The Supreme Court has issued several OPRA opinions, but it has never dealt with OPRA’s provisions governing law enforcement records. But now the Court has decided to review two cases involving such records.

The Court announced yesterday that it will review the Lyndhurst case, concerning the scope of OPRA’s exemption for criminal investigatory records. This comes only a few weeks after the Court agreed to hear Gilleran v. Township of Bloomfield, which involves interpretation of OPRA’s exemptions for records related to safety and security.

The importance of these cases can’t be overstated–they affect virtually every law enforcement record, and as a result, will have a substantial impact on law enforcement operations.

I think it’s highly likely that the Court will rule in favor of the public agencies in both cases. Unlike many cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, these matters don’t present a difficult call for the justices, and in fact involve fairly weak arguments by the requestors.

The requestor’s position in Lyndhurst is not supported by either law or logic; it essentially argues that OPRA’s criminal investigatory exemption does not apply to most of the records in a law enforcement agency’s investigatory file. While the Court may determine that some of these records may be subject to release (perhaps under a common law theory), I think the Court will uphold the longstanding rule in New Jersey that provides confidentiality to most of the contents of a criminal investigatory file.

Similarly, in Gilleran, I predict that the Court will rule that OPRA’s safety and security requirements prohibit unfettered public access to building surveillance camera videos. The recent terrorist attacks are reminders of why the legislative intent is to preclude disclosure of this type of security-related material held by public agencies.

Since the Court only recently granted review, opinions in these cases will probably not be issued until at least a year from now.