for their duty assignments and are properly trained.

Generally, personnel records are exempt from access under OPRA. However, we previously blogged about the personnel records exemption and explained that there are three exceptions. The third exception provides that the following records are accessible:

data contained in information which disclose conformity with specific experiential, educational or medical qualifications required for government employment or for receipt of a public pension, but not including any detailed medical or psychological information, shall be a government record.

[N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.]

This means that you are able to obtain any records which prove that an employee meets the requirements of the job.

For police officers, this means that you can obtain training certificates for courses that they are required to take in order to take in order to be police officers. Among the required courses that every police officer in New Jersey must complete include:

  • basic police academy training
  • annual firearms requalification training
  • use of force training
  • vehicular pursuit training
  • domestic violence training
  • cultural diversity training
  • bias intimidation crimes training

Other courses may be necessary in order for a police officer to be promoted or to hold a specific duty assignment. Some of these courses include:

  • Breathalyzer training courses and recertification for those who operate breathalyzers
  • 911 dispatcher and call-taker training and recertification for those who work in 911 call centers
  • K-9 training for those who work with canine partners

Any of these records can be requested and will help the public ensure that officers are properly trained and qualified for the positions that they hold.

Sample OPRA requests:
“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek the Officer Jones’ use of force training certificates for years 2015-2017.”
“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek the annual firearms recertification certificates for all of the police officers in your police department for the year 2017.”

How to Monitor Police Agencies: Part 2

We recently blogged about how you can use OPRA to gain access to records which shine light on the use of force by police officers. This blog discusses other types of police records that will help you monitor your local police department.

Internal Affairs Annual Summary Reports:

The Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy requires law enforcement agencies to release an annual summary report to the public which “summarizes the types of [internal affairs] complaints received and the dispositions of those complaints.” This report, usually in the form of a chart, will help you monitor the types of complaints that are being lodged against officers.

Sample OPRA request:

“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek your police department’s Internal Affairs Annual Summary Report for 2016.”

Internal Affairs Public Synopsis of Disciplinary Action:

Requirement 10 of the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy also requires law enforcement agencies to periodically disclose to the public “a brief synopsis of all complaints where a fine or suspension of ten days or more was assessed to an agency member.” While the report will not identify the officer by name, it should briefly outline the nature of the transgression and the fine or sentence that was imposed. This permits the public to see details of more serious internal affairs allegations that were sustained and will highlight an agency’s most egregious problems.

Sample OPRA request:

“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek your agency’s Public Synopsis of Disciplinary Actions for years 2014 to 2017. This report is required pursuant to Requirement 10 of the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Police.”

Vehicle Pursuit Reports:

Vehicle pursuits not only put the suspect and police officers at risk, but also other people who happen to be in their way. Every year there are reports where innocent bystanders are injured or killed when a vehicle slams into theirs during the course of a police pursuit.

There are two reports which will help you monitor vehicle pursuits. First, pursuant to the Attorney General’s Police Vehicular Pursuit Policy an officer must complete a “Police Pursuit Incident Report” for every pursuit. If you read about a pursuit in the newspaper, you can request this report to find out more details about who was involved in the incident.

Second, the Attorney General’s policy requires every municipal police agency to submit an annual agency “Vehicular Pursuit Summary Report” to the county prosecutor, which will detail the total number of pursuits and other useful information. You can compare these reports to other towns or look to see if any particular officer engages in pursuits more frequently.

A sample of both reports can be found here:

Sample OPRA request:

“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek a copy of the Police Pursuit Incident Report for the vehicle chase that occurred last night near Exit 151 on the Garden State Parkway and the police department’s Vehicular Pursuit Summary Report for 2016.”

How to Monitor Police Agencies: Part 1

Police officers have the ability to arrest and detain suspects, to seize property, and to lawfully use force against people when justified.  Because police officers are given these tremendous powers, we hold them to very high standards—we expect that they will be honest, trustworthy, and follow the law and the Constitution.

In a two-part series, we will discuss how you can use OPRA to monitor police conduct. This blog highlights records you can request to monitor the use of force by police officers.

Use of Force Reports:

Pursuant to the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy, every time an officer uses any level of force against an individual they must complete a Use of Force Report (“UFR”).  A UFR is a simple one-page report that provides information about a specific use of force incident, such as the names and biographical data of those involved and the type of force that was used. A model form is available here.

