Tag Archives: addresses

2021 OPRA Case Law Review: A Year of Landmark Opinions

Leave a reply

In every year since OPRA’s enactment in 2002, the Supreme Court and Appellate Division have issued opinions with far-reaching impact on OPRA law and procedure. 2021 was no different. Some of the cases decided this year constituted landmark developments in New Jersey public records law.

In Bozzi v. Jersey City, the Supreme Court resolved an issue that municipal custodians have struggled with since OPRA’s enactment, in holding that the names and addresses of those who have obtained dog licenses must be disclosed. The Court’s opinion also addressed, for the first time, the larger question of whether a person’s home address is protected by OPRA’s privacy requirement. The Court effectively concluded that OPRA does not shield home addresses from public disclosure.

In another landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld the Attorney General’s requirement that the names of police officers who have committed serious disciplinary violations must be made public.

The third Supreme Court OPRA opinion, issued in 2021, Banfi v. Mercado, said a police department is required to respond to an OPRA request for electronic information concerning complaints and summonses, where police officers entered such arrest-related information into the Judiciary’s Electronic Complaint Disposition Record (eCDR) system.

The Appellate Division issued a significant opinion in Gannett v. Neptune Twp. The court held that a police officer’s internal affairs file, although exempt from disclosure under OPRA, is subject to disclosure under the common law. This opinion also contained an even more important ruling concerning common law record requests: the court held, for the first time in a published Appellate Division opinion, that successful common law requestors are eligible to be awarded attorney fees.

The other major Appellate Division case was Doe v. Rutgers. In addition to being one of the few cases to discuss OPRA’s provisions relating to higher education student records, the opinion also discusses a situation that many custodians often have confronted–an OPRA request asking for all records related to the agency’s response to that request. The court stated that this was an invalid request, because the records sought did not exist at the time the request was made. And more crucially, the court further indicated that these records would not be disclosable, because they fall within the deliberative process exemption.

Wag the Dog: Supreme Court’s Bozzi Opinion Makes Most Home Addresses Public Under OPRA

Leave a reply

In Bozzi v. Jersey City, the Supreme Court recently resolved a longstanding issue in holding that OPRA requires disclosure of the names and home addresses of individuals from their dog license records. But the impact of the Court’s opinion is not limited to dog owners; the Court effectively ruled that home addresses are not protected from disclosure by OPRA’s privacy requirement.

The majority opinion in Bozzi held that those who obtain dog licenses don’t have even a “colorable claim” to a reasonable expectation of privacy in their names and addresses. This conclusion rests entirely on the dubious assertion that “owning a dog is, inherently, a public endeavor” (emphasis mine). Even assuming this proposition is correct, the flaw with this analysis of the privacy interest, as identified by Justice Pierre-Louis’ dissent, is that “dog owners appearing in public with their dogs do not do so while simultaneously advertising their full names and addresses.” For this reason, as the dissent pointed out, dog owners likely do not envision that the government will turn over this personal information to the public pursuant to OPRA requests.

Unfortunately, the majority opinion did not follow this sensible approach, and instead adopted an analysis that provides virtually no privacy protection for a person’s home address under OPRA. After Bozzi, where there’s no specific statute providing confidentiality to an address in a particular record, OPRA requires disclosure of the person’s address. The only circumstance where a home address would possibly be confidential under OPRA’s privacy section is when the OPRA request for a home address is linked with disclosure of other clearly private information–such as receipt of financial assistance benefits (Matter of Firemen’s etc) or a person’s social security number (Burnett v. County of Bergen).

Apart from such exceptional situations, there appears to be no basis for withholding a home address under OPRA’s privacy provision.