Monthly Archives: October 2019

Supreme Court to Review a Second Case on the Confidentiality of Police Personnel Information

Less than two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted review of a case to consider whether OPRA’s personnel exemption bars disclosure of the name of a state trooper who was fired for misconduct. The Court recently granted review of a second case, FOP v. City of Newark, which similarly involves the application of OPRA’s personnel exemption to police officers accused of misconduct.

FOP v. City of Newark concerns the validity of a Newark ordinance creating a civilian board empowered to investigate citizens’ complaints of police misconduct. As I discussed here, the Appellate Division struck down one part of the ordinance, allowing public disclosure of the identities of the complainants and the affected police officers, noting that this conflicts with OPRA’s requirement that personnel records are confidential.

Supreme Court To Review Scope Of OPRA’s Personnel Exemption

The Supreme Court recently announced it will review an OPRA case with major implications for the privacy of public employees’ personnel records. Libertarians for Transparent Govt. v. NJ State Police.

The Court’s website states the issue in the case is whether OPRA’s personnel exemption “require[s] disclosure of the name of a state trooper listed in the Office of Professional Standard’s annual report to the Legislature as having been terminated for misconduct?”

The Appellate Division upheld the denial of this request based on OPRA’s exemption that prohibits public disclosure of personnel information. Its straightforward rationale was that revealing the trooper’s name would disclose the precise information made confidential by OPRA’s personnel exemption–the fact that the employee was disciplined.

It’s not clear why the Supreme Court would want to review this unambiguous OPRA provision. It’s possible the Court wants to consider creating a new exception that would grant the public access to disciplinary information about law enforcement officers. Or, perhaps it recognizes that there’s a need for a precedential opinion upholding personnel privacy; as I’ve discussed, OPRA requestors often demand disclosure of personnel information, despite the clear legislative statement that such information is confidential.

Appellate Division Again Holds Police Internal Affairs Records Are Exempt Under OPRA

Requestors often seek access to police department internal affairs records, but the courts and the GRC have consistently held that these records are exempt under OPRA. See this post, and also this one, for some examples. In an unpublished opinion issued today, the Appellate Division once again turned away an effort to make internal affairs files public. Doe v. City of Trenton.

The court held that these records are exempt because the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure makes them confidential and exempt from public disclosure. The court did not engage in additional analysis, presumably because the confidentiality of internal affairs records is so well-settled.