This New Jersey OPRA Law Reporter post discusses a pending lawsuit challenging the denial by the Governor’s Office of an OPRA request for the credit card statements that show the specific charges made by the State Police officers who protect the Governor during his trips. As explained in the post, this case involves an important issue that often comes up: whether the expense details must be kept confidential under OPRA, because disclosing them would compromise the ability of the State Police to protect the Governor and other officials. The concern is that the expense information would reveal the size of the State Police’s protective force as well as other security procedures.

Today, many media outlets ran articles on the recently-held oral argument in this case (for examples, see this report by The Record and this report on MSN.com). The articles focus on statements by the judge, during the argument, that the security arguments had been undercut by the fact that at an April town hall meeting, Governor Christie answered questions from a Cub Scout about how many State Police officers travel with him as bodyguards. The judge also noted that the Governor’s Office itself had put the video of the exchange with the Cub Scout on YouTube.

The press reports understandably highlight the Governor-Cub Scout “YouTube moment,” but I think it is unlikely that the judge will decide a case of this magnitude based on a few comments made during a town hall event. Apparently recognizing that the legal issue should not be determined by a YouTube video, the judge permitted the State Police to submit to her a confidential certification, for in camera review, explaining how release of the expense information will interfere with the ability to provide appropriate protection.

This order is the most significant development in the case. It is highly important that the certification, unlike most documents filed with a court, will not be made public. The evidence previously presented to the court on behalf of the Governor’s Office in this case presumably did not contain a detailed description of the protective measures taken by the State Police while traveling with a governor, because such sensitive security information cannot be released publicly. But now, with the ability to submit confidential evidence, the State Police will have the opportunity to provide a full explanation of why the expense records should fall within OPRA’s security exemption.

As stated in the earlier post, this case has broad ramifications concerning the State Police’s  protection of all future governors. Upon review of the confidential certification, the trial judge will be able to resolve conclusively the question of whether disclosure of detailed State Police travel expense information would pose a threat to the security of the individuals guarded by the State Police.