You can request UFRs relating to a single specific incident of force that you read about in the news or you can request all of an agency’s UFRs for a specific timeframe. By requesting all of an agency’s UFRs during a specific timeframe, you can determine how often force is used and whether there are any patterns that emerge, such as whether a specific officer uses force far more frequently than other officers or whether certain races are the target of force more often than others.

Sample OPRA requests:
“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I would like all of your police department’s Use of Force Reports from January 1, 2017 to present date.”

“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek all UFRs that were created as a result of the police-involved shooting that occurred on May 1, 2017 involving a suspect named Bob Jones.”

Police Use of Deadly Force Attorney General Deadly Notification Report:

Where deadly force is used, a “Police Use of Deadly Force Attorney General Deadly Notification Report” must also be completed. This is true even if the deadly force does not actually result in death. If a police officer shoots at someone, that action constitutes the use of deadly force even if the officer misses. A model AG Notification Report is available here.

Sample OPRA request:
“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I would like all of your police department’s Police Use of Deadly Force Attorney General Deadly Notification Reports for the year 2016.”

Body-Worn Camera Footage:

Recently, The Lab @ DC released a report which suggests that Body Cams do not change police behavior and cause them to use force less often.  Body Cams do, however, promote transparency over the police. For example, The Trentonian has recently published Body Cam footage that has exposed police officers bragging about roughing up suspects. The public obviously has a significant interest in knowing that its officers are behaving this way so that it can advocate for discipline or leadership change.

Because Body Cam Footage is required to be made and maintained by Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2015-1, it cannot be exempt under OPRA’s criminal investigatory records exemption. It may, however, be exempt under the ongoing investigation exemption depending on the nature of the tape, when it was created, and whether releasing it would be harmful to the public interest. The Supreme Court, however, has said that the public’s interest is in disclosure where police use of force is involved and that an agency should not need to withhold police video for more than a few days in most instances.

Sample OPRA request:
“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law, I seek all Body-Worn Camera Footage for the police-involved shooting that occurred on 5/1/17 at 29 Main Street.”

Dash Camera Footage:

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that dash camera videos that relate to criminal incidents are not subject to OPRA because there is no law that requires it to be made, thus it is a criminal investigatory record. That may change when the Court decides Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office next year. In the interim, the Court has made it clear that dash cam footage should be routinely disclosed under the common law right of access.  Accordingly, make sure to invoke the common law when you file your records request.

Dash camera footage that relates to a non-criminal incident, however, is subject to OPRA. So, if your mayor was caught on tape after being pulled over for a DWI, that video should be publicly accessible.

Sample OPRA request:
“Pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access, please provide all dash camera footage from the incident that occurred on October 1, 2017 wherein Mayor Jones was pulled over for a DWI.”

Yes, You May “OPRA an OPRA Request”

For years, individuals have filed OPRA requests with agencies to obtain all of the OPRA requests an agency has received during a specific timeframe.  Requestors use these records in a variety of ways, such as a) finding out how many OPRA requests an agency is handling during any specific timeframe (since agencies have no obligation to calculate that information and let the public know); b) being able to contact another member of the public who is interested in the same type of government issues; c) learning more about government by seeing what other requestors are seeking from their government.

While local governments have generally continued to comply with such requests, unfortunately in 2014 the State began denying all requests for OPRA requests (perhaps not coincidentally, when the requests began to ask for other requests about the Bridgegate scandal).  The trial court ruled against the State, but the matters were stayed.  Accordingly, since 2014, requestors have not been able to obtain copies of OPRA requests that were filed with any State agency.

Recently, however, the Appellate Division issued a published opinion and rejected the State’s appeal.  In Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, __ N.J. Super. __ (2017), the Appellate Division held that there is no blanket exemption that permits an agency to deny access to all OPRA requests that were filed with the agency.  While the Court noted that there may be circumstances where a single OPRA request might invoke a confidentiality concern (such as containing trade secrets), overwhelmingly that will not be the case.

The Court also re-affirmed its prior holdings and concluded that a request for all OPRA requests filed during a specific timeframe was valid and did not require “research.”

For more information about this blog post or any other OPRA question, please contact cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.

Pashman Stein’s OPRA Cases Make News

Several of Pashman Stein’s OPRA cases have been covered extensively by the press lately. Here is a rundown of the coverage.

