Today the Supreme Court issued its opinion upholding the Attorney General’s June 2020 Law Enforcement Directive that requires the public disclosure of the names of police officers who have committed serious disciplinary violations. The court determined that the Attorney General reasonably exercised his power to enact this new requirement under his statutory law enforcement authority. In re AG Law Enforcement Directives 2020-5 and 2020-6.

The Court dealt with the threshold issue–the apparent conflict between the Directive and OPRA’s personnel records exemption–in an elegant and straightforward fashion. Chief Justice Rabner, writing for the unanimous Court, found that there is no conflict: OPRA expressly states that the personnel exemption does not apply to personnel records “required to be disclosed by another law,” and, the Court said, the Attorney General’s Directive is such a law.

The name of any law enforcement officer subjected to serious discipline after the date of promulgation of the Directive now must be publicly disclosed.

However, the Attorney General had also ordered the release of the identities of State troopers and other State law enforcement officers who settled serious disciplinary matters in the 20 years before the Directive was enacted. The Court held that these names cannot currently be released. It ordered that there first must be additional litigation, to be held before a judge to be designated, concerning whether officers who settled their disciplinary cases prior to the Directive have valid promissory estoppel claims precluding the public release of their identities.

Police department custodians should note that the Court said similar court proceedings will likely be needed if their departments, which are not covered by the Attorney General’s requirement to disclose the names of officers who were disciplined in the past, also decide to release the names of officers who fall within this category.