This recent NJ.com article reports on a new OPRA suit filed against the State Police, in which the plaintiff seeks records of that agency’s internal affairs investigation into whether an unidentified trooper, to quote the article, “offered to toss an arrest warrant in exchange for sex.” This suit highlights a longstanding problem: the incorrect claim often made by requestors that OPRA permits them to obtain disclosure of a public employee’s personnel records.

The law is clear that OPRA’s personnel records exemption prohibits the disclosure of the records of an investigation by a public agency, such as an internal affairs inquiry, into whether one of its employees committed misconduct. For this reason, under both New Jersey law and the federal FOIA, the name of an employee who has been disciplined as a result of such investigation is confidential.

The Appellate Division recently confirmed that police internal affairs files are personnel records. In a case dealing with a discovery demand for Rutgers Police Department internal affairs records, Padilla v. Rutgers, the court said that these are personnel files, and emphasized that settled law recognizes the strong public interest in the confidentiality of these records.

As I have previously discussed, see this post, the Appellate Division is currently considering an appeal that presents the issue of whether OPRA’s personnel exemption applies to police internal affairs records. The court needs to resolve this issue and make clear that OPRA does not allow requestors to invade the privacy interest that New Jersey public employees have in their personnel records.