McClimate v. Cumberland County

The Daily Journal has covered McClimate v. Cumberland County, a case where Pashman Stein has filed a suit on behalf of a retired county employee who seeks records pertaining to her insurance coverage.  Despite repeated requests that the county provide the actual cost sheet that Horizon Blue Cross gave the county, the county instead insisted on providing only a summary chart that it created.  Ms. McClimate seeks the actual cost breakdown from Horizon so that she can determine whether the County is charging her the proper premium.

Paff v. Bayonne

The Jersey Journal recently covered Paff v. City of Bayonne, a case where Pashman Stein represented open government proponent John Paff in a quest for records pertaining to two settlement agreements.  Mr. Paff sought the agreements, or, in the event the agreements were not finalized, correspondence related to the settlement.  Bayonne denied the request, saying any such correspondence would be exempt pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.  After Mr. Paff filed his suit and argued that correspondence between adversaries is not privileged, Bayonne admitted that it should have stated that no such correspondence even existed.  Bayonne settled the case by admitting its error and paying Mr. Paff’s attorneys’ fees.

Gilleran v. Township of Bloomfield

Patricia Gilleran’s security camera case continues to get news coverage.  Pashman Stein secured a victory for Ms. Gilleran in the trial court and in the Appellate Division, where both courts held that Ms. Gilleran was entitled to security footage from a camera outside Bloomfield’s municipal building.  The case is now pending in the Supreme Court.  Debbie Gallant wrote an article for the Society of Professional Journalists, detailing Ms. Gilleran’s case and the quest to obtain security camera footage from Bloomfield.   Bloomfield Life, Baristanet, and Essex News Daily have also recently covered Ms. Gilleran’s case.

Paff v. Moorestown

Numerous newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, are covering John Paff’s OPRA lawsuit against the Moorestown Township.  Mr. Paff filed suit to obtain minutes from an October 2012 meeting of the Moorestown Ethical Standards Board.  After Mr. Paff filed suit and argued that public access to minutes cannot be delayed for more than three years and that the agency should release the unapproved minutes, the Board rushed to convene a meeting to approve the 2012 minutes and then released them to Mr. Paff.

DeSanctis v. Borough of Belmar

More Monmouth Musings is covering a lawsuit Pashman Stein filed on behalf of Joy DeSanctis, who is seeking e-mail correspondence between Belmar officials and FEMA regarding Superstorm Sandy funds and the building of the pavilions.  Belmar refused to search for e-mail correspondence, insisting that DeSanctis needed to tell her the exact names of the Belmar officials or FEMA officials who were communicating with each other.  Ms. DeSanctis argues that she has no way of knowing such information, but that Belmar certainly knows and that her request is valid pursuant to Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169 (2012).

For more information about this blog post or any other OPRA question, please contact cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.

New Jersey Supreme Court Accepts Security Camera Case

The New Jersey Supreme Court has granted the Township of Bloomfield’s Motion for Leave to appeal in Gilleran v. Twp. of Bloomfield, 440 N.J. Super. 490 (App. Div. 2015, making the Appellate Division’s decision subject to the Court’s review.

In this case, Ms. Gilleran initially filed an OPRA request for a week’s worth of video footage from a security camera at the rear of the Municipal Building. She sought the footage to confirm whether certain politically connected individuals were visiting the municipal complex, as was rumored.  The camera is in plain sight and sits above the mayor’s parking spot.  At the Township’s request, Ms. Gilleran narrowed her request to a single day of footage.   The Township denied the request, stating it was exempt pursuant to a provision of OPRA that “emergency or security information or procedures for any building or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein’ is exempt from disclosure.” Ms. Gilleran sued to gain access to the video footage.

In opposing Ms. Gilleran’s suit, the Township essentially argued that the security-related exemption was a blanket exemption.  No one from the Township watched the tape, but it argued that the footage “could” contain images of victims reporting crimes to the police station next door, confidential informants, or others reporting crimes.  The trial court ruled that the exemption was not a blanket exemption and that without watching any of the tape, the Township could not meet its burden of proof.  The Appellate Division affirmed in a published opinion and agreed that the exemption was not a blanket exemption.  The appellate panel held:

