Does OPRA require disclosure of individuals’ home addresses in the possession of a public body? Surprisingly, there is no precedential New Jersey case law that answers this question.

I was reminded of this as I read a recent Appellate Division opinion which did not even involve any OPRA issues. In this opinion, the court considered the enforceability of a Hoboken affordable housing ordinance.  A resolution adopted by the zoning board, which referenced a colloquy at the board meeting between a “resident” and representatives of a developer concerning the affordable housing obligation, was critical to the court’s decision. In discussing the resolution’s description of the resident’s statements, the Appellate Division said that although the resolution contained the name and address of the resident, the court “opted not to include this information in the opinion to protect the person’s privacy.”

The zoning board’s resolution is certainly a public document; yet the court made a point of withholding a name and address shown within this document on the basis of privacy.

Ironically, the Appellate Division is not always as protective of the privacy of home addresses in reviewing OPRA cases.  For example, in Bolkin v. Fair Lawn, it required the disclosure of the names and addresses of residents holding dog and cat licenses. Other court opinions, as well as several GRC decisions, have reached varying conclusions as to whether home addresses must be released under OPRA. There is no uniformity in the decisions because any case involving home addresses invokes OPRA’s privacy provision, which requires (per the Supreme Court) a fact-sensitive balance of various criteria to determine whether the need for disclosure outweighs the individual’s privacy interest.

In addition to being fact-specific, the Appellate Division rulings on OPRA and addresses are not published opinions. As a result, there is no judicial precedent providing guidance to custodians on the issue. As with OPRA requests for police body camera recordings, another situation involving privacy interests, custodians cannot rely on case law to assist them in making the difficult call as to whether to release a home address.