Monthly Archives: June 2018

Appellate Division Upholds Confidentiality of State Police Gun Permit Application Investigatory Procedures

The Appellate Division today rejected the effort of a requestor to obtain disclosure of the investigatory procedures used by the police in evaluating applicants for firearms permits. NJ 2d Amendment Soc. v. State Police. The court held that portions of the State Police’s Firearms Applicant Investigation Guide are not accessible, based on a Department of Law and Public Safety regulation that provides an OPRA exemption for investigative techniques where their disclosure would compromise the ability to effectively conduct investigations.

This unpublished opinion doesn’t have precedential force, but it does provide a useful example of the proper way to handle OPRA litigation where the defense is that release of a particular record would harm law enforcement interests. The State Police submitted certifications from lieutenants which explained why the material in the Guide needed to be confidential. The trial and appellate courts relied on these “detailed and credible” certifications in upholding the agency’s redactions.

A Summary of Important, But Unpublished, Recent Appellate Division OPRA Opinions

This blog covers both published Appellate Division OPRA opinions as well as interesting unpublished opinions by the court. Although unpublished opinions often contain guidance about OPRA matters, they are not binding statements of the law. New Jersey law is clear that unpublished Appellate Division opinions are not precedential.

I’ve noticed that over the last few years, the court has issued a number of opinions that deal with significant or new OPRA issues, but unfortunately are unpublished. All of these opinions address important questions that often come up under OPRA, for which there is no precedential case law.

Here are several significant unpublished opinions that were issued in 2017 and 2018:

Libertarians for Transparent Govt v. Ocean County Prosecutor–underlying reasons for employee’s resignation are confidential.

Paff v. Bergen County–records of internal affairs investigations are confidential.

-Libertarians for Transp. Govt v. Wm. Paterson U.–settlement records are confidential.

Kennedy v. Montclair Bus. Improvement Dist.–requestor is not entitled to attorney fees where his litigation does not result in access to records.

NY Public Radio v. Governor’s Office–confidentiality of various Governor’s Office records

-Scheeler v. NJDCF–employee resumes may be redacted.