With respect to the particular camera in this case and information contained on its recordings, Administrator Ehrenburg’s certification was not sufficiently specific to establish a risk to the safety of any person or property or jeopardy to the security measures taken for the building. Bloomfield provided no specific information from police officials stating that the identity of informants, crime victims, or confidential witnesses would in fact be revealed and specifying what kinds of activities occurred outside the police station during the period of recordings that Gilleran requested. It provided no information by the persons responsible for installing or operating the security camera to indicate that important security strategies or techniques would be disclosed. For example, there was no indication that the security camera might have blind spots in its apparent surveillance area, or that the clarity and sharpness of the imagery recorded would be revealed in a way that might compromise the strategic deterrent effect of the security camera or overall security system of the building. The Administrator’s “conclusory and general allegations of exemptions,” see Newark Morning Ledger, supra, 423 N.J. Super. at 162, were insufficient to justify withholding the recordings from disclosure.

[Gilleran v. Twp. of Bloomfield, supra, 440 N.J. Super. at 498)]

Defendants filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.  In accepting the case, the Supreme Court’s website presents the question as: “Does the Open Public Records Act require the Township to disclose video recordings from a security camera surveilling the back of the Township’s municipal building (i.e., Town Hall)?”

Organizations who wish to file amicus curiae briefs have until January 20, 2015 to file their motions for leave to appear and accompanying briefs, pursuant to Rule 1:13-9.

For more information about this blog post or any other OPRA question, please contact cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.

Sunshine Week: Jennifer A. Borg, Esq.

We close Sunshine Week by featuring Jennifer A. Borg, Esq.

Ms. Borg is General Counsel and Vice President of North Jersey Media Group, publisher of The Record.  She is a recognized authority in First Amendment and open governance matters, particularly as they affect newspapers, and has recently served as Chair of the New Jersey Press Association.  She also has litigated numerous OPRA lawsuits with successful results.  Ms. Borg was featured in the ABA Journal (July 2014) for her expertise in OPRA and public records access issues.  Pashman Stein regularly serves as co-counsel with North Jersey Media Group on complex OPRA cases, several of which are presently on appeal before the Appellate Division.

Interview with Jennifer A. Borg, Esq:

  1. How many OPRA requests do North Jersey Media Group’s reporters submit each month? How many result in violations and/or litigation?

I have no way of knowing exactly how many requests are filed for any given time-period.  North Jersey Media Group has over 100 reporters and very few requests actually make it to my desk.  Usually, I am only contacted when a request is denied, although I do encourage reporters to allow me to help them draft the request.  Requests that are too broad or unclear are often denied so I like to work with reporters to make sure the  request is valid and specific.

I would estimate that we file 6-12 OPRA lawsuits a year.

  1. What are the most common OPRA violations that you see?

The most common violations are not providing a privilege log or Vaughn index with the denial.  Too often, an agency will just deny a request outright without listing the specific documents being withheld or explaining the reasons why each document is being withheld.

  1. Do you think OPRA and OPMA are working well?

I think OPRA is an improvement over the former Right to Know Law.  But, I agree with Senator Weinberg that amendments are greatly needed.  OPRA has been in effect for over a dozen years so we have had time to evaluate where it can be strengthened.  I have less experience with the Open Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”), but I find that it too is missing important language clarifying its terms.  For instance, agencies need to be more specific when giving reasons for going into closed session. “Personnel” and “litigation” do not suffice.    Because OPMA does not provide for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, many people don’t take significant violations to court. It’s simply too expensive for most people to pay a lawyer to litigate these claims.

  1. If you could persuade the Legislature to take steps to improve government transparency, what would be your top suggestions?

OPMA needs to provide for attorneys’ fees so that members of the public have lawyers willing to take their cases to court.  Without attorneys’ fees, the practical effect is that agencies can violate the statute without consequence.  There are many changes I would like to see made to OPRA.  For starters, I think the statute should make it clear that courts, and not just the GRC, can impose penalties against those who knowingly and willfully violate the statute and that requestors be allowed limited discovery to prove that an official engaged in such conduct.   It makes no sense that a public official can flagrantly violate the law and not be held accountable for his or her misconduct.  Custodians are required to perform an adequate search for records but too often judges do not allow a requestor limited discovery into whether the custodian’s search was proper and adequate.     Without looking under the hood, how can we hold officials accountable when they knowingly violate the law?   It is crucial for the public to be able to verify that a custodian or other official properly performed his or her job duties when responding to an OPRA request.

For more information about this blog post or any other OPRA question, please contact cgriffin@pashmanstein.com.